According to a Courage Campaign Press Release, the group has concluded that more work is needed before putting LGBT marriage up for another vote. What’s needed, they say, is "more research and time to change hearts and minds before returning to the ballot to restore marriage for gay and lesbian couples in California."
Lambda Legal agreed, stating "While we’re within striking distance, we’re not there yet."
Equality California also believes that 2012 remains the best, next logical step. Their website states, "Many believe we should wait until we are guaranteed a victory before proceeding. We do not agree. We believe it is essential that we select an election and build a campaign for that election. We believe the 2012 election gives us the clearest path to victory."
Signature gathering has already begun in an effort to get the issue on the ballot in November of 2010. If enough signatures are gathered and approved, the equal marriage rights of LGBT Americans in California would once again be up for a vote. The 2010 effort is spearheaded by the group Love Honor Cherish in coalition with Restore Equality 2010. Approximately 1 million signatures must be gathered by April of next year.
In a Los Angeles Times story, which discusses the issue with John Henning, executive director of Love Honor Cherish, Geoff Kors, executive director of EQCA, stated that he would personally not sign a petition to get the measure back on the ballot in 2010, but he’s instructed EQCA staff and members to make their own decisions.
The 2010 VS 2012 debate has been raging for some time now. Each side has a reason for their opinion, and both have remained fairly steadfast since the conversation began…
(I feel it necessary to repeat what I’ve stated on this site since many times before. No one knows the answer to this problem. Too many variables are involved in any strategy. That being said, it seems critical at this stage, after so many devastating losses, often when we were certain of victory, that we analyze the variables and proceed based on that information.)
The 2010 camp’s position appears to be rooted more in passionate activism than in a shift in methodology. They firmly believe that if we wait, and not move ahead with a ballot measure in 2010, that we would in essence be giving up, conceding to the other side. They believe that we must fight back now, strong and hard, to prove we will not back down.
The 2012 camp defends their position with analysis. Check out explanations online from those promoting 2012 as the better choice, and you’ll find a lot of consideration for the various factors involved which point to that year as less likely to fail. 2010 is not a Presidential election year, and 2012 is. That makes a larger voter turnout inevitable, and more specifically a larger turnout among younger voters, who are much more likely to vote for marriage equality. Additionally, it appears the general public is becoming weary of the LGBT marriage issue, there may even be a growing backlash against it, at least for now. In a very recent Los Angeles Times/USC Poll, 51% of voters in California favored marriage equality, but in the same poll, almost 3 out of 5 said they don’t want to see the issue on the ballot in 2010. Add to that dozens of other factors, such as fractured LGBT alliances and critical economic and political issues currently demanding attention, and you find a lot of factors which indicate that 2012 may provide a better climate in which to air this issue again.
Also, there’s the loss factor. What if the issue succeeds in making it to the 2010 ballot and fails? What impact will that have not only on a 2012 run, but on the public’s perception of the issue in general. How many failures will it take to push our success not a couple of years into the future, but perhaps a couple of decades? Most of all, why are so many in the 2010 camp completely unwilling to discuss the risk factors to a 2010 ballot measure? If it’s not to be discussed or even considered, if the only strategy is moving forward as fast and as soon as possible, then maybe not enough thought has gone into any of this.
That doesn’t mean it’s impossible for a ballot measure in 2010 to succeed, but it does show that it’s not as easy as simply following the path of "We want our rights and we want them now!" That hasn’t worked so far. John Henning, with Love Honor Cherish, said he found all this strategizing "a little bit disturbing," which is a confusing statement from a man waging a campaign, which relies on strategy. He feels there’s no excuse for LGBT Americans being denied equal rights. I agree, there’s no excuse. However, there are reasons.
Then think about this…what if we manage to get a measure on the ballot in 2010 and we WIN? What will the opposition do in 2012, an election year with a much higher voter turnout, and very likely a very large conservative turnout in hopes re-claiming control of government? Won’t they have a much more powerful voter base to call out on this issue? Yes, it’s conjecture, it’s a theory, but isn’t that what you consider before you take up a battle?
Several mantras shouted out in the battle for marriage equality have gained a lot of support and resulted in repetition, but are totally off topic. In Maine, on the day of the election, and after the loss was apparent, those at the campaign headquarters took to the microphone to speak. A man stepped up and proclaimed that "this is about love and commitment, and family." You hear this all the time. It’s on protest signs, it’s in speeches, that this is about love, that we are "love warriors", that we should "fight hate with love". Why? This battle is NOT about love, and I feel every time that this explanation of the battle is used, it weakens our stand, because we’re fighting a war for legal rights, not emotional rights. This campaign is about one thing and one thing only, and that is equal rights for all Americans. Somehow, when the other side states that this is about religious freedom, they succeed. They lie about what this battle is and they win, we lie about the battle and we lose. Why, instead of summoning up gushy phrases which don’t convey the issue, don’t we go after the other side by proving that they are lying about this issue in order to keep discrimination legal?
Torie Osborn, an LGBT activist for many years, quoted poet June Jordan by saying, "We are the ones we’ve been waiting for" and "If not now, when?" I believe the time for emotional asides and poetic flourishes has passed. The battle for LGBT equality is not a new movement, it’s not even a young movement. Our statements should be direct and on point. Recently, inspiring LGBT Americans has been the focus throughout the country, delivering powerful speeches in order to light a fire in community members. That’s important, and that’s absolutely necessary, but we no longer live in a time when inspiration is the primary tool in order to reach the hidden. Now we must attack directly, on topic and at the core of the violations of the separation of church and state. We must find a way to demand that the courts refuse to allow a majority to restrict a minority just because we threaten their emotions.
It’s also disturbing, this continued proclamation by activists that, in terms of public opinion, the tide is turning our way. According to all recent developments, that just doesn’t seem rational. Miniscule shifts in LGBT approval rates are just that, miniscule, and they’ve been happening for decades. But if you look at the path of that tide turning, you’ll notice it seems to have peaked. We’re consistently 3-5% behind in acceptance. It’s now very likely that 3-5 percent of Americans will never accept us, and if that 3-5% is what we need to reach success, what’s our strategy? Groups are quick to point out that Prop 8 in California succeeded by a "mere 4 points", but those 4 points represent over 600,000 voters. "4 points" sends one message, 600,000 voters sends another. And polls are just that, polls. There are many, many factors which can shift popularity between the time of a poll and an election.
If so much is "swinging our way", why is so much going wrong? If our rights in the state of Maine can be stripped away, after our side raising double the other side, and after running a well organized, motivated campaign, what does that say about our strategies, or at best, our perception about what it’s going to take to succeed?
There’s no doubt that all LGBT Americans want equality now. That’s the main gripe I personally have with the statements coming from the 2010 camp. Of course we all want our rights now. But if we don’t stop and look back at all we’ve lost when we were so sure we’d win, nothing is going to change.
