Grumbling and gnashing of teeth

As of this morning, the opponents of the gay marriage ban in California say it is close enough they won't concede yet. Even so, there are plans for next steps -- more lawsuits. A coalition is challenging the legality of the amendment. Their grounds are that this affects a core principle -- equality -- of the Calif. Constitution and is thus a revision, not an amendment. The legislature must approve a revision before the people vote on it. Amendments, which don't affect a core principles, don't need legislature approval. One wonders why they didn't do this before the election and save $74 million, but apparently the court won't rule on a hypothetical, which is what the proposal is until it passes. You can imagine the Fundie fireworks if the Calif. Supremes rule this amendment was improperly brought before the voters. One commenter suggests we would do better as someone wronged than as a sore loser and should simply wait a few years and try to undo it. Demographics are in our favor -- the most votes against us came from those 65 and older.

The Fundies have now sunk their fangs into 30 state constitutions and are hungrily eyeing the other 20. Even Massachusetts should not consider gay marriage safe. If they can get a second vote in Arizona, they won't let several years of trouble free gay marriage in Mass. stop them. The issue will get to the national Supremes, now only a matter of when. But we're smart enough not to try until Obama has replaced a few members.

So what are we going to do about those other 20 states? The attacks will happen. Just give various Fundie organizations time to use this past election to refill their coffers. Likely next target: North Carolina. The state legislature has successfully kept the issue off the ballot at least twice, but once on the ballot it will pass.

We need a plan. It should be based on these questions:
* How do we educate leaders -- starting with Obama -- about the difference between civil and religious marriage? According to Obama it is always religious. We can start by holding him accountable to repeal DOMA.
* How do we deal with legislators at various levels who see voting for gays a detriment to their careers? Note that even some Democrats will vote on these amendments with gusto.
* How do we lessen the likelihood that blacks will vote against us -- how do we keep blacks from playing into the hands of white power?
* If a simple message of fairness hasn't been working what else do we base or message on? Fairness might eventually get us family protections, but won't get us marriage. Do we stress economics? Document and advertise (requiring money) how deceptive the anti-gay forces were? March on Washington?
* How might we get the public to delve into substantive arguments in an era when the soundbite rules?
* How can we motivate allies?

Another opinion is that this will only be resolved at the federal level. Three ways: Federal legislation more comprehensive than the overturn of DOMA (unlikely), a constitutional amendment (needing 3/4 state legislatures to approve -- less likely), or a Supreme Court decision. Even after the Supremes rule, will this issue linger like abortion?

A responder from Calif. is mighty upset with those running the pro-gay campaign -- the ads were too impersonal, they didn't feature many real families who would be affected (closet, anyone?), they ceded to many aspects of the debate to the anti-gay forces (don't talk about the kids), they relied on techniques (phone banks) that didn't succeed in previous battles. It's the stories that move voters and campaign leaders weren't letting the stories be told.

Another opinion is that we are trying to mimic the black civil rights efforts of 40 years ago. They used marches and rallies for visibility because that's all they had. We have more tools at our disposal and we're not using them.

While many of us monitor what the Fundies say about us (they are most certainly monitoring what we say), we are not strategizing how to combat their intentions until a proposal is on the ballot. Only then do we mobilize our opposition and by then we have already lost the use of such terms as "morality" and "truth." I know from experience that between the time the Michigan amendment was put on the ballot in 2004 and the election itself there wasn't time to get a message out that would combat what had already been said about us.

Suggestions:
* Study their talking points now and know how to counter them. Then do it when they appear in the media. Yes, there are a few websites that do that (Box Turtle Bulletin is one). We need to get the points and counter points into one easy to use place where all have access.
* Make sure you know who the enemy is (don't get mad at colleagues for using the wrong terms).
* Don't wait for leaders or celebrities to decide when to care.
* Be careful about claiming the mantle of the black civil rights effort because some people will get offended at the analogy (We have the right to vote, they didn't. They faced down snarling dogs and fire hoses and were willing to get a rap sheet if that's what it took to get their rights. We cringe at being confrontational).
* Those that oppose us appear to suffer no consequences of their bigotry. (Actually, I believe the Mormon church will suffer consequences in reduced membership and less respect of authority, but the leadership won't make the connection.) Our opponents did some nasty stuff, including blackmail. Are they being prosecuted?
* A lot of what Martin Luther King did for civil rights were modeled on the non-violent actions of Gandhi. Are we learning those concepts and using them?

A ray of hope:
Only 9 years ago Calif. passed a law forbidding marriage (the law that was overturned last May, I think). It passed with 62%. This amendment passed with only 52% and that took $35 million and a lot of lies).


I've written about blogger Terence Heath before, a black, gay father who can explain things quite well. Here he writes about learning that Obama won the presidency, how such a concept was so completely off his family's radar of what is possible, and how he and his six-year-old son celebrated. For one night. Then he woke up to the news of Florida, Arizona, and California. Everything changed. And nothing changed. Obama's parents marriage would have been illegal in some states 40 years ago. Terrence says the same will be true for his own sons.


There were a couple protests yesterday and today about the passage of the Calif. marriage ban. The first was in the gay community of West Hollywood (two reports with pictures). The other was at the LA Mormon church. One commenter wonders why we didn't see crowds like this before the election?