Thursday, July 16, 2009

Until they get tired of their own bigotry

Organizations for gays of color in Calif. say don't rush to put the marriage issue back on the ballot in 2010. The margin of victory will be too small. Here are some of the issues they raise:
* The entire gay-and-ally community needs to be onboard, and many color allies (and non-English speakers) aren't there yet. Work must be done to make gays of color feel it is their fight too.
* Public support hasn't changed much since the days after the election. Don't proceed with another vote until you're sure of a win. Note that polls can overstate support.
* It will be tougher to raise the money in a recession (and it will be expensive).
* Changing the minds of voters will take a while and that action needs to begin now.
* We don't yet have the robust infrastructure for a get-out-the-vote campaign. We were caught off guard last time.
* More time is necessary to forge relationships with labor and religious allies.

Commenters add a few more reasons.
* If it fails it will be harder to raise money for a third attempt.
* There's already an immigration bill set for 2010, which will draw out the Fundies.
* 2012 means two more years of old people dying off and young people becoming eligible to vote.

Put it in numerical terms this way: One estimate says that it takes 350 volunteer-hours to change 50 votes (basis for the claim is not given). That means to insure victory 2.1 million volunteer-hours are needed. What is the plan to make that happen in the mere 475 days until the 2010 election? What is the plan to raise the needed money?

However, not everyone agrees with the need for a two year delay. The Courage Campaign, which has been working since the last election didn't go our way, asked its members when the repeat campaign should be held. Over 80% chose 2010 over 2012. It has already been hard at work training volunteers and building campaign infrastructure.

Besides, 2012 is a presidential year and that will suck a lot of volunteers away from the marriage efforts. If we don't aim for 2010 are people going to contribute the necessary money for all that groundwork? It won't be front-page news and donors may not give if "nothing" is happening. Better to harness the existing anger and frustration. Our current debate over date is being hailed by the Fundies as a fatal split which will allow them to avoid financing another vote.

Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin says the major groups that issued the plea to wait have ulterior motives. Some of them are:
* One is an organization that combats HIV (more prevalent in gays of color) and they fear donations to a campaign mean smaller donations to them.
* One is the group that ran the last campaign (badly) and they don't want to be blamed for a second loss.

Meaning, they are working from fear. We should instead fear that our enemies will define the battleground.

So far when we've lost the marriage battle in a state, we've given up that state. We should have been gathering signatures to put the question back on the ballot every year even if we don't spend much time and money for passage in our favor. Voters need to face the question repeatedly until they get tired of their own bigotry. Don't worry about spending $40 million each time the question comes up in Calif. Run a grass-roots campaign (without the wimpy scripts) until it passes, no matter how many times it takes. Put it on the Calif. ballot in 2010? Yes. And get it on the ballot in Oregon, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Arkansas, Alabama, and the rest of the 30 states with a ban in their constitution. And do it again in 2012, 2014, and 2016 or until all of the bans are gone.

As for Calif. it will be on the ballot in 2010. Enough people are committed to gather signatures to make it happen. Once it is on the ballot, are you going to help or not?

No comments:

Post a Comment