In a way it does come at a bad time. because of the relative ease with which California's state constitution can be amended, GLBT activists are now going to be forced to divide their efforts in a presidential election year.

The court ruling could get invalidated entirely in November and polls are very unclear which way the vote will go. Some show a majority in favor of banning same-sex marriage, others show the ban failing, but just barely. So GLBT activists are going to have their hands full fighting to keep the ruling from getting shot down and this is going to require a massive financial and human effort.

Unfortunately this will distract somewhat from the presidential campaign, especially in a year when money is tight and thus making simultaneous contributions to presidential, Congressional and the California marriage campaign will be a stretch for some. They will also have to divide their activism time because since this is a state issue it is not something that can really be folded into the presidential campaign.

The Republicans may also use the issue as part of a "values" based outreach in California to strongly religious communities like Latino immigrants who skew slightly towards Democrats but might be persuaded to go Republican if they can put a strong Catholic agenda on the table. This could help their Congressional campaigns, as well as their position in the state.

Frankly I think the Democrats would rather we keep quiet this election so that they can avoid the pitfalls of a campaign over "values". The war and the economy are the topics the Dems would like to go after. Getting dragged into the so-called "Culture War" only deflects attention from the Republicans' weakness on the economy and their hawkish desire to remain at war indefinitely.

Remember that both in his first election and his second Bush got the benefit of the doubt from a lot of voters based on his strong "moral values" stance. especially the second time, with the economy stagnating and the war turning into a quagmire this was essential to convincing Middle America that he was still a great leader despite his ineptitude in matters monetary and military.

McCain has strong military credentials, but is very weak on the economy and he knows it. Also, many Southern and Midwestern GOP-leaning households who have had their friends and relatives serving multiple tours of duty in Iraq are beginning to weary of pro-war politics. In order to retain their support (especially amid gas prices of $4+) McCain will need to establish some other basis for his superiority over Obama and "family values" and curbing "judicial activism" are likely to be strong cards to play.

Gay activists will, as I said, be distracted by the marriage issue and hard-pressed to extend themselves to two or more fights.

Visibility acqaints people with the truth. And there's been a lot more visibility in the last four years. So here's hoping...

I laughed when I read that genius headline. Because it is SO the question on not just our (lgbt) minds - but Democratic polical strategists everywhere.

 

 

I hate that it's become conventional wisdom that "gay marriage cost Democrats the 2004 election." Actual in-depth analysis of the voting patterns, motivations and turnout during 2004 indicates that if marriage mattered at all, it only mattered in Ohio, where there was a constitutional amendment on the ballot in a nearly evenly divided battleground state that experienced a higher-than-expected turnout of white Catholic voters.

If a marriage amendment is going to impact the 2008 election, it's going to be in Florida. Even with a lot more California conservatives hitting the polls, I doubt it will be enough to swing the state's electoral votes to McCain. Will California's court decision have an impact on Florida? Some will say yes, some will say no, but I doubt it.

But the real point is that as long as our nation remains so evenly split, as long as elections are being won by mere handfuls of votes, there is never going to be a "good" time for marrriage equality. To advance the idea that we should quietly wait for equality until liberals have a solid lock several branches of government for the foreseeable future is as ridiculous as it is offensive.

 

Jere

...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.
--Richard Dawkins

As much truth as this blog post holds, that first political ad had garnered so much negative media attention that if anything it's proving detrimental to their cause. People actually didn't think the ad was real, many thought it was an SNL skit or something of that nature, because it really is just that ridiculous.

The minute I saw that ad against Barnes, I went to her website and donated money. I hate that kind of anti-gay rhetoric. San Francisco values? He might has well just said f-gg-t, in my opinion.

need to start with about 55% or higher approval in early polling to have any chance of passing once voting starts.  There is a faction of about 20 - 25% of the electorate that is going to vote against ANY Proposition on the ballot.  These amendments always go down in popularity once advertising starts, which is why they need high approval ratings to pass.  The polling I've seen for the Amendment has it split about 50/50 either against or for the Proposition, which is not a good sign for supporters of the Amendment. 

Keeping quiet and being meek and good has never gotten anyone their rights. I'm sick of people telling the GLBT community to shut up and be good. That's one reason why I'm against the "Day of Silence" -- I call for a Day of Screaming Our Heads Off! A Day of Getting In People's Faces! How about every day?

The Republicans hate us so much that the majority CA Supreme Court justices who have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage were appointed by Republican governors.

The Republican mayor of Republican city San Diego defied convention last year in supporting same-sex marriage.  He was just reelected last week.

Carl De Maio, an out gay Republican, was just elected to the San Diego city council.  To my knowledge he's the first out gay man to serve on the city council.  The lesbians who have served to represent San Diego's "Castro" area, De Maio is representing a conservative area.

Yes, of course, here at AfterElton, and the gay blogosphere, "we" must perpetuate the false and divisive notion Republicans are a monolithic tool of hateful fundamentalists. 

Let's all ignore the records, accomplishments and visions of the actual candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain.  Let's all ignore diversity of opinion and vote like lockstep party loyalists.  

I will vote regardless up and down the ballot for the best candidates I can find regardless of party, religion, gender, ethnicity or orientation.

Why is this site now deviated from a its mission of looking at gays in media and become increasingly full of hateful political propaganda, devoid of substance and debate?  There are enough sites for that.

You know, it's time someone who makes political ads to do something incendiary. Like comparing this kinda bullshit to the propaganda used in the last world war. Push some real buttons for a change. May be give that selfrighteous prick a tiny mustache and a red arm band.  Translate his ads in to German.

We see ourselves as incapable of winning, and therefore losers from the start. We get down on our hands and knees and beg and plead for "nice" straight people to love us -- because loving ourselves is just impossible.

 

That's why Brokeback Mountain -- a movie made ENTIRELY by straights -- is regarded as THE Great Gay Movie. Heaven forbid we pay the slightest bit of attention to the mountain of infinitely superior gay movies made by out and proud gay people!

This situation is Beyond Pathetic!

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO STAND UP AND KICK ASS?!!!!

Future epitaph: "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

I personally think the time is right (and Sam Nunn, of all people, apparently agrees) to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell."  If we're going to tie off our missions in Afghanistan and Iraq successfully, we need every man and woman available; we lost several HUNDRED people who spoke Arabic because of "Don't Ask."  However, I remember all too well the muck that Clinton waded into in '93 when he favored repealing it, and how the right wing pig-piled on him leading to the Republican takeover in '94.  Clinton deserves a good smack upside the head for the Defense of Marriage act, but folks who claim that he "failed" us on on "Don't Ask" forget how thoroughly he was getting shellacked on the issue daily, and his lack of military background & familiarity with "the military way of life"--which Obama also lacks--thus turned into a major Repub talking point.  (John Kerry could've gotten away with eliminating "Don't Ask" with the stroke of a pen, just like Harry Truman desegrated the military in the 1940's, based on his military record.) 

But the Dems are going to remember their long time in the political wilderness (12 years), and aren't going to get suckered into losing battles easily.  So we may have to phrase it thusly:

"Dear Mr. President, Congressional Democrats, American people, et all:

I know right now that marriage rights are a contentious issue for many of you.  I also know that lots of folks are worried about tampering with 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' and thus revisiting 1994 all over again, despite the number of gay and lesbian soldiers who have given their time, their limbs, and their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I also know that many of you are even opposed to simple job protections for gay people, lest it be seen as 'Special Rights.'

So here's my one simple teeny-weeny little request for the first couple years of a Democratic ruling in Washington: I'd like not to die.  How about that?

I'd like the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement bill--which Clinton supported TEN YEARS AGO and couldn't get through a Republican congress--to get signed and enacted.  I'd like a message sent that me and my gay brothers and sisters have the right not to live in fear--to not have our cars and homes defaced, to not have dead animals left on our porches, to not have young thugs with weapons waiting for us outside gay bars and gathering places.  And if we are bashed, I'd like the perpetrators prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and not let off with slaps on the wrist or "gay panic" defenses.  (If a young man is nefarious enough to pre-plan a violent assault or murder with weapons, assuming that he went into an emotional meltdown and freaked out because a gay possibly looked at him a second too long is...well, pathetic.)

So whadda ya say?  I won't ask for full marriage rights for me and my partner.  I won't expect rights of survivorship, hospital visitation, clear and fair tax policies--all those things two drunk people of the opposite sex can get five minutes after meeting in Vegas.  I won't ask for full military benefits and compensation for my gay brothers and sisters who've had their limbs blown off in these damn wars, but did it because they love their country.  I won't ask for the right to sue if my boss fires me because I dare to talk about my partner in the workplace, as heterosexual people do every day.  All I want is the message that it's not OK to beat people like me up, to threaten us, to harass us, to murder us--and if you do, that there will be the same consequences as there would if you did these to anyone else in society.

Or is even this simple request too damn much to ask from you people?"