Prop 8: What’s at Stake

It's a bright, sparkling Sunday afternoon in Los Angeles, and about a thousand people of all hues and ages are flocking to the south lawn of City Hall. The majority of the crowd is Chinese, but there's a sizable group of Latinos and pockets of South Asians, Koreans, Vietnamese and Indonesians. There are only a handful of black people, but they flow with ease through the throng. There are a few conspicuous white guys in suits too, cloistered around the stage where a band plays sing-along tunes. The mood is buoyant, affectionate. There are balloons and banners everywhere; a jolly Chinese mother cuts up a cake; snapshots are taken; cars honk. People gather in family clusters; grandparents play with children--who make up about half the crowd.

It's the happiest, most diverse political event I've ever been to, and it's not for Barack Obama. It's for Proposition 8--the California ballot initiative that would eliminate the right of gays and lesbian to marry, which some 14,000 same-sex couples have exercised since the state Supreme Court ruled in their favor earlier this summer. Here and now at City Hall, where a good share of those same-sex weddings took place, there's not a single Obama or McCain button in the mix. Instead, everyone is wearing red t-shirts that proclaim in both English and Chinese--Protect Marriage. Yes on 8. The toddlers' shirts have an added touch: I Love My Mommy and Daddy.

When I ask people whom they'll vote for, a few say McCain; a few more say Obama. But the vast majority say, "Yes on 8."

But who will you vote for? You know, like, for President?

"Yes! Yes on 8!"

It's a mantra repeated like a drum beat all afternoon, and if there's a scary, drone-like quality to the response, it's by no means unique to this rainbow coalition of heterosexual marriage activists. With California in the bag for Obama and without a gubernatorial or Senate seat at stake, Prop 8 is the top of the ballot here, especially for the state's right-wing, which has staked its power, prestige and, apparently, its hope for the future of America, on the outcome. As one of the apocalyptic slogans for "The Call"--a 10,000-strong prayer vigil and fast of white evangelicals on Saturday at San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium--put it, "As California goes, so goes the nation."

Right now, polls show the measure as a toss-up. The money is dead even too. When all is said and done, both sides will have raised more than $35 million each--more than $70 million in all--making it the second most expensive race of 2008, second only to the presidency. A sizable minority of this money has come from out of state: from gay activists, celebrities and business leaders on the No side; and from the holy alliance of Mormons, Catholics (the Knights of Columbus) and Christian evangelicals (Focus on the Family, American Family Association, Concerned Women for America and Elsa Prince, mother of Blackwater founder Erik Prince) for the Yes team. As California goes, so goes the nation.

But the money is only part of the picture. What this money has enabled--for both sides--could spell lasting changes in California's political landscape, and perhaps for the country as a whole. For the gay movement, Prop 8 marks the first time since the 1978 Briggs Initiative (more than a full generation ago) that they've had to run a real statewide, grassroots campaign. Prior victories for marriage equality came legislatively (through lobbying) or through litigation, and the lack of organizing chops showed in the early stages when they were simply out-fundraised, out-manned and out-hustled by the Protect Marriage crowd. But when polls suddenly showed Prop 8 forces in the lead early this fall, previously apathetic gays and lesbians suddenly came alive.

Almost every gay person I speak with sees the measure as an act of hateful discrimination for which the term homophobia is inadequate and thus rarely invoked. Instead, they use words like "apartheid" and "Jim Crow." The multi-faith No on 8 speakout I went to on Saturday began with an invocation of the Holocaust poem "First They Came For…" The ubiquitous No on 8 TV ads (countered minute-for-minute with Yes on 8 commercials) place Prop 8 alongside Japanese internment, redlining and anti-miscegenation laws as shameful episodes of American history.

If some of these analogies are a stretch--nobody is proposing queer concentration camps--the sense that one is being made a target, an object of revulsion, contempt and ridicule is palpable. This shared sense of vulnerability--and the deep well of empathy it elicits from straight allies--has been a powerfully galvanizing force for gay activists. If they win, if they defeat Prop 8, it will be because they were able to frame marriage discrimination against them, a small minority, as a salient issue for the majority. In doing so, they will have disproved the conventional wisdom that support for marriage equality must rely on "activist judges" and cannot be accomplished through more directly democratic means. If Prop 8 goes down, California will have twice approved same-sex marriage in the legislature, once in the highest court and at the polls.

This is no small feat. In fact, it has never been accomplished before. In Arizona, the only other state to vote down an anti-gay marriage initiative in 2006, concern that the overly broad measure would take away rights for unmarried straights proved the tipping point. The California measure is much more narrowly drawn. Indeed, for all the expense, there are almost no rights beyond marriage itself at stake for California queers much less anyone else. That's because the state's domestic partnership law already provides all the partnership rights a state can give absent federal marriage laws (a point that pro-Prop 8 spokesmen trumpet and that anti-Prop 8 forces discuss with reluctance). Most legal experts agree that even the thousands of hurry-up nuptials performed since June would not be invalidated should Prop 8 prevail.

So what is at stake? A lot. First, there is the simple matter of simply debunking the manipulative lies told by the Yes on 8 campaign. Days before I arrived in California, they circulated a flyer to black households depicting a smiling Barack Obama saying "I'm not in favor of gay marriage…" The implication was that Obama has endorsed Prop 8; he has done the opposite. Then there are the other lies that tap into the entrenched notion that homosexuality is somehow a threat to families, to heterosexuality, to children and to "religious freedom." These constitute the right-wing's main talking points: without Prop 8 first graders would be forced to attend lesbian weddings, churches would be required to perform same-sex marriages and those that refused would be stripped of their tax-exempt status. Speaker after speaker at the City Hall rally hammered home these fallacies to wild applause, but each has been debunked.

Behind the scrim of "religious persecution" (another phrase Yes on 8 folks like to use), however, lies theocratic monopoly power. Every faith can decide on its own whether or not to conduct same-sex marriages, and in a secular democracy, civil marriage would accommodate the broad spectrum of beliefs, but not require any one in particular. This is not what Mormon, Catholic and evangelical Yes on 8 advocates want. Like on the matter of abortion, it's their own brand of religion they wish to enforce upon the state and the people.

Finally, there is the matter of religiously-inspired homophobia itself. Oddly, this is somewhat difficult to get at because Yes on 8 people rarely mention homosexuality (their campaign protects and celebrates heterosexuality; "we made the right choice" is another one of their slogans), and when they do it is in the language of love--love of family, the love between one man and one woman, love of children, and yes, when pushed love of the sinner.

As the City Hall rally comes to a close, a couple hundred gay activists have marched over from Pershing Square, and there's a standoff on the corner of Spring and 1st Street. Cops are nervously keeping the factions on opposite corners, and the mood is tense. Wendy, a Chinese Yes on 8 activist I talked to earlier, grabs the bullhorn and screams to the gays across the corner: "We love you! First, we are here because we love you. We love you so much!"

Behind her lies a 12-foot banner that reads: Homosexuals and Lesbians are Anti-Species. I ask Wendy later what species are gays against?

"The human species, of course!" she says.

Comments (34)

1. why don't we just make all marriage illegal?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2008 @ 09:45am

2. or maybe not let the government define "marriage".

   if you can prove you live together in a nudge-nudge relationship, you get the tax break.

   if you want to call yourself "married", well go ahead.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2008 @ 09:48am

3. The anti-gay rights Right trying to set themselves up a "win-win" on the issue.

   Prop 8 passes? They claim "See? Even in California, they don't want fags to marry! If it's true in liberal, socialist Californey...it's GOT to be true across the country!"

   Prop 8 fails by a close margin? "See? A lot of people in CA don't want homos marryin'. If true in the liberal 'Left Coast', it's got to be MORE true in REAL America!!!"

   Prop 8 fails tremendously? "So what? That's California, they're ALL a bunch of liberal queers out there anyway. REAL America doesn't support those types getting married!"

   Posted by Maskdelta at 11/04/2008 @ 09:49am

4. or maybe we need a new word.

   how's "smorphed"?

   as in, that couple took their smorphage vows 16 years ago.

   that way we won't have to fight over a word.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2008 @ 09:51am

5. anyhoo,

   CREDIT IS FROZEN!!!!

   IT'S FROZEN!!!!!

   FROZEN, I TELL YOU!

   frozen.

   and greenland's melting into the north atlantic.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2008 @ 09:52am

6. Posted by Maskdelta at 11/04/2008 @ 09:49am

   not only that,

   but they see it as a way of recruiting new republicoids from the immigrant populace.

   no tax demons for them.

   it's,

   "THEM DEMOCRATS ARE UNITING THE UNHOLY FORCES OF [insert bad dude from panderees religious text]

   IN A BLATANT ATTEMPT TO SHAME [insert good dude from panderees religious text]'S HOLY SPIRIT.

   GAY MARRIAGE IS ONLY THE FIRST STEP!

   unquote.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2008 @ 10:02am

7. Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2008 @ 10:02am

   Problem is, polling showing that young evangelicals (the 20-30somethings in LVLIB's church, maybe) ...

   don't CARE about pushing an anti-gay rights agenda anymore.

   The general non-evangey/fundey demographics are bad for the homophobes. Those ove 50 have fair majorities against "gay marriage"...those UNDER 50, good majorities who favor gay rights.

   At WORSE, we just have to wait for the LVLIBs and RIOs to die off.

   Posted by Maskdelta at 11/04/2008 @ 10:24am

8. This confounding of the civil contract of marriage and the religious sacrament of marriage is nothing more than an ongoing vindictive effort to deny rights to a group of harmless, law-abiding, citizens. Society stands to gain nothing by denying gays and lesbians the right to marry, but society does stand to lose a bit of its soul.

   Posted by jsens at 11/04/2008 @ 10:34am

9. At WORSE, we just have to wait for the LVLIBs and RIOs to die off.

   Posted by Maskdelta at 11/04/2008 @ 10:24am

   that's what i mean.

   the immigrant population is full of people who can be swayed into voting against their interests with these wedgies.

   think about it. lots of middle-aged immigrants who want to protect their kids from the wackiness that is u.s. culture.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2008 @ 10:35am

10. oh, hey mask.

    did you know that RIO lives on the bonny banks of the CANADIAN RIVER?

    life is grand.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2008 @ 10:36am

11. I thought that this article was humorous in that the author was unilaterally, without foundation, deciding what was truth and what was lies.

    More than just a bit slanted....

    Posted by scarus at 11/04/2008 @ 10:48am

12. Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2008 @ 10:36am

    Yes, but he calls it the "AMERICAN river"...not some damn "commie Canuck socialist un-demoncrat sek'lar regressive" name!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 11/04/2008 @ 10:54am

13. Richard Kim casts the supporters of Proposition 8 as a making bid for "theocratic monopoly power." But he and other opponents of Prop. 8 ignore the entirely secular ethics of statesmen and philosophers, through many centuries, that call for special protection of marriage between a man and a woman as an important benefit to society.

    He also casts supporters of Prop. 8 as fear mongers. But changing, in one stroke, the millenia-old definition of marriage must of necessity have widespread and unpredictable consequences. I suggest here just one:

    Every law and policy about marriage must be now re-interpreted. One consequence now in effect in California is a legal path for recruiting minors into homosexual relationships. (California has no minimum age of marriageability: http://tinyurl.com/6o8r9p )

    All that a forty-year-old man requires in order to marry a sixteen-year-old boy is the consent of one parent or guardian (who can be a practicing homosexual), a visit to a "marriage counselor" (who can be a leader of a homosexual "religious" congregation), and an appearance before a superior court judge (who can also be a practicing homosexual.) http://tinyurl.com/6yytn7

    As California's startling judicial redefinition of marriage now stands, the judge would be forbidden to consider homosexuality as a reason to block the "marriage" of adult "Party A" to minor "Party B."

    I don't know whether or not homosexual marriage to minors has already been attempted or not, but unless Proposition 8 is passed, it remains a legal - and thus a real - possibility.

    Tracy Hall Jr hthalljr'gmail'com

    Posted by hthalljr at 11/04/2008 @ 11:08am

14. hthalljr-Why would it be different for a homosexual to marry a minor than a heterosexual?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/04/2008 @ 11:13am

15. I just don't get it. Why are Americans so concerned about other peoples private lives? Especially the conservatives. If two gays want to be married, who cares! It has NO BEARING at all on my life, nor my kids or anyone else's. For those that think homosexuality is a sin, fine, whatever. That is irrelevant, how does their marriage affect you?

    As for all the money going into this proposition, who is paying for it? Honeslty people are willing to through millions of dollars at this issue? Good grief, if it is the religous, should'nt that money better go to charities to help the poor and needy, rather than this nonsense?

    Posted by Extraneous at 11/04/2008 @ 11:41am

16. *throw*

    Posted by Extraneous at 11/04/2008 @ 11:43am

17. I agree that this article is very slanted.

    I am against ANY laws that impose Church morals upon all citizens. There are laws that go without saying that involve how a person interacts with society: murder, assault, stealing. These are a given. But if homosexuals who want to make a commitment and gain the benefits of a union that the heterosexuals enjoy, let them.

    It's awful to realize that so much money is being spent on both sides for this. Money that could be spent on more important things.

    Posted by wemensiii at 11/04/2008 @ 11:49am

18. Posted by hthalljr at 11/04/2008 @ 11:08am

    The HINT there in his post...the e-mail address. "gmail.com" Free e-mail accounts.

    Ergo, he's a troll who'll never be seen again!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 11/04/2008 @ 12:04pm

19. Unfortunately, it's a pretty typical human response for previously discriminated-against groups to discriminate against other human groups once they achieve their own equality. My only hope is that when same-sex marriage is legal across the nation (and it will be - only a matter of when), gays and lesbians have the emotional and intellectual maturity to not discriminate against whatever "out group" exists at that point.

    Posted by Be Good at 11/04/2008 @ 1:30pm

20. By restricting the right to engage in the contract signified by marriage, Proposition 8 would reduce this rite that unite us to a privilege that divides us.

    Marriage, as we commit and submit to another, develops us as human beings. It takes us beyond the romantic games in which we consider of what could happen if were we to behave in a certain way. It moves us beyond the freedom of Platonic love that keeps us arms-length from the consequences inherent in action.

    Marriage, if not taken as merely a tax write-off, is in some ways a spiritual as well as an economic commitment. As a spiritual commitment, it is our inalienable right. As an economic commitment, it is an asset recognized in a way that allows us to capitalize on our commitment so that we gain leverage in the international community.

    Proposition 8 threatens to take away those rights. In so doing, it lessens the value of marriage while it heightens our awareness that our sexual identity is an inalienable right. If Proposition 8 wins, its supporters, by sowing seeds of division, may find themselves inheriting the winds of change, sweeping through their own household, bringing their roof down upon them.

    Better that we save them from themselves and strengthen marriage by affirming it as a rite that unites us in the hope that we can create a better future by committing ourselves to each other in faith.

    Posted by Gregg_Heacock at 11/04/2008 @ 1:38pm

21. Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA www.bushleagueofnations.com [for FREE downloads of entire book]

    I'm an active progressive Christian who is appalled at the rise of the Christian Reich's upside-down version of Christ and Christianity--Pro-Rich and Pro-War--and the GOP's War on Iraq and War on America.

    As a Christian, I know there are many reasons, including many Christian reasons, to vote NO on Prop 8 in California today.

    Stand tall for GLBT rights. If you live in California please vote NO on Prop 8.

    I believe the most effective humor is based in truth. With that in mind, I point you to a sidebar (pp. 227-8) in my deadly serious new book: "The Bush League of Nations: The Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bullied and the Bribed – the GOP's War on Iraq and America," by James A. Swanson (2008, published by CreateSpace Publishing, 448 pages).

    The sidebar is entitled:

    "Jesus Talks With Pat Robertson About Gay Marriage" "Gay Marriage? Haven't They Been Punished Enough?"

    You can download the entire book for free at www.bushleagueofnations.com.

    Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA

    Posted by jswanson at 11/04/2008 @ 1:38pm

22. Yes, but he calls it the "AMERICAN river"...not some damn "commie Canuck socialist un-demoncrat sek'lar regressive" name!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 11/04/2008 @ 10:54am

    actually, he spoke respectfully of it.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2008 @ 1:42pm

23. "Marriage, if not taken as merely a tax write-off, is in some ways a spiritual as well as an economic commitment. As a spiritual commitment, it is our inalienable right."

    Posted by Gregg_Heacock at 11/04/2008 @ 1:38pm

    You're kidding right? Most folks marry because of the "tax write-offs". Also, marriage is not an "inalienable right", it's a choice.

    Posted by ACook at 11/04/2008 @ 3:32pm

24. Posted by ACook at 11/04/2008 @ 3:32pm

    Actually ACOOK, it's a state-recognized contract and therefore by the 14th Amendment "equal protection" clause, it IS a right to any citizen.

    It's why the anti-gay marriage guys are going state-by-state, and then hope to push for an anti-gay marriage Amendment...since CONSTITUTIONALLY there's no grounds for denying it.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 11/04/2008 @ 4:31pm

25. Posted by Maskdelta at 11/04/2008 @ 4:31pm

    And?! Quite frankly I think the Feds and the states should have left the "business" of marriage to the church.

    Why gays and secular folks feel they need to engage in a very religious ritual, is beyond me.

    Posted by ACook at 11/04/2008 @ 5:13pm

26. If your bumpin pee-pee's (or bumpin sumpin) and your an adult and your partner is human. You should be able to get married.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/04/2008 @ 6:03pm

27. A bit of advice. If your stomach is feeling a bit nervous and queasy. Drink a couple tablespoons of apple cider vinegar with an equal amount of honey.

    It works for me..

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/04/2008 @ 6:10pm

28. It's sort of like riding on the back of the bus. You may not be affected because: a-you don't take the bus, or b. If you do take the bus--the back arrives at the destination at the exact same time as the front. Yet--making you sit on the back because of who you innately are--makes you a second class citizen. As Brown v. Board decided--Separate but equal-- isn't equal. Likewise with gays in the military. I would like to think that none of my gay or lesbian brothers and sisters would want to join the military--especially during times of aggressive imperialist wars. Yet--telling them that "their kind" is not welcome is discriminatory-It makes them legally and socially different from others--which is a violationof the 14th Amendment. Rather than continually being on the defensive, lesbians and gays should make media ads--slightly effeminate men and obviously lesbian women--looking into the TV camera and saying that they will try to give up their homosexual behavior and want to marry heterosexual sons and daughters of the viewers--which might reframe the issue.

    Posted by oaklandemeryville at 11/04/2008 @ 6:58pm

29. last time I checked Gay wasnt catching & believe it or not neither is bigotry & or stupidity. Love is so hard to find & then harder to hold on to. i have never met a gay person who tried to attack,change,& or threaten my heterosexual belief's,so why the resistance of gay marriage right's? were all god's children ,why do some of us assume we will get to heaven ,with judgemental heart's & mind's? you love someone twenty year's & they become ill & the Law say's to bad you cant even be in the Hospital room while they die. think about it ,then decide.

    Posted by linjaynes at 11/04/2008 @ 7:23pm

30. this whole 'marriage is a religious institution' thing is crap. marriage was happening before christianity, before judaism, before whatever. besides, how many marriages are performed by judges and other civil authorities? a whole crap-load, that's how many. i love this twisted idea that gay marriage is infringing on religious rights, as stated in more than one yes-on-8 commercial. how? seriously, HOW? are you forced to renounce your church? no? huh. well lets see then, maybe, you are forced to attend gay weddings? no? hmm. (and don't cite that stupid example of the teacher who took her kids to a gay wedding to support the person getting married. that was not authorized by the school, and some parents were actually in favor of it) are you forced to like gay people? no? ok. wtf is the issue then? children? give me a break. gay is a fact. its out there. nothing u can do about it. the idea that it's "taught" in schools is stupid. i had sex-ed three times. 5th, 6th, and 8th grade. marriage was never mentioned. and if it is? well, by golly, you might have to do some freaking parenting and actually explain some reality to ur kids. i'd rather you not teach them bigotry and discrimination, but hey, this is america, do what u want. this whole thing was best summed up by a damned bumper sticker: don't like gay marriage? don't have one.

    Posted by skawtee at 11/04/2008 @ 9:44pm

31. Keep the church out of it. Right now under California law, same sex and straight couples have the exact same rights except that straight couples are called "married" and same sex couples are called "registered domestic partnerships". Federal law controls entitlements such as social security, so this has nothing to do with Prop 8. So why is the term so important to anyone on either side of the issue? And why can't straight couples under the age of 62 become registered domestic partners so that they can avail themselves of the same tax planning opportunities that same sex couples have? This is the little secret that no one talks about in the same sex community. Same sex couples can pick and choose how to associate to get better tax benefits. A domestic partnership with 2 adopted kids can have each adult select head of household status and get enormous tax breaks. For straight couples, it's marriage and the marriage tax penalty or nothing. And why is it that since the Cal Supreme Court found an inherent right in same sex couples to marry by a 4-3 vote, Family Code 297.5 hasn't been repealed? At present, same sex couples can register OR marry. Straight couples don't have this choice. It seems there is plenty of discrimination to go around in California in both communities.

    Posted by sam13 at 11/05/2008 @ 12:24am

32. Posted by skawtee at 11/04/2008 @ 9:44pm

    And there was no such thing as "gay" either before Christianity. So what's your point?

    Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 01:29am

33. Why is the "sin" of homosexuality so special that it requires taking away people's rights?

    Everyone is a "sinner."

    Why don't adulterers lose their right to marry?

    And what about my religious freedom if I don't believe in the Christian man-woman paradigm of marriage? Religious freedom except regarding marriage. Hmmm.

    Americans are foolish to let the church take away their civil rights.

    Posted by mclpz at 11/05/2008 @ 10:04am

34. The people have spoken! If the LGBT community had used the ballot box in the first place instead of their activist judge friends maybe Prop 8 wouldn't have passed. Mr. Newsom's arrogance was the breaking point for me, which led to my marking the line next to "Yes" on Prop 8. Next time, use the voting process, going around people's backs (like this upcoming lawsuit) and being arrogant arseholes will just blow up in your face again!

    P.S. Comparing yourselves to the black civil rights movement just pisses em off. Maybe you ought to stop.

    Posted by JosePerez at 11/05/2008 @ 5:57pm