Why California Proposition 8 Is a Losing Proposition

Most of the efforts of the Christianists to bar gays from equality under the civil laws stem from, in my view, two related agendas: (1) to convince the larger public that gays are inferior by virtue of the facts that they do not get equal legal rights, be it the right to marry or serve openly in the military, and (2) to convince gays that they ARE inferior because they are not afforded equality under the civil laws. Imagine how damaging gay marriage is to the latter agenda if young gays can dream of falling in love and marrying like everyone else. Thus, all gays should support gay marriage, the elimination of DADT, employment non-discrimination laws, etc., whether they want such rights for themselves because the achievement of such rights will do much to defeat the larger Christianists' agenda. Personally, I want gay marriage and, assuming I met the right guy, would like to get married in the future.

*

For these reasons, it is interesting that a Republican political strategist has a column in Saturday's Los Angeles Times that basically takes the Alliance Defense Fund and its allies to task for their stupidity and mishandling of the issue of gay marriage in California. One can only hope that his prediction that Proposition 8 will go down to defeat is accurate because by mishandling the battle in California, the Christianists may end up losing the culture war against gays in the long term. Here are some highlights from what I hope will be a prophetic column:

*

Proposition 8 is most likely going down to defeat in November. All because the folks who brought you Proposition 22 miscalculated in 2000, and now, with Proposition 8, they've compounded their error. Proposition 22, once passed, had the force of law, but, as with all statutes, it was subject to judicial interpretation. That's what happened when the state Supreme Court overturned it May 15, ruling that it conflicted with the California Constitution. Writing for the 4-3 majority, Chief Justice Ronald George said, "An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights" -- in this case, the right to marry. . . . Ironically, despite their passionate resistance to same-sex marriage, the politically inept backers of traditional marriage made such a ruling nearly inevitable.

*

Now, fast-forward eight years: Today, the momentum favors same-sex marriage. Polls show that the electorate has become more used to the idea of same-sex marriage; women in particular see it as stabilizing for society, not destabilizing. And, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, homosexuals are marrying at a fast pace. That means it is gay-marriage advocates who are defending the status quo, while traditional-marriage advocates must upset it. At the least, for many voters, the idea of voting against what is already legal could create confusion, and confusion often yields a "no" vote.

*

And then there's the matter of timing. Proposition 8's supporters should have put their remedial measure on a primary ballot years ago. Failing that, they should have started early enough to gather sufficient signatures to qualify the measure for last month's primary ballot, not the Nov. 4 general election ballot. That's because with no statewide offices contested, and coming after the high-turnout presidential primary, the June 3 primary was guaranteed to be a low-turnout affair (i.e., older, more socially conservative voters).

*

Putting Proposition 8 on a high-turnout November presidential election ballot is dumb. Trying to pass it once same-sex marriages have become a legal, daily occurrence throughout the state is dumber. And now, if Californians vote it down, conservatives can't blame judicial tyranny for imposing same-sex marriage on the unhappy masses.