California Gay Rights Activists Show Us Intolerance Works Both Ways

Marriage

In what is con­sid­ered one of the more lib­eral and pro­gres­sive states in the coun­try, Cal­i­for­nia seem­ingly took one giant step back­ward as its cit­i­zens nar­rowly passed an ini­tia­tive to ban same-sex mar­riages on the Novem­ber 4, 2008 bal­lot. The Cal­i­for­nia Supreme Court went to ses­sion ear­lier this week to decide whether Propo­si­tion 8 is valid or invalid.

Propo­si­tion 8, or the Defense of Mar­riage Act, amended the state con­sti­tu­tion to define a mar­riage as being between a man and a woman, effec­tu­ally tak­ing away the right for same-sex cou­ples to marry.

Propo­si­tion 8 became the most heated polit­i­cal debate in state his­tory out­side of pres­i­den­tial elec­tions and eas­ily the most expen­sive social issue cam­paign in U.S. his­tory. Con­tri­bu­tions totaled $39.9 mil­lion to the pro-Prop 8 cam­paign and $43.3 mil­lion to the against-Prop 8 campaign.

Results and History

Proposition 8 Voting MapCal­i­for­nia vot­ers passed the ini­tia­tive 52.3% to 47.7% (7,001,084 to 6,401,482 votes). The vot­ing pat­tern high­lights the geo­graph­i­cal divide of Cal­i­for­nia. The more den­sity pop­u­lated coastal areas, as in the San Fran­cisco Bay Area, tend to be and vote lib­eral while the cen­tral val­ley and inland areas, as in Fresno and Bak­ers­field, tend to be and vote conservative.

Los Ange­les tends to more often than not be the decid­ing fac­tor in polar­iz­ing issues, and the Los Ange­les Times has a great county-by-county break­down of the vot­ing results. L.A. County sur­pris­ingly sup­ported Propo­si­tion 8 (50.4% to 49.6%), but not by much, which con­trasts its pro­gres­sive Hol­ly­wood image.

Within the past decade, gay mar­riage has become a hot topic in Cal­i­for­nia. Vot­ers passed Propo­si­tion 22 on March 7, 2000 that defined mar­riage as being between a man and a woman. The ini­tia­tive passed over­whelm­ingly 61.4% to 38.6%. Years later, state leg­is­la­tors would pass Assem­bly Bill 849 to make Cal­i­for­nia the first state in the coun­try to approve gay mar­riages with­out pres­sure from the state supreme court. Gov­er­nor Arnold Schwarzeneg­ger would later veto the bill, even­tu­ally mak­ing way for Propo­si­tion 8 to make its way onto a ballot.

The Fall­out

Even after all of the bal­lots were counted and Propo­si­tion 8 passed, the issue of gay mar­riage in Cal­i­for­nia did not go away. Had the ini­tia­tive not pass, the issue still would not have gone away.

Exit polls found that black and Latino vot­ers largely sup­ported Propo­si­tion 8, which drew much ire from activists con­fused that his­tor­i­cally dis­crim­i­nated eth­nic­i­ties could be so unsym­pa­thetic to an often dis­crim­i­nated group. Barak Obama didn’t help.

It took a while, but later sep­a­rate stud­ies by the Pub­lic Pol­icy Insti­tute of Cal­i­for­nia (PPIC) and the National Gay and Les­bian Task Force con­tra­dicted the exit polls and stated that reli­gious affil­i­a­tion proved more an indi­ca­tor as to how the per­son would vote on Prop 8. The PPIC’s report (PDF) indi­cated that Evan­gel­i­cal Chris­tians were 85% likely to vote for the ini­tia­tive ver­sus non-whites who were 57% likely. Research by Patrick J. Egan and Ken­neth Sher­rill (“California’s Propo­si­tion 8: What Hap­pened, and What Does the Future Hold?”) for the Task Forces Pol­icy Insti­tute explained that while black and Latino vot­ers largely sup­ported the ini­tia­tive, the exit poll fig­ures were overestimates.

Vandalism from Proposition 8's Passing

Gay mar­riage activists were forced to turn their atten­tion to reli­gious groups that sup­ported the mea­sure, chiefly Mor­mons. Unfor­tu­nately, that atten­tion came in the form of protests, vio­lence, and van­dal­ism. Tar­get­ing Mor­mons were aided by trans­parency laws that made donor lists pub­lic information.

Bad. Very bad. Gay mar­riage sup­port­ers did not help them­selves and seem­ingly gave them­selves free passes to run amok in the name of progressivism.

How come those actions weren’t con­sid­ered hate crimes? If not, they came awfully close. I can’t under­stand how even the most right­eous peo­ple found that behav­ior accept­able. Imag­ine if the roles were reversed. Do you know how much out­cry there would have been had peo­ple van­dal­ized the build­ings of gay and les­bian organizations?

I sup­port gay rights, but in no way did I sup­port the attempt to humil­i­ate and out Propo­si­tion 8 sup­port­ers sim­ply because they donated money, in this econ­omy no less, to a cause they believed in. Pub­lic par­tic­i­pa­tion is democ­racy at its best.

While I can’t blame the entire gay rights move­ment for the actions of a few indi­vid­u­als, those bad apples nonethe­less made pro­gres­sives look like (1) cry­ba­bies, (2) thugs, and (3) idiots. It even rekin­dled the con­stant pri­vacy debate in our trans­parency laws.

How come no one praises Propo­si­tion 8 sup­port­ers for using legal means to attain their goals? While I don’t sup­port their goals, I will always admire their efforts (if legal and proper), although the school mis­in­for­ma­tion tac­tics were shame­ful.

The Future

Proposition 8 to be Decided at California Supreme Court

I have no doubt that gay mar­riage will even­tu­ally be legal not just in Cal­i­for­nia but in the entire coun­try as well. It is inevitable. Egan and Sherrill’s research shows the change in Cal­i­for­ni­ans’ votes on mar­riage equal­ity from 2000’s Propo­si­tion 22 to 2008’s Propo­si­tion 8 was a 9% total decline of “yes” votes, as well as per­cent­age declines in every mea­sure except Repub­li­can votes.

The bat­tle for mar­riage equal­ity will be a lengthy one, as many indi­vid­ual states take baby steps in the word­ing of their respec­tive laws from same-sex mar­riages to civil unions to com­plete bans.

Ulti­mately, one side will sim­ply have to suck it up and accept the result. Unfor­tu­nately, all signs point to vic­tory for gay mar­riage sup­port­ers. For California’s part in all of this, the issue has fallen onto the state Supreme Court. I will refrain from pre­dict­ing the court’s ver­dict because the issue will soon go back into the hands of vot­ers via the ini­tia­tive process and will prob­a­bly return for judi­cial review.

The true con­se­quence of this whole Propo­si­tion 8 ordeal is the real­ity that few peo­ple really under­stand tol­er­ance and what it was meant for. Tol­er­ance works both ways and, while I hate to gen­er­al­ize the entire against-Prop 8 group, a few bad apples ruined the mes­sage and fight for gay rights. There was imme­di­ate prej­u­dice against reli­gious groups, with the Church of Latter-Day Saints in par­tic­u­lar. Cor­rect me if I’m wrong but wasn’t prej­u­dice the chief enemy of tolerance?

Pop­u­lar­ity: 3% [?]

One Comment

  • I think you both don’t under­stand the dynam­ics of what hap­pened post the elec­tion, nor do you under­stand what intol­er­ance means.

    I remem­ber a con­ver­sa­tion with my grand­mother, while we watched the after­math of the vio­lent protests which fol­lowed the Rod­ney King inci­dent a num­ber of years ago. for her, a white woman who had always thought of her­self as treat­ing blacks bet­ter than your aver­age white per­son, the riots and destruc­tion made no sense what so ever. And to some degree, the back­lash fol­low­ing the Prop 8 win seems sim­i­larly irra­tional and counter pro­duc­tive. Yet the real­ity is that any­time you have a group of peo­ple who have been oppressed and kept out and ignored, the pres­sure can build up, and explode, and right or wrong or good or bad, that is part of what we saw fol­low­ing the pas­sage of Prop 8. To label it as “bad apples” sim­ply shows a total dis­re­gard for the com­plex­ity of the whole situation.

    Another highly reported upris­ing in our his­tory car­ries very dif­fer­ent con­no­ta­tions. The Boston Tea Party any­one? I’m sure you were taught as I was, about how heroic and “patri­otic” it was, and yet the same could be said as you express here.

    Your notion of “what tol­er­ance is meant for,” is fine, in a purely the­o­ret­i­cal world, but we don’t live in the­ory, we live in fact and real­ity. It isn’t as sim­ple as “tol­er­ance,” but rather tol­er­ance in the mid­dle of a long his­tory, and a extremely charged arena.

    One thing that I think was a cause of the amount of upris­ing, was the his­tory which lead to the unprece­dented actions of elec­tion day. A pub­lic vote was deemed uncon­sti­tu­tional by the CA Supreme Court, and then a lot of cou­ples were mar­ried, and then another elec­tion with a very small major­ity, took the rights away that the supreme court had enabled. This mix­ture of pub­lic vote/ court involvement/ removal of rights is a far cry from your sim­plis­tic idea of “par­tic­i­pa­tion in democracy.”

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *