The New York Times seems to think so. In this piece, the Times says that an Arkansas initiative to ban adoption by unmarried couples (a measure clearly targeted at gays) passed because white Arkansas Democrats didn't like Obama and stayed home, thus hurting the measure. The evidence of that is hardly clear. Turnout appears to have been down among white Democrats, but it's far from clear that such Democrats who stayed at home would have opposed the ban. It's common to link the results of candidate races to the results of initiative elections, but the correlation is not strong. In California, some are blaming the victory of Prop 8 on socially conservative African Americans who turned out for Obama but also supported a ban on same-sex marriage. Maybe. But the margin in that race is such -- and the percentage of black voters is small enough -- that the gay marriage ban might well have succeeded in spite of any turnout effect. The margin in Arkansas was even wider on the adoption measure.

When an initiative outcome goes against you, it's common to blame factors outside your control. This sort of excuse-making is natural after heartbreaking defeats, such as the Prop 8 victory (a defeat for the cause of marriage equality in California) and and the triumph of this Arkansas measure (a defeat for the rights of gay couples and families, and for the prospects of unwanted children). But while it's easier said than done, advocates for gay rights and adoption need to realize that the loss is their own, avoid blaming other factors, and instead look for new ways to organize and to reshape campaign strategies so they can win again in the future.