Proposition 8

Remember the big post-election protests by the No on 8 side after the victory of Prop 8, the California initiative to ban same-sex marriage? They were followed by efforts on the Internet to harass individual donors to Prop 8. There were boycotts of the businesses of Prop 8 supporters and attempts to cost Prop 8 supporters their jobs. These tactics represented a strategic blunder by supporters of marriage equality.

The protests are over now, but the damage continues. Don't agree? Consider this federal lawsuit (the complaint is here) filed by same-sex marriage opponents -- that is, backers of Prop 8. They are challenging the constitutionality of California's rules requiring the disclosure of full names and addresses of those who donate to ballot initiatives. The claim? That the disclosures allow opponents to harass donors and thus put their safety at risk.

The lawsuit is more political than legal -- the legal theory is novel and thus unlikely to gain much traction. But the Prop 8 supporters know that the over-the-top post-election tactics of Prop 8 have become a political vulnerability for same-sex marriage supporters. The lawsuit will keep those tactics in the news.

The Courage Campaign, a progressive web site and organization in California, is inviting supporters of same-sex marriage to attend the first "Camp Courage" in Los Angeles later this month. What kind of camp is this? It's a camp for training people to organize to repeal Prop 8 and secure marriage equality for gay couples. It may sound a bit strange, but it's exactly the sort of planning and organizing that same-sex marriage supporters need to be doing. The camp concept appears to be modeled on the so-called "Camp Obamas," the weekend training sessions that the Obama conducted to turn volunteers into organizers.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who supports same-sex marriage, had appeared to be legally obligated to defend the Prop 8 ban on such marriages in an appeal. Such a defense would appear to be his constitutional duty; attorneys general defend laws. And Brown had said he would do just that.

But, just before the deadline for the attorney general to file arguments with the state supreme court, Brown did something different. His office's brief doesn't defend Prop 8. It says it should be overturned, and offers a novel legal theory for how the court might do that. The LA Times has a story here. In it, Goodwin Liu, associate dean and professor of law at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, calls Brown's action "extraordinary" and says: "The chief law enforcement officer of the state is charged with enforcing laws, even laws with which he disagrees."

Many same-sex marriage advocates in California are furious at President-Elect Obama for giving the Rev. Rick Warren, who was a strong advocate of the Prop 8 ban on gay marriages, a role in his inauguration. One prominent member of the No on Prop 8 campaign team has declined his invitation to attend the inauguration ceremony as a result.

Marjorie Christoffersen, the manager of El Coyote, a Mexican restaurant on Beverly Boulevard in Los Angeles, has resigned, according to Frontiers magazine. Christoffersen made a $100 donation to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. After the ban on same-sex marriage passed, protestors who favor same-sex marriage called for a boycott of the restaurant and demonstrated outside. Christoffersen is a Mormon, and her church had urged her to give.

..this (unintentionally, I think) ridiculous piece in yesterday's New York Times. The Los Angeles-based writers, Caitlin Flanagan and Benjamin Schwarz of the Atlantic, discover (without disclosing their evidence) that Prop 8's victory came as a surprise to Hollywood because the creative community didn't realize that folks in black churches were not ready for same-sex marriage. The piece then goes on to make a number of other claims (among them that gay activists think Prop 8 wouldn't have passed if Hillary Clinton had been the nominee), without a single example or a even a bit of factual support. The piece recycles a now discredited exit poll statistic that 70 percent of blacks voted for Prop 8. And in the process, it manages to trade on one stereotype (the smug, self-righteous, out-of-touch Hollywood types that exists only in the warped minds of New York editors and other East Coast elites) and to traffic in another (that of the cultural conservative homophobic black folk.)

Look at the quotes (of Hollywood talking about blacks): "It's their churches," somebody whispered to one of us not long after the election (Yes, that's the real attribution). "It's their Christianity," someone else hissed, rolling her eyes.

Rich Raddon, a devout Mormon who leads the L.A. Film Festival, resigns under fierce criticism for his financial donations to Yes on Prop 8. Same-sex marriage supporters -- that is opponents of the recently passed Prop 8 -- are targeting leaders of arts groups and companies who gave to the other side. In most cases, the support for Prop 8 was based on religious beliefs.

This is madness, and is all but certain to boomerang against the cause of marriage equality. How can you call for tolerance of difference, and convince people that same-sex marraige is no threat to anyone's religion, when you're hounding people for their religious views? Here's hoping that the festival urges Raddon to come back, immediately. And here's also a bit of a mathematical reminder to the self-sabotaging same-sex marriage supporters behind these purges: elections are won by convincing people to join your cause. All your energies should be directed to making new friends, not identifying enemies. 

The Advocate deconstructs the failed No on 8 campaign to defeat the California initiative ban on same-sex marriage -- and points some fingers. In particular, the Advocate blames the leaders of bisexual, gay and lesbian groups that led the campaign committee. This squares with my own reporting on the subject. These activists didn't reach out and bring in top political folks until it was too late. The Advocate adds fuel to the fire by reporting that two of these leaders -- Lorri Jean of the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center and Geoff Kors of Equality California -- took long summer vacations. People running big campaigns typically wait until the election is over to do that sort of thing.

This San Francisco Chronicle story does a very good job explaining why it's unlikely that Prop 8 will be overturned by the California Supreme Court. The key question is whether the initiative is an amendment to the constitution, which is permitted by initiative, or is actually a revision because the court ruled in May that there is an inherent constitutional right to marriage that applies to gay and straight couples alike. Traditionally, the court has been reluctant to declare an initiative invalid because it's a "revision." The Chronicle points out this has only been done twice, and neither case would seem to apply easily to the case of Prop 8.

No surprise, but the California Supreme Court today agreed to consider whether Prop 8 is constitutional. Both sides had sought a quick move by the court, and it looks like they're going to get it. More details here.

Other Prop 8 news: In a very interesting interview with the Sacramento Bee, California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, who is African-American, said that the post-Prop 8 debate has been "racialized"  (because of exit polls showing widespread black support for the Prop 8 ban on same sex marriage) and described how friends of her who attended anti-Prop 8 protests had racial epithets hurled at them.