We thought we
were winning. Until a few days ago, California’s
proposed anti-gay constitutional amendment, Proposition 8,
was lagging in the polls. Now they're ahead. What
happened? Money, an effective ad campaign, and a
passionate voter base willing to stop at nothing to get
their point across: In their minds, gay marriage is simply
wrong.
We thought we
were winning. But no.
Until a few days
ago, California’s proposed anti-gay constitutional
amendment, Proposition 8, was lagging in the polls. Now
we’re the underdog. What happened?
No on 8 campaign
leaders convened an emergency conference call with LGBT
reporters on Tuesday to get the word out: Prop 8 is now
ahead by four points, and if we want to win on
election day, we need to flood the No on 8 campaign
with money.
“We’re being very badly outspent,” said
pollster Celinda Lake, who joined campaign consultant
Steve Smith and Equality California’s Geoff Kors on
the call. Lake attributed Prop 8’s new hot
streak to a biting TV ad that premiered last week --
and to the massive media buy for that ad made possible
in part by the deep pockets of the Mormon Church.
“Polling tells us that their ad is really
breaking through... it’s not just a base ad.
It’s convincing to voters across the broad
spectrum,” she said.
“It’s gonna happen, whether you like it or
not!” rasps San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom
like a leering carnival barker in the pro-8 television
spot. After that, a Prop 8 spokesman ticks off a list
of dire consequences that California will suffer if
Prop 8 goes down to defeat: “People sued over
personal beliefs! Churches could lose their tax
exemptions! Gay marriage taught in public
schools!”
The ad’s
histrionics would be funny. Except that so many voters seem
to agree.
Talk with Prop 8
supporters and their anger is startling, even
shocking.
All that emotion
was front and center at a joint informational hearing
held October 2 in Los Angeles by the state senate judiciary
committee. Among the 200-odd attendees, the Yes on 8
contingent was slightly outnumbered. But they
exemplified the outrage fueling the pro-8 campaign.
This Prop 8
hearing was routine. Every California ballot
initiative must go through a similar public hearing on
its way to election day. The panel, chaired by Sen.
Ellen Corbett, comprised several senators and assembly
members quizzing witnesses on both sides of the issue.
Berkeley law
professor Goodwin Liu drew smiles as he addressed the
accusation that, by deciding in favor of marriage equality,
California’s supreme court justices crossed the
line and became activist judges.
“Judicial
activism,” Liu pointed out, “is used by all
sides as shorthand for any decision they don’t
like.” Asked if the court overturned the
will of the people, Liu thought not, arguing that -- thanks
to huge progress since anti-gay Prop 22 became law in
2000 -- the decision to overturn Prop 22 could be
described as “majoritatian.”
Click here to follow The Advocate on Twitter.
Page 1 of 3