The McFreeds share an article from Rolling Stone Magazine...

Same-Sex Setback

Don't blame Mormons or black voters - the California activists who tried to stop Prop 8 ran a lousy campaign

TIM DICKINSON

Posted Dec 11, 2008 11:00 AM

On election night in California, all signs pointed to a progressive tidal wave. Voters in the state swept Barack Obama to a 24-point victory over John McCain — the biggest margin for any candidate since 1936. Bucking the recession, eco-conscious Californians voted to spend $10 billion to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles with a European-style bullet train. It was even a banner night for chickens, with 63 percent of the electorate approving a PETA-endorsed proposition to expand the size of poultry cages on factory farms.

Then the returns for Proposition 8 came in. The amendment to ban gay marriage — a right affirmed by the state Supreme Court in May and put into practice by more than 18,000 couples — passed by a four-point margin, as Californians voted to eviscerate the equal-protection clause of the state constitution. Along with similar bans in Arizona and Florida — as well as a measure in Arkansas that bars same-sex couples from adopting children or even serving as foster parents — Prop 8 offered hope to the Christian right that their decades-long culture wars may continue to rage, despite Obama's historic victory. All told, more than 2 million Californians who voted for Obama also pulled the lever for Prop 8.

Election postmortems have been quick to scapegoat minorities for the loss. The right pointed out that African-Americans voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage; the left blasted Mormons who obeyed an unprecedented dictate from the church's leadership in Salt Lake City and donated 45 percent of the funds for a campaign to pass Prop 8.

But evidence of entrenched homophobia and religious intolerance obscure a more difficult truth. Prop 8 should have been defeated — two months before the election, it was down 17 points in the polls — but the gay-rights groups that tried to stop it ran a lousy campaign. According to veteran political observers, the No on Prop 8 effort was slow to raise money, ran weak and confusing ads, and failed to put together a grass-roots operation to get out the vote.

"This was political malpractice," says a Democratic consultant who operates at the highest level of California politics. "They fucked this up, and it was painful to watch. They shouldn't be allowed to pawn this off on the Mormons or anyone else. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and now hundreds of thousands of gay couples are going to pay the price."

From the start, the leaders of the No on Prop 8 campaign and their high-priced consultants failed to realize what they were up against. According to Geoff Kors, who headed the campaign's executive committee, the No side anticipated needing no more than $20 million to stop the gay-marriage ban. The Yes side, by contrast, set out to change how initiative politics are played, building a well-funded operation that rivaled a swing-state presidential campaign in its scope and complexity. It also built a powerful, faith-based coalition that included the Catholic Church, Protestant evangelicals and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "The direct involvement of the Mormon church — moving donors in a very short window to give early — was stunning," says Patrick Guerriero, who was called in to take over as campaign manager of No on Prop 8 in the final month. "It was unprecedented — and probably impossible to predict."

In fact, as documented in an internal LDS memo leaked during the campaign, proposals for such a coalition had been on the table for more than a decade. In the memo, a high-ranking Mormon leader discusses approaches for fighting gay marriage in California: "The Church should be in a coalition and not out front by itself," the memo advocates. "The public image of the Catholic Church is higher than our Church. . . . If we get into this, they are the ones with which to join."

It's ironic that the coalition to define marriage in California as the union between "one man and one woman" was anchored by a church whose founder claimed 33 wives. It's also ironic that the coalition — which framed Prop 8 as a fight to protect California's children — was quietly knit together by the Catholic archbishop of San Francisco, who once excused the molestation of children at the hands of a pedophile priest as mere "horseplay." But once the Mormons joined the effort, they quickly established themselves as "the foundation of the campaign," says Frank Schubert, the consultant who directed Yes on 8. "We could count on their money and their people being there early."

Schubert put Mormon volunteers to work in an expansive field campaign modeled on the effort his business partner, Jeff Flint, worked on in 2004 for George Bush in Ohio. "This is the first time in initiative history that it's ever been done" for a ballot measure, says Schubert. Throughout the summer, Yes on 8 deployed an army of more than 100,000 volunteers to knock on doors in every zip code in the state.

"We had an enormous grass-roots advantage," Schubert says. "Our core was people of faith, and we were able to organize through churches." In the end, he says, the campaign visited 70 percent of all California households in person, and contacted another 15 percent by phone.

The No on Prop 8 campaign, meanwhile, was oblivious to the formidable field operation that the other side was mounting. Worse, its executive committee refused to include leaders of top gay and lesbian grass-roots organizations, which deprived them of an army of willing foot soldiers. "We didn't have people going door to door," admits Yvette Martinez, the campaign's political director. The field operation consisted of volunteers phone-banking from 135 call centers across the state, an effort that didn't begin ramping up until mid-October.

"They had no ground game," says a leading Democratic consultant. "They thought they could win this thing by slapping some ads together. It was the height of naiveté."

The Yes on 8 campaign's get-out-the-vote effort was equally prodigious. The weekend before the vote, Schubert's religious volunteers once again went door to door, speaking to supporters and directing them to the right precinct locations. "On Election Day," he says, "we had 100,000 people — five per precinct — checking voter rolls and contacting supporters who hadn't showed up to vote."

By contrast, the No on Prop 8 campaign mobilized just 11,000 volunteers on Election Day, which they deployed to polling locations to hold "Vote No on 8" signs. The campaign even turned away volunteers who were unable to attend a sign-holding training seminar. Terry Leftgoff, a veteran campaign consultant who was once the highest-ranking gay officer in the California Democratic Party, was one of those who was informed that his services weren't needed. "I was told I could come by on November 5th and help clean up a campaign office," Leftgoff says.

As terrible as the no on prop 8 campaign did on the ground, it did even worse on the air.

Until the final days, the campaign failed to take advantage of the backing of every major newspaper in the state, as well as that of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former President Bill Clinton and future President Barack Obama. In one bizarre episode, an outside consultant was forced to "jackhammer" the campaign leadership simply to convince them to make use of a robo-call from Bill Clinton. The campaign also rejected a Spanish-language ad featuring Dolores Huerta, a heroine of the United Farm Workers union.

"There were big mistakes that led to this flop," says Leftgoff, the veteran consultant. "They lacked the media messaging essential to any campaign."

To make matters worse, the No campaign refused to reassure voters by presenting positive depictions of gay and lesbian couples in its ads. Instead, in a bizarre approach, it opted to effectively affirm the homophobia of the swing voters it was courting. An ad called "Conversation," featuring two female friends looking at family photos over coffee, typified the effort:

The awkward ads alienated gay activists. Robin Tyler, one of the lead plaintiffs in the marriage case that reached the state Supreme Court, describes the approach of No on Prop 8 as "if we hide, they'll give us our rights." The campaign, she suggests, could have picked up a few pointers from the ballot initiative to reform factory farming: "When they were trying to pass Prop 2," she asks, "did they hide the chickens

Even Patrick Guerriero, who took the reins of the campaign in October, admits that the early communications strategy was disastrous. "Those ads were perfect," he says, "if there wasn't an opponent."

But there was an opponent — and Schubert quickly took advantage of the weak ads to turn gay marriage into a referendum on education and parental rights. One spot featured a young Hispanic girl coming home to tell her mother, "Guess what I learned in school today? I learned how a prince married a prince, and I can marry a princess!" Schubert drove home the theme again with an ad highlighting a field trip by San Francisco first-graders to see their lesbian teacher get married.

The ads were misleading but devastating. Within two weeks, the Yes campaign turned a double-digit deficit in the polls into a 15-point lead. Worse, the Yes side began October with $12.8 million in the bank to spend on advertising, while the No campaign had only $1.8 million. "Our filing was so large that it literally crashed the secretary of state's Web page," boasts Schubert. "They couldn't accept it — there were over 5,000 pages of contributors." At that point, the No on Prop 8 campaign had only 6,000 donors. "We did not have the cash we needed," concedes Kors, the leader of the No on Prop 8 executive committee.

The numbers spurred a major shake-up of the No campaign, which called in Guerriero, formerly executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, to take the helm. Guerriero thought the campaign was effectively lost, but he was determined to "scramble back" — to narrow the margin of defeat and thus demonstrate progress over 2000, when California voters first outlawed gay marriage by a margin of 23 points.

And then something extraordinary happened. "Once the progressive community was told, 'We're in the fight of our lives, and we're losing,' they just responded," says Guerriero. "No one can say people didn't wake up." Volunteers from Google and eBay built a Website for online donations; money started flooding in at a clip of up to $1 million a day. By Election Day, the once-poor No campaign had outraised the Yes side by $2 million.

The No campaign also aired its first effective counterattack, running an ad that featured the state school superintendent making clear that gay marriage would not be taught in the schools. "It was their best ad of the campaign by far, but it was very, very late for them to react," says Schubert. The No campaign also filmed a powerful ad that featured Sen. Dianne Feinstein — perhaps the most popular politician in the state — appealing to voters to "vote against discrimination."

Had the campaign left well enough alone, the Feinstein ad might have done the trick. Instead, with only a week to go before Election Day, it flailed about as crazily as the McCain campaign in search of a message. After running the Feinstein ad for only four days, it recut the spot to incorporate other big-name endorsers, garbling the message. It also filmed a counterproductive ad narrated by Samuel L. Jackson that, in the course of 30 seconds, tried to connect the gay-marriage struggle to the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, the housing-rights struggles of Armenians in California and bans on interracial marriage in the South.

"The ad was a huge fucking mistake," says a top Democratic campaign strategist. "Any objective consultant who has done any research on this issue will tell you that the struggle for marriage equality is not accepted by minority communities to be equivalent to the civil rights movement. In fact, it pisses minorities off."

It didn't help that Barack Obama refused to support gay marriage, and voiced his opposition to Prop 8 as a narrow constitutional matter. Indeed, Obama was so weak on the issue that Schubert highlighted the candidate's opposition to gay marriage in a mailer targeting African-Americans, and used his voice in a statewide robo-call. "We were able to quote him directly on the core issue in direct mail and in calls at the end of the campaign," says Schubert. When African-Americans in California went to the polls on Election Day, 70 percent of them voted to ban gay marriage.

Civil rights groups in California have already petitioned the state Supreme Court to toss out Prop 8, arguing that revising the state constitution requires a two-thirds vote in the legislature. The fight has also gone national. On November 10th, the gay-rights group Equality Utah announced that it would draft legislation in Utah to legalize civil unions — a direct challenge to the Mormon church, which claims to support such relationships. And on November 15th, after only eight days of organizing online, more than 100,000 protesters rallied against Prop 8 in 300 cities across the country.

As the demonstrations suggest, there is a silver lining to the passage of Prop 8. Because it succeeded due to the mistakes and mismanagement of its opponents — rather than deep-seated hostility to gay and lesbian couples — it can be overturned at the ballot box. Since 2000, the margin of voters in the state who oppose gay marriage has plunged from 23 points to only four.

"The speed at which this issue is moving is unprecedented in my personal political experience," says Bill Carrick, a prominent Democratic consultant who worked on the presidential campaigns of Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy. "Support for gay marriage has moved so far, in such a short period of time, that I think we're going to look back at Prop 8 as an aberration. History is headed in a very pro-gay-marriage direction, and it probably is going to happen in a much shorter time than anybody imagines."

[From Issue 1067 — December 11, 2008]

The McFreeds share the following news...

Advocate.com reports a simple discription of what is happening legally in the California Proposition 8 litigation...

The California supreme court announced Wednesday that it will review legal challenges to Proposition 8, which passed by a narrow margin on November 4, constitutionally banning same-sex marriage in the state.

But don't look for any resolution in the immediate future: The high court scheduled a hearing for March, asking litigants on both sides for more written arguments in the interim.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Lambda Legal filed a suit challenging the validity of Prop. 8 on November 5, before Equality California, the official group that worked to defeat Prop. 8, had formally conceded.

The court will be asked to answer the following questions:

"Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California constitution?"

"Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California constitution?"

"If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?"

Sean shares this vlog (video blog)...

With all the talk about African-Americans and Latinos roles in passing California's Proposition 8, we forget that there is a lot of outreach to be done. Check out this episode of the Mocha Lounge on 365gay.com.

Note: I did not embed this video because it started everytime you opened up our blog. Please utilize the link.  

Sean shares a post from Queerty.com that makes a ton of sense...

In a post that will surely upset the "We must not be divisive!" crowd, Andrew Sullivan questions the continued value of the Human Rights Campaign, noting that not only is there almost no information about last weekend's protests on their site, but also:

"In the two decades of serious struggle for marriage equality, the Human Rights Campaign has been mostly absent, and when present, often passive or reactive. Here's a simple statistic that might help shake us out of complacency: HRC claims to have spent $3.4 million on No On 8. The Mormon church was able to spend over $20 million, by appealing to its members. Why are non-gay Mormons more capable of organizing and fund-raising on a gay rights measure than the biggest national gay rights group?"

It's not a dumb question.

Now, taking pot shots at the Human Rights Campaign a popular pastime among pretty much every gay political pundit (Queerty included), but the passage of Prop 8. may be seen as a tipping point, with more and more voices questioning the various gay organizations that are commonly seen as "gay leadership." As Sully puts it:

"It's time gay people realized that this group is often part of the problem, and rarely part of the solution. It needs to be swept clean of its deadwood, overhauled, or if it persists in its ways, defunded. When we are in a civil rights movement and the biggest organization is essentially a passive observer and excuse-maker, it's time to demand better."

One of the common rejoinders being made by gay leaders is that Prop 8. passed "for one reason and one reason only, people were lied to [by the Yes on 8 campaign]", as L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center CEO Lori Jean told the Los Angeles protest on Saturday. And while it's true that the Yes on 8 campaign made false accusations about the meaning of same-sex marriage, political campaigns are a zero-sum games. Just as we would not give any credit to the Mormon Church if the Prop. had failed, we can't place all the blame on our opponents now that it has passed.

The reality is, we got beat and we need to take responsibility for that defeat. As P.R. exec Simon Halls said last week:

"Pure and simple, they beat us at the marketing game. If we learned anything from President-elect Obama’s brilliant and victorious campaign, it’s all about your efforts on the ground. The new president and his team organized at the grassroots level. They honed a clear and focused message and they were incredibly disciplined."

The No on 8 campaign put all their money into TV ads (many of which did not even mention that Prop. 8 was about gay marriage) and into phone banking. During the campaign Julie Davis, Northern California campaign director for No on 8 made fun of the Yes on 8's on-the-ground approach which she described as "randomly knocking on doors". After they won, what did the Yes on 8 people credit their win to? You guessed it:

“We thought it would go this way,” Proposition 8 co-chair Frank Schubert said. “We had 100,000 people on the streets today. We had people in every precinct, if not knocking on doors, then phoning voters in every precinct. We canvassed the entire state of California, one on one, asking people face to face how do they feel about this issue.

“And this is the kind of issue people are very personal and private about, and they don’t like talking to pollsters, they don’t like talking to the media, but we had a pretty good idea how they felt and that’s being reflected in the vote count.”

In our struggle to change the mind's of others, we may have to change our own. The grassroots, "everyone has a voice", web-centric nature of the campaign that started after Prop. 8 passed is a direct response to the hierarchical, "here's the plan, get on board or go away", "shout from our bubble" effort that preceded it.

Madness is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different response. It's clear that the strategy (or lack thereof) of the HRC and No on 8. campaign did not work. Saying it's because the bad guys are liars and cheats gets us nowhere. Asking "Who are we?", "What do we want?" and "How do we get there?" does.

To the people who feel that questioning our gay leaders will only make us more divided, I point to our defeat and ask, "What makes you think we were ever united?"

Sean proudly brags...

Stefan's Letter To The Editor he submitted to The Baltimore Sun was published today!  It was edited so here is the abridged version published in the November 10, 2008 edition. Way to go Stefan!

Gay Marriage Vote Was Disheartening

November 10, 2008

Sean crosses his fingers...

Proposition 8 so far is passing with a 52% to 48% majority of the vote. However, 3 million absentee and provisional ballots still remain to be counted in California. It's a long shot but its the last hope for sanity. Let's all pray for a miracle.

The McFreeds react...

In a sad turn of events, on the day we elect the first African-American U.S. President, we take away the rights of other Americans to live their life as they want via a ballot proposition. Our hope for a truly changed America is dashed by the fear and intolerance of our fellow neighbor. Not all the precinct results are in on California's Proposition 8, 89% as of this posting, but overcoming a deficit of 300,000 votes in that time looks insurmountable.

Equally insulting is the taking away of rights of fellow gays and lesbians from adopting in Arkansas and the passage of similar Proposition 8 constitutional amendments in Florida and Arizona. 

Thank you America for slamming the door on our hope while selecting us a leader that brings it. Gay and lesbian Californians getting married didn't cause the house to burn down. It didn't break up straight marriages. It didn't kill anyone. The End of Days didn't come. But still, you looked your gay or lesbian neighbor in the eye who did get married and told them where to go. The anger in both of us at this electoral intolerance is only tempered by our sadness for those families who did get those licenses and now will be in legal limbo.

The McFreeds share a video...

Call or email your friends and relatives in California to vote "No" on Proposition 8!

...and don't forget to call or email your friends and relatives in the following states to vote "NO" on the following:

Arkansas Initiative 1: Ban on Same-Sex Couples Adopting Children

Arizona Proposition 102: State Constitution Amendment Ban on Same-Sex Marriage - Traditional Marriage is between a man and a woman only, no ban on civil unions or domestic partnerships.

California Proposition 8: State Constitution Amendment Ban on Same-Sex Marriage - Traditional Marriage is between a man and a woman only, no ban on civil unions or domestic partnerships. Reverses state Supreme Court ruling allowing same-Sex marriage and potentially threatens the dissolution of existing same-sex marriages.

Florida Amendment 2: State Constitution Amendment Ban on Same-Sex Marriage -  Traditional Marriage is between a man and a woman only, ban on civil unions or domestic partnerships.  Must receive 60% of popular vote to pass.  

The McFreeds report...

SFGate.com and AfterElton.com are reporting the following about retired NFL Hall of Fame Quarterback and MVP of Super Bowl XXIX Steve Young and his wife Barb Young are coming out against Proposition 8, donating money to the cause of deating it, AND have a yard sign on their front lawn!  Even more significant is that the Youngs are doing this against their church, which they are very devoted to! Thanks Steve!

From AfterElton.com:

This weekend, Steve Young and his wife, Barb Young, made it clear they don't support anti-gay discrimination in California by coming out publicly against Proposition 8 and donating $50,000 to help defeat the measure. Via Equality California, Barb Young issued a statement saying "We believe all families matter, and we do not believe in discrimination, therefore, our family will vote against Prop. 8." The lawn of the Young home also sports No on 8 signs. (Note: While it is Barb Young's name on the check to No on 8, she also made another statement making it clear that Steve agrees with and supports her.)

It should be noted that Young, a Hall of Fame player and MVP of Super Bowl XXIX, isn't just any old retired NFL quarterback. He's also a member of the Mormon Church that has poured millions of dollars into into passing Proposition 8. And Young isn't any old Mormon either — he's a direct descendant of Brigham Young (the second president of the Mormon church) and has been one of the church's most visible Mormons. Frankly, the Youngs' stance on Proposition 8 is rather shocking given how invested the Mormon church is in passing the anti-gay amendment.

--------------------------------------------

From SFGate.com Political Blog:

The signs on the front lawn of former 49er quarterback Steve Young's Peninsula home say "No on Prop. 8," which normally wouldn't be much of a story in the Bay Area, a gay-friendly region which is the center of opposition to the effort to ban same-sex marriage in the state.

But Young isn't only a Hall of Fame quarterback. He's also the great-great-great grandson of Brigham Young, the second president of the Mormon church. The church has pushed hard and publicly for Prop. 8 and Mormons have pumped millions into the campaign.

Young also isn't just any church member. During his years in the NFL, he was one of the nation's most visible Mormons. He graduated from BYU, which was named for his ancestor, and received his law degree there. In a 1996 "60 Minute" interview, he said that he still had plans to go on the church mission he missed in college and had no problem tithing 10 percent of his earnings to the church. He retains close ties to Utah, married his wife, Barbara, at a temple in Hawaii and even served as narrator for a short video on the Mormon church and its history, done for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah.

Given all that, it's surprising to see Young's family lining up on the opposite side of the church, especially after Mormon leaders in Salt Lake City sent a letter last June that asked all California church members to do all they could to support the Prop. 8 effort by "donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman."

While it's Barb Young's name that appears on the checks, she made it clear in a statement issued today through Equality California that the contributions are a family affair.

"We believe ALL families matter and we do not believe in discrimination, therefore, our family will vote against Prop. 8," she said.

Later, she clarified her remarks with this update: "To expand on my earlier email, I am very passionate about this issue and Steve is completely supportive of me and my work for equality. We both love our Church and are grateful that our Church encourages us to vote our conscience. Steve prefers not to get involved politically on any issue no matter what the cause and therefore makes no endorsement."