Eight days ago, Monday evening Oct. 25, a young campaign volunteer for No on Prop 8 divulged astonishing and dismaying news to me about the early voting on Prop 8. He was one of about two dozen or so demonstrators I had happened upon in the darkness as they held banners on a busy street corner. This student at a local university told me that "about ten percent of our supporters are voting the wrong way because they think it is in favor" of marriage equality. This news was especially horrible because -- as Kossacks will know -- in early October the race had tightened to the point that some were saying it was too close to call. Do the arithmetic: that puts each side at about 50 percent of the electorate, and "10 percent" of 50 percent is five percent of the electorate -- probably more than the difference in support!
As of three minutes ago, at 2:07 a.m., the Secretary of State's Web page of Prop 8 tallies is reporting Prop 8 -- the BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE -- well on the way to victory: leading by 2.6% (51.8% to 48.2%) with "80.8% ( 20,552 of 25,423 ) precincts partially
or fully reporting as of Nov. 5, 2008, at 2:07 a.m. (Down from 6.2 two hours ago -- how peachy.)
These demonstrators from Monday evening and others I met at a second university later in the week were seeking volunteers for Election Day to catch people on their way toward polling places and advise them to vote No, not Yes. It seemed as useless as having prisoners break rockpiles. Moreover, since I have twice been a polling place worker, I asked the young man how they were going to fit that tactic in with the law against electioneering too close to a polling place. This morning, Election Day, I reencountered three of the canvassers from the second university staffing a card table at a shopping center a mile from campus and two blocks from the nearest polling place (oh, for sure, you will catch a handful of voters in time that way).
That Monday evening, Googling brought confirmation of the ugly news from the young man: a passing mention in a blog by someone who was in fact one of his fellow volunteers from the local No on Prop 8 office. And a fresh cause for astonishment: that blog was the only hit from the Google search. Four days later, Googling revealed again just one hit -- a new one. Evidently, this news was only meant to circulate within the campaign. Early voting had been under way in California for about two weeks (I myself voted the 17th).
The bad news about voter ignorance seems consistent with a theme raised on Oct. 16 (in the preceding week) by Andrew Sullivan and Ann Rostow (publicized by Sullivan), and picked up by Jonathan Rauch in a guest editorial in the Los Angeles Times the Friday before Election Day: the love that still dare not speak its name. Even though Prop 8's official ballot summary is "ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT", nevertheless the No campaign's television ads took pains to avoid mention of gay marriage. "No mention of homosexuality. Like they're scared or something" (Sullivan, Oct. 16). One television ad "mentions marriage only once . . . and never uses the phrase 'gay marriage' or even the word 'gay'" (Rauch, Oct. 26).
Well, there are always going to be some voters who misunderstand a ballot issue they're voting on. One can hope that there were wrong way voters on the other side -- but ten percent on their part is too much to hope for.
Whether the gay marriage wins the Prop 8 fight or loses it, the No campaign royally screwed up, and win or lose, the closeness of the result will bolster the objection that has been raised since Massachusetts in 2004: the initiative in the marriage equality movement went to doofusses who have disastrously overestimated American society's readiness to welcome gay rights. In Massachusetts, gay marriage was legalized by the state supreme court. The victory held in that state, but it directly led two years later in the 2006 elections to the enactment of bans in nearly half the states, some statutory, some constitutional. Apparently, the movement in California didn't learn a second fact about the national politics of this issue: American society also no longer will acquiesce to state supreme court decisions on "hot button social issues". American society: the crowd that put Reagan into office twice and George W. Bush into office twice. And Obama is against gay marriage.
But could Prop 8 have been defeated all the same? Maybe. But not with TV commercials that seemed to be written by soap opera scriptwriters. And above all, you have to ask the people for their vote. If you're a candidate for office, you have to approach people of all genders, races, and creeds and ask them for their vote. The gays have to level with the rest of America (I certainly do not mean in the tone of "we're here, we're queer, deal with it!"). Tonight's fiasco hopefully will be the death knell for the folly of fleeing in embarrassment from the homophobia of the American people yet expecting them to acquiesce in court decisions. It's like a schoolchild asking the teachers and the principal to hold off the school bully.
During the first week of gay marriage in California, local news coverage, including in conservative San Diego, was overwhelmingly favorable. And Associated Press quoted one newlywed, "If you check that box you're taking away the marriage of River and Susie — it's not 'those people.' We're normal people who want to take care of each other." We're normal people who want to take care of each other -- I read that quote back in June and I was really moved. Here in San Diego, the local paper -- one of the disgraceful handful of major newspapers to endorse McCain! -- had video galleries and photo galleries celebrating those first ceremonies. Male couples wiping tears from their eyes. The pair of lesbian accountants who took their vows in business suits while holding their infant triplets.(!) I wish No on Prop 8 had put these couples in front of a camera!