As a resident Angelino, I signed up for 4 hours of "pamphleteering" on Election Day. There were three of us per polling place, each standing the requisite 100 feet away in different directions. It seemed that our side was in full force with no counterparts showing up from the "Yes on Hate" side. It seemed awesome.
Our team was assigned to the heavily-represented liberal, predominately-white West Side of Los Angeles. Perhaps 80% of these voters must have been opposed to Prop 8. I received many kudos from the passing voters and the majority happily refused my "NO on 8" info cards as they acknowledged already being won over. Victory seemed possible that morning.
Yet, by the end of the day, I got the impression that the "NO on 8" campaign made a major tactical error and squandered an army of volunteers. When my shift was done, I headed over to my own neighborhood to vote. Five miles south of the tony West Side, my neighborhood is working class and majority black. The precinct is 85% Democratic but socially conservative with a strong church influence. There were many "Yes on 8" signs along the streets and none for "NO on 8".
When I got to my polling place, I’ve never seen the line as long and I was voting mid-day. The atmosphere was quietly festive as the mostly black voters patiently waited eighty minutes in the hot sun. The unspoken agreement by all seemed to be that the day was an historic moment that none of us expected in our lifetime. Then something struck me - Where were the "NO on 8" volunteers? There were none.
As the Exit Polls on Prop 8 have shown, it appears that California’s Whites and Asians have been won over (barely) with 51% voting NO. The Hispanics are nearly there with 47% voting NO. Between these three demographics, 92% of Californians are represented and would have defeated Prop 8 by fractions of a percent. The disheartening two percent margin of defeat came from African Americans voting 70% YES. Blacks make up only 8% of California’s population, but with historically high turnout and an overwhelming approval of Prop 8, this segment was able to dominate the much larger non-black population.
Generally, my neighbors are no more homophobic than the average white Californian. Not as gay-friendly as the West Side, the population is culturally traditional but also has a strong aversion to bigotry. Appeals from the "Yes on Hate" campaign focused on Christian beliefs and "family values" and was very persuasive as the 70% number implies. But also the language of Civil Rights and Justice is equally as powerful. The connection between Gay Marriage and Black Enfranchisement had not been made in my neighborhood. I now imagine that instead of an army of "NO on 8" volunteers canvassing the West Side, had that same army focused on the persuadable South Side (and other AA communities statewide), perhaps the outcome would have been different. The message of Universal Rights would have resonated in the "Hood."
Battles are tactical, as 2008’s Proposition 8 was. A war is always strategic as the Gay Marriage campaign needs to be. Considering that 61% of the 65 and over crowd voted for Prop 8 but only 39% of those under 30 did, time is on our side. A great irony of this election was that the same oppressed population earning the rightful triumph of "one of their own" achieving the highest position possible was also instrumental in defeating another oppressed minority. In the end though, tomorrow is another day and a time for another battle.