California 2010? Dream on.
CommentsMany California gays and lesbians have pledged to do anything necessary to overturn Proposition 8, particularly by putting another initiative on the ballot in 2010. This effort is unlikely to be successful, particularly because 2008 offered many advantages that 2010 will not. These include:
• With a Democratic president elected in 2008, 2010 is likely to be a better-than-average year for the Republicans.
• It is well-known that in California a few percent of the voters vote no on all the initiatives in order to reject any changes. That means the gay community had the advantage of those few points in 2008; it will have the disadvantage of them in 2010. (Hat tip: Dale Carpenter)
• In 2008, Barack Obama was running for president, a candidate who excited liberal voters and helped draw them to the polls, even though his endorsement of “No on 8″ was tepid at best. He will not be on the ballot in 2010.
• In 2008, Attorney Gen. Jerry Brown changed the ballot title in a way that gave the advantage to the “No” side by focusing on how the initiative took away rights. In 2010, Brown may be running for governor, and it is hard to predict what he will do.
There has never been a successful initiative campaign to implement gay marriage, and all but one of the 30-something initiatives on gay marriage have gone against the gay community’s position.
The gay community’s favorite kinds of arguments, about “civil rights” and “discrimination” and “equality” didn’t work in 2008. Will it repeat the same failed strategy? Other strategies, such as those that actually feature gay men and lesbians, may be even more risky.
Sure, all these factors are probably good for 10%, and I don’t think anybody is blind to that, it’s just that support for the ban is collapsing at about 2.25% per year, so if not 2010 then soon.
Mark Writes “it’s just that support for the ban is collapsing at about 2.25% per year, so if not 2010 then soon.”
This seems like rather crude math: Doing the numbers from the original ballot initiative toward the Prop 8 numbers is not exactly a sophisticated approach on public opinion trends.
Fitz: “This seems like rather crude math: Doing the numbers from the original ballot initiative toward the Prop 8 numbers is not exactly a sophisticated approach on public opinion trends.”
Certainly it’s crude math, but I don’t see that anything a lot more sophisticated is required. There’s probably a floor of support for anti-SSM initiatives around 30% (cf. Bush voters) and the decline will undoubtedly decelerate as it approaches that, but we only need 50%.
Your comment takes the floor out from under the SSMers who complain about disenfranchisement and marginalization. It takes the floor out of the California Supreme Court’s basis for constructing a new suspect classification as prelude to enabling the localized merger of SSM with marriage in that state.
CO: “Your comment takes the floor out from under the SSMers who complain about disenfranchisement and marginalization. It takes the floor out of the California Supreme Court’s basis for constructing a new suspect classification as prelude to enabling the localized merger of SSM with marriage in that state.”
I don’t follow.