When something fails in the lab, we deconstruct the experiment with our colleagues. If someone thinks they have a better idea, we can repeat the experiment under identical conditions. Ideally, we run three groups simultaneously: the new plan, the old plan and no plan (known as the control group). Once the results are in, we know whether to bow to the superior intellect or tell them to step off.
When a political plan fails, we deconstruct the election, but we never really come to an answer. Alternate plans are promoted endlessly because there is no way to prove whether they would have made a difference.
The deconstruction of the 2008 election continued this past month, as Equality California toured the state seeking input on whether to mount an initiative to repeal Proposition 8 in 2010. The San Diego meeting was an experience in déjà vu, proving mostly that the post hoc Proposition 8 analysis hasn’t changed much in the past year. As in 2009, encouraging but confusing polling showed that a majority of Californians might vote for marriage equality – if the initiative had specific but constitutionally unnecessary protections for religious institutions. The alleged causes of failure were also similar: that our community, and not Sen. Feinstein, should have been the face of the No on 8 Campaign.
This is where the frustration sets in. People who believe the campaign should have been more LGBT forward can’t prove they are right, and others can’t prove them wrong. No, the lessons learned in California didn’t lead to victory in Maine, but Maine 2010 may not be relevant to California 2008. Or 2012.
Historical controls that look at similar situations can be used as a surrogate for experimental control groups. For prior civil rights issues, it is true that disadvantaged groups rarely win equality without putting themselves on the front lines. It is similarly true that those rights are rarely achieved at the ballot box anyway. Not terribly helpful to our analysis.
Perhaps the more relevant precedent for our struggles at the ballot box is a broader point, made by Justice Ware in his recent decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Often lost among the Facebook “shares” of his decision supporting Justice Walker’s right to adjudicate the trial was a telling quote:
“… challenging a law on equal protection and due process grounds … does not mean that members of the minority group have a greater interest in equal protection and due process than the rest of society … we all have an equal stake in a case that challenges the constitutionality of a restriction on a fundamental right.” (emphasis mine)
In other words, if you believe that Proposition 8 was wrong, it wasn’t just wrong for same-sex couples. It took something away from all Californians.
We’ve argued that there is a fundamental right to marry the person you love. We’ve argued that LGBT people shouldn’t be second class citizens. We’ve argued that Proposition 8 would tear apart families. While valid and important, these arguments make it sound like Proposition 8 only affects the 3-15 percent of Californians who identify as LGBT. “It is wrong to write discrimination into the Constitution”, was the closest we came to showing how Proposition 8 affected everyone, but we never really made the sale.
Wherever the places, we need to know the voters. Whoever the faces, the message needs to include that all citizens have an equal stake in marriage equality. That message can, and should, be multipronged. Mention the economic benefits. Remind people that America’s strength comes from the “melting pot.” Perhaps most importantly, highlight that sooner or later (or currently in California), we will all be minorities who could be targeted next.
Elections are, inherently, about the electorate. The electorate, with few exceptions, votes its own interests. The time to go back to the ballot box is when a poll confirms that 51 percent of Californians realize that Proposition 8 negatively affects them, and our state. I can’t prove it, but I think it would put history on our side.
Two quick date corrections: “…whether to mount an initiative to repeal Proposition 8 in 2010” should be “…whether to mount an initiative to repeal Proposition 8 in 2012,” and “Maine 2010” should be “Maine 2009” (the Maine Question 1 vote took pace in 2009). Otherwise, nice, thoughtful piece — although I don’t agree that we should go back to the ballot box (if at all) until the majority supporting marriage equality is overwhelming. Polls in the months before the 2008 election showed fairly comfortable majorities on our side, suggesting that Prop H8 would go down to defeat easily — but, obviously, those polls flipped at the last moment. Why? Without going into my own endless analysis of everything the No On 8 did wrong (failing to put our faces out there was just one of many horrible mistakes), the final blow came when Yes On 8 exploited (and outright lied about) a lesbian schoolteacher’s wedding as “proof” that our real “agenda” was to recruit children — and No On 8 did nothing, nothing at all, to counter that vile lie.