Thoughts?

[cboy4]

Gay-rights coalition urges measured pace on same-sex marriage amendment

Organizations say pushing for a California ballot measure in 2010 would be 'rushed and risky.' Some also fear the effort may divert critical funding from social-service programs.

By Jessica Garrison
July 14, 2009

Despite insisting just a few months ago that they wanted to go back to the ballot in 2010 to try to amend the state Constitution to allow same-sex marriage, many of the state's gay-rights groups now say that is too soon.

They worry about raising the millions of dollars needed to run a campaign and suggest that the job of changing enough voters' minds on same-sex marriage might take longer than 12 months.

"Going back to the ballot . . . in 2010 would be rushed and risky," read a joint statement issued Monday by three gay-rights groups and signed by more than two dozen other groups and individuals. "We should proceed with a costly, demanding, and high-stakes electoral campaign of this sort only when we are confident we can win."

Jim Key, spokesman for the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center, also worried that a 2010 political campaign might tap the same donors that service organizations rely on to fund HIV care, services for homeless youths and other programs at a time when, because of the economy, those programs are needed the most.

Other gay leaders vociferously disagreed.

"There is a majority of the community . . . that favors going forward in 2010," said John Henning, executive director of the pro-same-sex-marriage group Love Honor Cherish. "The fact that some favor waiting should mean only one thing: They can wait, if they need to wait, but we are going to go ahead."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-14-2009jul14,0,2739723.story


My mantra continues to echo Martin Luther King Jr: "A right delayed is a right denied" ... however I'm open to strategists on our side -- who are smarter than myself -- to lead the way and make the right call for all of us.

I just want to make sure we're properly organized and prepared (as in a new and improved strategy) if we go ahead and try next year.

[mitchtv]

1. I say go for it

keep the issue raw and festering. If we don't win start some trouble and do it again. That parental notification was up three times in a row.

[Starry Messenger]

2. 2010

The momentum is there. I'm afraid if people wait until 2012 then the energy will be less palpable. Plus, that will be the Presidential election year which will siphon off money and attention. Equality California is in the process of interviewing people as campaign workers this week. That sounds promising.

[AntiFascist]

3. Agreed, also this works both ways...

some of the right-wing Christian groups that funded Yes on 8 are hurting financially in the wake of the campaign. Waiting until 2012 would also give them a chance to recoup.

[Ohio Joe]

4. I do not agree with waiting

There will always be other programs that need money (and can certainly be worthy causes) so using that as a reason makes no sense to me. The way I see it, pressure has to be kept on the issue or peoples attention wanders away.

[Toasterlad]

5. The Momentum Is on Our Side NOW.

We don't need more time, we need better leadership out there.

[dsc]

6. Turn out is highly positively correlated with age while support of gay rights is highly negatively

correlated with age. Thus the lower the turnout in an election the worse it is like to be for us. This might be mitigated somewhat by a lower turnout among blacks and hispanics but I doubt that it would totally cancel out that effect. Thus I think 2012 is the better election.

[bluedawg12]

7. Party unity means supporting the most and least popular issues.

We put a man in the white house and took Congress.

With party unity and discipline we could do it on the less "popular" but morally correct issues.

If we keep picking and chosing "cafetria style" which Democratic party platform we will all support, then clearly, some will always be left behind.