Monday, September 29, 2008

Google Takes a Stand

This past Friday, the co-founder and president of Google, Sergey Brin, posted on the official Google blog that the company stood in opposition to California's Proposition 8. While I'd argue that this declaration does not have a great deal of direct political implications, it is interesting on a larger scale, in looking at the role that corporations should play in our political system. As a company that employs workers of all creeds, orientations, and political beliefs, should Google take a stance on such a divisive social issue? Brin acknowledges that it is strange that the company is taking an official position, but like many of those against Proposition 8, the company sees the proposition as an attack upon equality.

While it could be fun to debate the ethics of a corporation taking sides on a political social issue, in my view the larger point of Google's declaration is emphasize the importance of this proposition not just within California, but within the entire United States. Everyone is watching California to see what will happen. California will be a barometer for the future of gay rights within the United States. It's really no wonder that such a forward thinking company would try to have a small bit of influence over a proposition of this magnitude.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

A Family Plea

This past week the first TV commerical from the No on Prop 8 campaign hit the airwaves. The message? A elderly heterosexual couple speaking about how they would like their gay daughter to be able to marry whomever she wants, for they love her as much as they love their other two children. Like the commerical I blogged about put out by the Let California Ring campaign, this commercial seems to be appealing to the heterosexual voter demographic. Unlike the Let California Ring ad however, this commercial is targeted at parents, especially those with grown children, who can empathize with the couple show in the clip. Most parents love their children, and want them to be happy in life. This couple's plea on behalf of their daughter could indeed resonate well with an elderly demographic that tends to be more religious than others, simply by playing on the bonds of family. I think this will prove to be a very effective commerical, though I may not be able to prove that statement beyond the results of November 4th.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Can the Polls Be Trusted?

Of course, right after I said in my previous post that fundraising advantage held by those in favor of Proposition 8, a new Field Poll is released stating that the opponents to Proposition 8 are gaining a larger lead. As of July, 51% of voters planned to vote no, with 42% planning to vote yes. As of yesterday, these numbers have changed to 55% and 38% respectivly. Was my comment in my previous post far too pessimistic?

I do not necessarily think so. Liberal voters are more likely to answer questions posed by pollers. Also, with an issue that can be framed as one of "equality and freedom," voters may or may not answer truthfully to pollers, especially if they feel that they will be judged somehow for their answer. Voters that do not have especially firm beliefs about the issue of same-sex marriage might feel uncomfortable saying that they plan to vote yes on Proposition 8 if they feel that they might have to defend their position. There end up being a few factors that could cause that 17% gap to be a lot smaller in reality.

Maybe I am being too pessimistic. But I would be cautions about celebrating any supposed "lead" when it is about an issue that is accessible to all voters (arguable, most voters can have some idea of what marriage should be), as opposed to a more complicated issue such as the economy or healthcare reform. Many people can draw their own conclusions about the Proposition, based on very little understanding of the issue at hand...and still think that they understand all the factors that are involved. A voter may think about the issue , decide he or she will vote no, but upon entering the voting booth on November 4th the voter may remember a sermon delivered by his or her pastor declaiming the "evils of homosexulaity," and choose to vote yes.

All in all? I like the polling numbers. But I would not jump up and down with glee just yet.

Field Poll: http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2287.pdf

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Bring on the Propaganda!

No discussion of Proposition 8 would be complete without looking at the propaganda being thrown at California residents. But who is the propaganda really targeting? Both sides of the debate are spending their money and resources trying to sway undecided voters towards voting one way or another. More specifically, they are trying to target heterosexual voters, who may or may not have had any contact with people from the LGBT community, and therefore may not have concrete views on the issue.

For example, a friend of mine is an organizer for the Vote No on Prop 8 campaign, and her main job is to run phonebanks on Oxy's campus in an attempt to get students to give voters the "facts" of the proposition in order to convince them to vote no. The majority of the people that she calls do not have a firm stance on the issue of same-sex marriage, and many do not understand what the issue really even is.

Putting any biases of my own aside, I find it very interesting how both sides on the issue have chosen to frame the idea of same-sex marriage to market a specific viewpoint to heterosexual voters. Those in favor of Prop 8 state that it would protect the sanctity marriage, and not allow California to start down that slippery slope that would lead to churches being forced to marry homosexual couples, children being brainwashed and 'taught the gay", and eventually lead to other moral depravities such as marriage between men and animals. The pro-Prop 8 side has chosen fear tactics, though usually garnished with a nice, happy picture of a smiling heterosexual family. Through these tactics, voters somehow think that their marriage might be affected, and therefore plan to vote yes.

On the other side of the coin, those against Prop 8 are playing the equality card, telling voters that Prop 8 would be a crime against the great ideals of freedom and equality that make up the backbone of our country. A tv commercial put out over the summer by Let California Ring shows a heterosexual couple trying to get married, but things keep going wrong to prevent the bride from reaching her husband to be. Through this commercial, Let California Ring is playing upon voter's empathy, making them think about how awful it would be if they themselves could not marry who they loved, and therefore plan to vote no.




So which tactic is more effective? To date, the supporters of Prop 8 have out raised the opponents 3-2. With more money, comes more access to voters, and more chances to sway the out come of the election. Being in a very liberal environment, I have a skewed view of how the two campaigns are functioning - I have never seen a supporting of Prop 8 campaigning around Oxy. However, I would argue that the fear tactics of the supporters of Prop 8 are more effective for a simple reason - people vote on issues that they think affect them. A voter is more likely to vote to protect themselves, than to vote to protect the freedom of others. Heterosexual voters who have no contact with those in the LGBT community do not have an access point to the issue, and therefore may not be as motivated to go to the polls that day, especially since their vote for the Presidential election does not really matter (since California will go blue). On November 4Th we very well might be seeing a large step backwards for the gay rights movement.

Monday, September 15, 2008

Does Feinstein's Anti-endorsement Matter?

On September 12, (this past Friday), Senator Dianne Feinstein of the U.S. Senate released a statement declaring that "as a matter of equality and fairness" she was opposed to Proposition 8. As a representative from California to the U.S. Senate, obviously it is expected that she would make public her opinion on a crucial proposition in her state's upcoming election. But does Feinstein's statement really make a difference towards swaying the votes of undecided California voters? Within the state legislature, California has twice already passed legislation making same-sex marriage legal, with the margin growing larger the second time around. (The fact that Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill both times is somewhat of a moot point for the sake of this particular discussion). This demonstrates that, at least at the state level, that the representatives for California are significantly in favor of gay marriage.

Yet, there was a voter initiative to place a proposition on the ballot this November that would change the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage once again. Clearly there are people with money that do not support same-sex marriage, and thus have the resources to launch a campaign to stop it. So the question is, does Feinstein's anti-endorsement make a difference to voters? Those voters in California that are conservative on this matter most likely already disapprove of the opinions of the Democratic state legislature, and arguably won't listen to an argument made by yet another official in their government they don't know. No matter how important Feinstein is, she's still just another liberal Democrat, who could be expected to speak out in favor of gay marriage. Who is the senator swaying with her impersonal statement? I would argue that the only way to convince voters to vote no on proposition 8 would be to talk to them one on one. Let volunteers put a familiar accessible face on the issue, and not simply let the lofty words of a woman most residents will never meet be the only method of persuasion used.

So what, in the end, is the purpose of Feinstein's anti-endorsement? To make the "Vote No on Prop 8" base feel good about themselves. Equality for All gets to post a front page story on its website about how yet another famous and/or important person is against Proposition 8, and all the volunteers get a warm fuzzy feeling inside as if their long hours canvassing and phonebanking mean something. Good for them - someone give those volunteers a cookie.

Monday, September 8, 2008

So What is Prop 8 Anyways?

Proposition 8 is a proposition that is on the California ballot in November, proposing a change to the state constitution to state that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This most recent development in California politics dealing with gay marriage is preceded by a tumultuous recent history.

Back in 2000, the citizens of California passed another Proposition 22, also known as the Defense of Marriage Act, which stated that only the marriages of heterosexual couples would be recognized in California. This was a result of fears that same-sex couples would marry in other states, then move to California and force the state government to represent their union. It was also a redundant proposition, as a DOMA had already been passed at the federal level in 1996.

Then in Feburary of 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom begain to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This was quickly halted when in August the California Supreme Court invalidated all same sex marriages on the grounds that the Mayor did not have the right to issue those licenses against California law. Multiple lawsuits followed.

In 2005 and again in 2007, the California State Legislature passed a bill that eliminated the heterosexual gender requirments on marriage, however Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the billboth times, stating that it went against Proposition 22. The only way that Proposition 22 could be reversed was if the courts ruled it to be unconstitutional, or the people voted to stike down the proposition.

The end result was the former option, as on May 15, 2008, after reviewing the lawsuits from back in 2004 the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 22 went against the California Consitution, and was therefore struck down as unconstitutional. This allowed same-sex couples to marry under California law, and to recieve the same rights and benefits as any other heterosexual couple.

This leads us back to Proposition 8, and the election on Novemeber 4th, 2008. If passed, Proposition 8 would change the California Constitution to define marriage as only being between a man and a woman. This is different from Proposition 22, as Proposition 22 was part of California Family Code. Proposition 8 would change the California Constitution, thus eliminated the California Supreme Court's argument for striking down Proposition 22.

Will Proposition 8 pass? As it is a very important to those on both sides of the issue, volunteers and funding are being thrown out into the effort to convince voters to vote one way or another. A field poll taken July 18th, 2008, by the Field Research Corporation stated that 42% of voters intending to vote would vote yes on on Proposition 8, whereas 51% said that they would vote no, with 7% undecided. Obviously, the outcome of this election where Proposition 8 is concerned is not yet a given in one direction or the other. Will campaigns like Vote No on Prop 8 and Protectmarriage.com affect the outcome? We shall have to see.