Report: Confusing anti-gay TV ads swayed Prop. 8 voters

[n2doc]

Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, August 4, 2010


The 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage in California, would have been defeated if voters in favor of gay rights weren't confused about what they were voting for and if supporters including suburban Bay Area residents and white Democrats weren't swayed by anti-gay TV commercials, according to a new report.

David Fleischer, author of "The Prop. 8 Report," spent two years analyzing 10,000 documents from the Proposition 8 opponents' campaign in the hope of providing a road map for same-sex marriage advocates to reach the altar.

Fleischer, a longtime gay rights advocate, is the founder of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Mentoring Project in Los Angeles, which supports campaigns fighting anti-gay ballot measures nationwide.

The report attempts to debunk the conventional wisdom of some post-Prop. 8 analyses that pinned the measures' victory on huge support among African Americans and Republicans.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/04/BA8N1EOF15.DTL

[katanalori]

1. so true...........

the commercials were beyond disgusting. One of them asserted that graphic, same-sex education would be mandatory in kindergarten.
Low-information voters fell for it. We could have defeated the bigots and homophobes (not a high percentage) - but the low-information voters did us in.

[sui generis]

2. partial truths within partial confusion

I think the common wisdom was that the midleading ads were effective. The second factor was that it was indeed something of a party line vote.

The third observation (not factor) was that a significant number of the African American community supported Prop 8, which was shocking to consider in the light of the civil rights movement and the former bellwether of "interracial" marriage being a states right.

Even here on DU making that observation was inviting accusations of racism and bigotry, ironically.

We have had enough dumb motherfuckers tell us that civil rights based on color are not the same thing as civil rights based on an idea, and MY opinion is that civil rights based on an idea is much more important and more dangerous than civil rights based on characteristics of appearance.

There is no "proof" of gayness that isn't an accusation or an admission, and certainly no way to "disprove" either. Kind of like being a babtist or a buddhist, it's not something we put on our driver's licenses either.