I understand that younger voters are more likely to turn out for a presidential election than a gubernatorial election, but I'm still deeply ambivalent about Equality California's decision to back a 2012 ballot measure instead of one two years sooner.
For one, we don't know what the political landscape is going to look like in 2012. It's too early for useful speculation about who the Republican presidential candidate will be, and which voter subsets he or she will mobilize. A young, strapping fundamentalist from New York or California (you can imagine various other formulations) could throw everything off. We also might imagine that if Obama is a shoe-in for re-election, it will be harder to get progressive Californians to the polls.
Also, I have a lot of straight friends who didn't join in the No on 8 fight, but were aghast when 8 passed, and I bet would be out on the streets in 2010. I'm afraid that by 2012, straight allies will be occupied by other issues.
The argument that resonates most with me is the idea that donors to groups like Equality California will be more likely to give in 2012, because they will feel more certain about the chances for victory. But I disagree with the other reasons, specifically the idea that it's going to take four years to win over the hearts and minds of otherwise conservative voters like my parents--both of whom have changed their minds on the issue in the past year.
Indeed, whether it's on the ballot in 2010 or 2012, I think that a key publicity strategy will be getting conservative, and conservative Christian, supporters of marriage equality to speak up in their neighborhoods and churches. I don't think we hit that population hard enough in 2008, and they have the potential to be very influential.
For one, we don't know what the political landscape is going to look like in 2012. It's too early for useful speculation about who the Republican presidential candidate will be, and which voter subsets he or she will mobilize. A young, strapping fundamentalist from New York or California (you can imagine various other formulations) could throw everything off. We also might imagine that if Obama is a shoe-in for re-election, it will be harder to get progressive Californians to the polls.
Also, I have a lot of straight friends who didn't join in the No on 8 fight, but were aghast when 8 passed, and I bet would be out on the streets in 2010. I'm afraid that by 2012, straight allies will be occupied by other issues.
The argument that resonates most with me is the idea that donors to groups like Equality California will be more likely to give in 2012, because they will feel more certain about the chances for victory. But I disagree with the other reasons, specifically the idea that it's going to take four years to win over the hearts and minds of otherwise conservative voters like my parents--both of whom have changed their minds on the issue in the past year.
Indeed, whether it's on the ballot in 2010 or 2012, I think that a key publicity strategy will be getting conservative, and conservative Christian, supporters of marriage equality to speak up in their neighborhoods and churches. I don't think we hit that population hard enough in 2008, and they have the potential to be very influential.
RSS Feed