Just seven months after the gut-wrenching passage of Proposition 8, it's clear to us that some gay and progressive groups in California are no more transparent than was the secretive, defeated No on 8 campaign. And yet, the LGBT community, which complained mightily of the top-down approach used by No on 8, is being asked to back a potential repeal effort in November 2010, just over a year away. From our vantage point, we see little of the community buy-in that will be critical to a winning campaign and more of the same from organizations leading the effort, only this time it's different groups that are in control.
The most glaring example of this is the backstory involving a new poll commissioned by Polling 4 Equality, a broad coalition of some 25 large and small LGBT and allied organizations. The poll, conducted by David Binder of David Binder Research and Amy Simon of Goodwin Simon Victoria Research, was leaked to the press late last week, just ahead of a well-attended equality leadership summit in Fresno the day after the Meet in the Middle rally. We're not sure why, in this Internet age, the polling group was so shocked that the information was leaked, and it certainly demonstrates that someone in that group isn't playing by the rules to which the members had agreed. Let us be perfectly clear: leaking information is not the media's fault; yet that's how the incident was spun.
Summit facilitators decided to exclude media from the discussion of the Binder-Simon poll, after summit organizers originally had said that the media would be allowed to sit in on that session. The media couldn't be present, they said, because we would be intruding on what they called a "family discussion." We had to "honor the opinions that are in there," we were told. Actually, it was not a family discussion that was occurring, it was a leadership summit. How are the 280 leaders and activists who were in the room going to run an effective repeal campaign when they couldn't even have reporters present to hear discussion about a poll that some reporters already had? And how are the thousands of LGBTs and allies who could not attend the sit-down in Fresno going to learn about what's going on and how to get involved in any future campaign if the media can't report on important information?
The poll, which we cover this week, is a sobering dose of reality to all the shouting in the streets that occurred after the election and at Meet in the Middle. It suggests that there is a lot of work to do in any attempt to persuade a small pool of voters to support same-sex marriage.
We put most of the fault for last week's media blackout on facilitators with the Liberty Hill Foundation, who were extremely hostile to the notion of opening up the meeting. They used their leadership position (running the summit) to sway ordinary folks against an open session. We heard from reliable sources that after the polling presentation was completed, attendees were asked if they wanted the media to come back in. Not surprisingly, that proposition received a thumbs down.
Of course, the problem with this whole incident is evident: many of these activists and leaders (but not all) were acting in the same top-down manner as the No on 8 campaign that they had vigorously criticized. We do want to point out one exception, Equality California. Though its leadership was an integral part of the No on 8 campaign, EQCA seems to have learned from its campaign missteps. It was not involved in any effort to lock out the media at the summit. Other groups, however, including Yes on Equality, which helped organize the summit, and the Courage Campaign, which was heavily involved in last weekend's activities, need to let in some sunshine. We hope that happens soon. After all, the community cannot be united if its members don't know how to communicate an effective message. As long as meetings are closed and research is kept secret, those talking points won't get out. It's a losing situation.
We are unsure why there is such an obsession with secrecy. If you care about LGBT issues, you had to be living under a rock last year not to see the damage done by the Yes on 8 campaign. That campaign used many misleading messages that resonated with voters, a conclusion that is validated by the Binder-Simon poll, which asked a series of questions based on that anti-gay messaging. It's vital that we know going into any repeal effort what we are up against. More importantly, we must start crafting a public response. The Yes on 8 Web site now includes a hysterical press release about last week's vote by the Alameda school board that approved a new diversity curriculum, which includes sexual orientation and gender identity. The release says the school board passed it despite pleas from "hundreds" of parents not to do so. Of course, what the release ignores is the fact that while many were opposed to the lessons, hundreds also spoke up at several public meetings in support of tolerance and the new curriculum. It's that kind of message emphasizing tolerance and inclusion that we need to start communicating as part of the education work toward persuadable voters. The anti-gay side will stop at nothing to smear us and to instill fear of the unknown in people who do not know us. We need the discipline to control the message strategy and confront all misleading statements.