If you were touched by the campaigns in California, Arizona, Florida, or Arkansas, and if you’ve been experiencing post-election psychological distress — whether it takes the form of anger, sadness, irritability, feelings of betrayal, revenge fantasies, sleep difficulties, or something else — the research suggests you’re not alone. What you’re feeling these days is a natural and normal response to the attacks you endured during the months leading up to November 4, and to the trauma of election night.
What can you do about it? Different people have different coping styles and, as a nonclinician, I don’t have the expertise to offer mental health advice. But I believe it’s important to understand that the research described above not only documents the damage inflicted by antigay ballot campaigns — it also shows that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are remarkably resilient in dealing with those assaults….
Read the full analysis by Prof. Gregory Herek at Beyond Homophobia.
Gay rights leaders hope to build a $1-million war chest to defend any judge threatened with recall for ruling in favor of gay marriage, leaders announced during a conference call with supporters Tuesday night.
Leaders of the failed campaign to oppose Proposition 8, which amended the state Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, also said they would meet in January to plot the course for the movement’s future. Supporters of gay marriage have sued to overturn Proposition 8, and the California Supreme Court will hear the case as early as spring….
Read the full story by Jessica Garrison at the Los Angeles Times.
Amendments that restrict civil marriage rights of same-sex couples — such as Proposition 8 that recently passed in California — have led to higher levels of stress and anxiety among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adults, as well as among their families of origin, according to several new studies to be published by the American Psychological Association.
One quantitative and two qualitative studies on the impact of anti-GLBT legislation appear in a special issue of the Journal of Counseling Psychology, published by APA….
The quantitative study was based on an online survey of 1,552 lesbian, gay and bisexual adults from all 50 states and the District of Columbia examining “minority stress,” or the chronic social stress that minorities experience as a result of social stigmatization. Participants were grouped into those living in the seven states with an amendment on the ballot in November 2006 that did pass; those living in the 18 states with an amendment that passed before 2006; and those in the 23 states (plus D.C.) with no amendment. (Those living in Alabama, where an amendment passed in June 2006, were excluded because of the timing, as were those living in Arizona, where an amendment was defeated.)
The survey results documented increased minority stress, as well as more general psychological distress, among LGB individuals following the passage of a marriage amendment in 2006, compared to LGB people in states without an amendment on the 2006 ballot. The researchers, led by Sharon Scales Rostosky, Ph.D., at the University of Kentucky, found that those participants living in states that passed a measure in 2006 reported increased exposure to negative media messages and negative conversations.
“The results of this study demonstrate that living in a state that has just passed a marriage amendment is associated with higher levels of psychological stress for lesbian, gay and bisexual citizens,” Rostosky said. “And this stress is not due to other pre-existing conditions or factors; it is a direct result of the negative images and messages associated with the ballot campaign and the passage of the amendment.”…
Read the entire press release from the American Psychological Association.
…As the proponents of same-sex marriage rights determine the proper response to Proposition 8, it is illuminating to compare Colorado’s rejection of “gay rights” with California’s repudiation of “gay marriage.”…
Writing for a 6-3 majority in Romer vs. Evans (1996), Justice Anthony M. Kennedy explained that it “is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance.” Laws such as Amendment 2 “raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected,” Kennedy wrote, adding a reference to another 1973 ruling. “If the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare … desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.”
Proposition 8 suffers these same constitutional flaws….
Read the entire essay by Prof. Brian E. Gray atthe Los Angeles Times.
We call on all supporters of equality to sustain and intensify the nationwide campaign of mass protests and nonviolent civil disobedience, for seven weeks, starting on Nov. 27, the 30th anniversary of the assassination of Harvey Milk, and to then gather together en masse, in Washington, D.C., on the morning of Tuesday, Jan. 20, to honor the inauguration of our President Barack Obama.
During the next seven weeks, we shall:
- Strive always to maintain a positive message of hope and change.
- Keep organizational structure to a minimum.
- Encourage participants to express their anger and determination in creative, thought-provoking and peaceful ways.
- Respect the media and law enforcement officers.
- Avoid attacking people’s religions. Hate language is always inappropriate.
- Reach out immediately to racial and ethnic minorities, immigrant communities, labor unions, progressive religious denominations and other organizations working for social change.
- Take your actions to downtown retail centers, transportation hubs and shopping malls for maximum impact during the holiday shopping season.
- Insist upon a commitment from all participants to nonviolence when planning civil disobedience.
- Study the history and traditions of nonviolent action. Angry marches and rhetoric can be cathartic, but do not necessarily help win hearts and minds to our cause. Effective forms of nonviolent civil disobedience often follow the peaceful, dignified and disciplined examples of Gandhi, the Quakers and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
- Remember always, and reflect in all your actions, that we are not fighting against anyone, or anything. We are struggling for equality.
For more information, go to www.sevenweekstoequality.com.
Read the entire essay by Cleve Jones and Dustin Lance Black in the San Francisco Chronicle.
For all the talk of San Francisco values, a Chronicle analysis of how the city voted on the state’s same-sex marriage ban shows a city geographically divided on the issue - and voting trends that turn San Francisco’s typical political spectrum on its head.
One in 4 San Franciscans voted in favor of Proposition 8, far fewer than the 52 percent who voted to ban same-sex marriage statewide. But a closer look shows race, age and education influenced voters more than anything else — even among those living in one of the world’s most gay-friendly cities…
Read the full story by Heather Knight in the San Francisco Chronicle.
…As an African American lesbian who has devoted her life to advocating for the civil rights of all, and especially for the black community, I am angry, and I feel betrayed. Given African Americans’ long and tortured history of fighting against discrimination and exclusion, it never occurred to me that black folks might vote to oppress others in exactly the same way. But that’s just what they did. And with that vote, African Americans have now placed the issue of black homophobia, long an elephant in the room, front and center. Yet, for me, this blacklash is old news….
In the arena of civil rights, the black church has always been a beacon of enlightenment. On Nov. 4, 2008, some black churches became bastions of benightedness. I am convinced that no amount of talking, explaining or pleading — and no amount of money — will ever persuade those African Americans, and others similarly minded who opposed same-sex marriage on religious grounds, to change their views. Reason in the face of religious bigotry is impotent. Although some may disagree, I believe that the No on Prop. 8 campaign could not have done anything more to reach those voters….
That said, I am entirely convinced that same-sex marriage will again be legalized in California, the 52 percent vote notwithstanding….
Read the entire op-ed essay by LaDoris H. Cordell in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Why did it appear that California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, seemed to be going down to defeat and yet was approved by voters?
…Double-digit leads held by the “no” side in the pre-television advertising stages of the campaign declined precipitously as the TV ad campaigns hit in mid-to-late-September. This suggests that the “yes” campaign advertising was having its effect.
This drift in voter preferences away from the “no” side must have continued into and through the final weekend of the election as the churches and various religious groups made their pitches to rally the support of their congregations for a “yes” vote. There is evidence that their efforts succeeded. When comparing the findings from The Field Poll’s final pre-election survey to the Edison Media Research exit poll of voters, the biggest differences related to the turnout and preferences of frequent church-goers and Catholics….
My take is that regular church-goers, and especially Catholics, were more prone than other voters to be influenced by last-minute appeals to conform to orthodox church positions when voting on a progressive social issue like same-sex marriage.
Read the entire op-ed essay by Mark DiCamillo in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Was the passage of Prop. 8 always a foregone conclusion, despite poll results throughout the summer and early fall showing most likely voters opposed it? Or were the major polls correct, and the sentiment of California voters actually shifted in the weeks leading up to Election Day, from opposition to support?
….The existence of a racial Bradley effect — i.e., a pattern in which the polls’ accuracy is affected by significant numbers of racist Whites lying to pollsters and saying they would vote for a Black candidate — has been widely disputed, and wasn’t evident in polling this year.
But was there a gay Bradley effect in California?
Prof. Gregory Herek compares the Prop. 8 outcome with pre-election polls and considers whether they provide evidence that California voters misrepresented their true opinions to pollsters.
Read the full analysis by Prof. Gregory Herek at Beyond Homophobia.
Even as African-American and Latino voters were a powerful force in boosting America’s first black president to victory, in California they also were crucial to passing Proposition 8, a ballot measure labeled, “Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry.”
Exit polls showed that 70 percent of black voters, and a majority of Latino voters, voted yes on Proposition 8, one likely reason why the measure won a slim majority in Los Angeles County, where pre-election polls had suggested it would lose, even though it lost by a huge margin in the Bay Area….
Read the full story by Mike Swift and Sean Webby in the San Jose Mercury News.
A new poll of California voters released by SurveyUSA shows the proposition losing, 50% to 47%, with 3% still undecided. Because the poll’s margin of error due to sampling is 4 points, the race is essentially tied.
Over the past month, SurveyUSA polls show that opposition to Prop. 8 grew by 8 points, while support remained unchanged. Only 42% of likely voters opposed Prop. 8 in an October 6 poll, and 45% opposed it on October 17. The proportions of likely Yes voters in those polls were, respectively, 47% and 48%.
Until the release of the latest results, recent SurveyUSA polls have registered less opposition to Prop. 8 than statewide surveys conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and the Field Poll. However, the 50% figure in today’s release is close to the 49% No vote estimated by a Field Poll earlier this week, and the 52% recorded in last week’s PPIC poll.
The Field and PPIC polls found only 44% of likely voters support Prop. 8, compared to 47% in today’s SurveyUSA poll.
The SurveyUSA report warns that the outcomes for Proposition 8 and Proposition 4 remain highly unpredictable:
“The visibility of the Propositions, and the foregone conclusion that Obama will carry California, creates a dynamic where a number of voters in California are focused only on the Propositions, and their vote in the presidential contest is more of an “oh, by the way.” In such cases, it is best for pollsters to be circumspect, safest to watch and learn.
Partisans should not marshal this data as evidence of anything other than: every vote will be critical; Proposition 4 and Proposition 8 could go either way.”
Read the poll results at Survey USA.
Just in time for Halloween, the latest Field Poll brings some scary news for marriage equality supporters. But the results might also create a well-founded sense of foreboding among those who oppose marriage equality and want to write their views into the California constitution.
The poll indicates the Proposition 8 race has tightened considerably. Support for the constitutional amendment still hasn’t reached the 50% mark, but opposition has dropped to 49%.
Moreover, the 5-point gap between the 44% of likely voters who support Prop. 8 and the 49% who oppose it is now within the poll’s margin of error of +/- 3.3 points. In other words, the true proportion of YES voters in the population could range as high as 47.3% and the true number of NO voters could be as low as 45.7%. About 7% of likely voters are still undecided.
In an extended analysis of the Field Poll, Prof. Gregory Herek reviews the survey’s findings concerning which segments of the California electorate support and oppose Prop. 8, and which arguments for and against the measure hold sway. He also discusses the role of antigay prejudice in making the ballot measure race so close a contest.
Read the full analysis by Prof. Gregory Herek at Beyond Homophobia .
The No On Prop 8 website provides suggestions and tool kits to assist Proposition 8 opponents in communicating their view to local newspapers, newsletters, blogs, friends and family.The website recommends several actions that Prop. 8 opponents can take:
- Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper speaking out against an initiative that is discriminatory, unnecessary and unfair.
- Submit an article to a newsletter or blog.
- Speak out on your personal web page or your social network profile.
- Change your email signature to include a No on 8 statement and a link back to this site.
- Write an email to your entire list at least three times between now and election day, urging your friends and family to vote NO on Prop. 8.
Get links and tool kits from No on Prop 8.
According to a newly released statewide poll by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), Proposition 8 is losing among likely voters, 52 percent to 44 percent.
Read the full report at the PPIC website.
Morris A. Thurston, a professor at Brigham Young University law school, confirms what others have been saying for weeks — that the advertising claims that the measure would affect teaching or schools are “untrue” and “misleading,” and that nothing in Prop. 8 would affect California schools.
The Thurston memo has been posted to www.mormonsformarriage.com, a website sponsored by Mormons who do not support their Church’s active campaign against gay marriage.
Read the entire memo (in PDF format).