(Weekly Column)

In last week’s column, I pointed out that the GLBT movement might be the first where a majority gets to vote on the rights of a minority. If the basic freedoms of women, immigrants and African Americans were subject to the whims of voters, there is no doubt that this nation would be decades behind. Yet, we continue to blindly accept that these degrading and un-American referendums are tolerable, when they are not.

Ironically, ballot initiatives were once helpful in gaining visibility. The 1977 anti-gay vote in Miami, led by beauty queen Anita Bryant, put our issues on the national radar. Even though we lost, we were given a rare forum to introduce ourselves to the American people.

In 1978, California voters defeated the Briggs Initiative, which would have banned gay schoolteachers, showing that victory was attainable. But whether it is a loss in Miami and a win in California in 1977-78, or a defeat in Maine and the victory on domestic partnerships in Washington State last week, success or failure is beside the point. All Americans are losers by virtue of participating in a disgraceful process that is an affront to human dignity.

Unfortunately, we have never had the luxury to stop, take a deep breath and consider if these grotesque referendums are the best use of our time and limited resources. With a record of 0-31 in marriage initiatives, now may be a good opportunity to review our complicity in a process that doles out or strips away basic rights by majority vote.

We must first recognize that a virtual campaign-industrial-complex has been built and financed around these fights. There is an army of field staff, media consultants, signature gatherers, advertising experts and fundraisers who work (and in some cases thrive) on these ballot initiatives.

In California, both sides spent as much as $73 million. Even in the small media market of Maine, both sides spent a combined nine million dollars for campaign staff and advertisements. The financial burden for these wars repeatedly falls on the same besieged philanthropists and everyday people who care enough to open their wallets. The four key questions we must ask ourselves before we continue down this road:

1)    Are referendums the best use of our human resources?

2)    Are they the best use of our finite capital?

3)    Are these votes legitimizing the un-American concept of mob rule?

4)    Are these quixotic and narrowly focused battles the best way to educate and create lasting progress?

Perhaps, these campaigns are unavoidable and we must soldier on and slog through the muddy terrain of lies and fear-based thirty-second ads. I won’t pretend to know the answer, but there is no doubt that our traditional tactics must be looked at with fresh eyes and vigorously debated.

There has been much disagreement as to whether our ads in these campaigns are too “soft”. I think this misses the larger point that campaigns are not conducive to education. “Vote No on Prop 8” may be a good campaign slogan, but it is hardly a compelling message for changing hearts and minds.

Campaigns by their very nature go for the short term fix, when we may be in need of more enduring strategies. Repeatedly investing in such hand-to-hand combat has potentially precluded deeper discussion with the American people, so they fully understand how our families are harmed, the damage caused by discrimination and the inequality we face, from taxation to immigration law.

It is also clear that our opponents are trying to bleed us to death financially. We can never outspend the combined forces of the Mormon, Catholic and Evangelical churches, which can afford referendums in every burg in the nation. To put the monetary imbalance in perspective, the annual budget for the largest GLBT organization is only $30 million. Meanwhile, in 2007 the Archdiocese of Los Angeles paid a $660 million settlement to 508 victims of sexual abuse by clergy.

Instead of investing millions on referendums, what if we used the money to send our field experts into communities to educate, without asking people to take sides on a divisive measure? What if we built powerful outreach programs geared towards minority communities? How about training talk radio hosts and buying airtime in small, conservative media markets like Lewiston, Maine or Bakersfield, California?

By turning away from such votes, we strengthen our position by increasing our moral authority. At the very least, it forces our foes out of campaign mode and into an ongoing, intelligent discussion, where it is more difficult to twist the truth and manipulate emotions.

Winning in California and Maine would have been exhilarating. But, would you have felt less dirty and exploited by the referendum process in victory?

I didn’t think so.

Instead of validating marriage for same-sex couples, Maine voters cruelly voted 52.75 percent to 47.25 percent (87 percent of precincts reporting) to strip away this most basic right and leave gay families and their children legally unprotected and vulnerable. According to journalist Rex Wockner, “it was the 31st time that same-sex marriage has lost at the ballot box in a U.S. state. It has never won.”

As I watched the World Series this week, I could not help but think: If a player were 0-31 at bat, he would be demoted to the minor leagues. Yet, the major league players in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender movement can’t seem to change strategies or try new approaches. We are a creative people who produced the likes of Michelangelo, Tennessee Williams, Oscar Wilde and Perez Hilton. Yet, in our collective wisdom, we are unable to switch gears and admit that our tactics are not working

I want to make it clear that I am not blaming the campaign in Maine. They did a fantastic job in all aspects of this fight. NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality Campaign Manager Jesse Conolly took us within a stone’s throw of winning marriage at the ballot box in a rural state.

What I have an enormous problem with is that we keep repeating the same fundamental mistakes. Our wisest and wealthiest made their fortunes by testing and perfecting products before they went to market. They would never think of placing an appliance or software in stores before the bugs were worked out.

Yet, we continuously test-drive our messages while actual campaigns are taking place. We repeatedly act shocked that our opponents are soulless charlatans who lie, cheat and use immoral fear tactics to win. Our persistent “surprise” at the “recruit your children” canard and on-the-fly strategy to counter it is a foolproof recipe for a 0-31 record.

It is time we wake up and acknowledge that the GLBT fight for equality is the world’s first “Civil Likes” movement. Each year, a popularity contest is held somewhere on the map and if the locals find us likeable our families are protected. If the natives have a negative view of gay people, we remain second-class citizens.

Given this reality we have to make a major choice.

We can declare the current process a disgusting and humiliating insult to our humanity and opt out of all future referendums. The movement would make the case to the nation why such votes are anathema to American values and in the process educate people about our families and quest for equality. A powerful campaign of continued and sustainable civil disobedience would have to supplement this strategy.

Or, we can continue to participate in degrading referendums. But, if we do so, we have to stop pretending that the majority of the American people understand the U.S. Constitution, much less the notion of equality. Those who vote against GLBT rights simply do not like gay people and their antipathy, often masked by religious bigotry, overrides the idea of equal protection. What our public relations experts will have to figure out ways to make us more likeable and overcome such objections.

This idea of sucking up to voters is as nauseating as it is un-American. Reality, however, necessitates unless we opt out of the process, we have to sober up and admit that we are perennially running for Prom Queen, yet have failed to take home the crown. If we can’t get people to like us, we will continue to lose for the next five to ten years, until demographics finally shift definitively in our favor.

Our donors will save a small fortune in the long run if they pick a few states where we won’t win marriage in the foreseeable future and test likeability campaigns. Additionally, a few cities should be selected to test pilot programs to focus on winning over minority voters.

It is also crucial that we create pilot programs – while no referendum is underway – where we hit back harder at our opponents. The fact is, religious fundamentalism, whether it is Islamic, Catholic, Mormon, Protestant or Jewish does not appear compatible with equality. Can you name one fundamentalist enclave where gay rights exist? Thus, when these groups attack us we should stop coddling them and join with religious moderates to make the fundamentalists pay dearly by driving up their negatives.

Some of my suggestions will work, while some will not. There are other people who have fresh ideas that need to be tried. But, the bottom line is that we need to stop test-driving the car during actual referendums in states that can actually be won. By the time we get on the big stage, we should understand exactly what makes voters like us, be able to refute our opponents recurring lies and know precisely how to dish out as much pain as we receive.

The old adage is practice makes perfect and we must figure out how to hit the damn ball when it doesn’t count, so when we enter the World Series we don’t approach it like it’s training camp.

Critics say paid petitioners in Washington state are bullying and lying to would-be voters outside Wal-Mart stores in order to obtain signatures for a referendum against domestic partnership.

According to The Chronicle of Lewis County, Chehalis resident Michelle Watson and her 8-year-old daughter Allison accused Dan Ricca — a paid signature gatherer — of harassing them on Sunday. Watson wouldn’t sign, and said Ricca refused to relent, pressing her for information and following her in the parking lot.

On Monday, Ricca was seen stopping people outside the store, accompanied with a group of girls who fed three Chihuahua puppies on a table covered in signed and unsigned petitions.

In 2006, according to The Chronicle, Ricca was accused of filing fraudulent voter registration cards in California. The Chronicle also found that Ricca has been accused of multiple election and voter fraud schemes in Oregon and California in past years.

He was among a group of 10 men and two women named in a 2006 release from the California Secretary of State for filing fraudulent voter registration cards in Orange County.

A 5-month investigation linked Ricca and others to illegally filed petitions and the registering and re-registering of voters without their knowledge. A release stated that most of the frauds occurred in front of large retail establishments, specifically Walmart and Target.

A 2006 investigative report by the Orange County Register alleged additional wrongdoing, citing interviews from fellow petition gatherers and associates. There is no evidence Ricca was ever convicted of a crime.

In Bellingham, antigay petitioners are allegedly being paid $1 per signature to lie and claim that domestic partnerships are harming children and promoting homosexuality in schools.

For several weeks, The Stranger and the pro-equality group Know Thy Neighbor have criticized the Secretary of State for allowing false statements on the petitions.

Among the false statements: (Read More)