This may be an unfounded opinion, but I think a major reason for why Prop 8 was affirmed by a slim majority of the California population is because you don’t have that equal of a distribution of local/municipal LGBT community centers within the state. Most of the county-by-county losses took place within the proximity of the Bay Area and the Central-to-Northern coastline. Within this area, you possess a high conglomeration of LGBT community centers within a similar geographic.
Of course, this hypothesis may not account for why there was a surprising majority of Prop 8 victories in the counties of southernmost California, where you can also see a large number of existing LGBT community centers in the above map. Between the two highest concentrations of LGBT community centers in the state, however, you have a large gap on both maps within the San Joaquin Valley area: all the counties in this area are pro-Prop 8, all the counties are lacking any sort of standing LGBT community center (including the biggest cities of this region, such as Fresno and Bakersfield).
Perhaps the time of reflection for the California marriage equality movement should also direct the attentions of its advocates to this particular area. Engagement of the San Joaquin area should include outreach, the building of local LGBT community centers, and challenging the current preference of the local power structure for marriage – or perhaps basic sexual and gender – inequality.
This process may take years, should probably not be tied to the prospect of a counter-proposition, and it may also require the creation of LGBT community centers which explicitly appeal to the ethnoreligious and ethnolinguistic groups, but it may break up the monopoly that heterosexists possess on the definition of "normality" within these regions by raising the consciousness, profile and prospect for empowerment of the LGBT communities of inland California in the coming decade. It would also help in deregionalizing the California LGBT experience by spreading newer centers of LGBT community initiative away from the coastline (and, consequently, away from the largest and most opulent cities in the state) into the diverse terrain of the interior.
map of consciousness
I think that it is a reasonable conclusion that to see a correlation between voting habits and LGBT head quarters. When do you think they will lobby for it again? 2010 or 2012?
map of consciousness
Re: map of consciousness
November 2010 is a hit or miss, depending on whether or not they will get enough signatures. They already missed the April 2010 deadline (if they manage to get November, then we should root for them and back them with all necessary energies).
But if 2011-2012 is the target date for a counter-referendum in the state, then I think that the extra time in between should be taken to build the necessary momentum for ensuring the victory of such an initiative. That includes building more new LGBT community centers and equality teams *throughout* the state, leaving no stone unturned in the raising of a mass consciousness for a right that should never have been struck down in the first place.
Perhaps the critics were right in saying that the anti-Prop 8 campaign should not have been as “reactive” as it was as soon as Prop 8 was on the ballot. If the community was reactive, it is because it was taken unawares, by surprise, without a solid foundation of stability.
Preparation for the future means that the bedrock of community/local power, that which will continue to keep the issue alive and kicking long after either a victory or defeat, will be in place. The LGBT community, and especially the marriage equality movement, must not be caught by surprise again, and should not be demoralized by another “DOM” referendum.