Will Marriage in
2010 Be Any Different? 

In the wake of the passage of Proposition 8, gays, lesbians, and allies have expressed a range of emotions including anger, sadness, enthusiasm, defiance, and determination. When more than a million protesters marched on the U.S. Capitol and City Halls all across America on November 15, it became clear that a new generation of activists is clamoring for progress.

Since Election Day, many of the "us'es," as Harvey Milk would say, have been searching for clarity on why we suffered a close loss at the ballot box on Prop. 8. These discussions walk a fine line. With emotions high, suggestions, criticism, and questions somehow seem out of bounds. Meanwhile, the "us'es" continue to wait for insight from those who are perhaps most able to offer it: the executive committee of Equality for All.

Geoff Kors, the leader of Equality California, has vowed to put a repeal of Prop. 8 on the ballot in 2010. Presumably, our community will once again be called on to fund such an effort. With the ever-increasing cost of running such campaigns, we could be collectively tasked to give and raise $35 million or more for the next campaign.

Accordingly, Mr. Kors, the executive committee, and others with a seat at the table owe us full disclosure of the decision-making process that was employed throughout the 2008 campaign as well as the perspectives and lessons they have gleaned as a result. It's not about playing a blame game. It's about taking stock of what was learned and understanding how 2010 will be different.

I've been in activist meetings in both New York and Washington this month. The dynamics are amazing, and I've realized our movement is very quickly becoming a "bottom-up" movement, one where accountability will be demanded at the most grassroots level.

Thousands of activists are meeting around the country each month to plan activities to advance full civil equality for LGBT people. They have no interest in being told what to do. They believe this movement and our fight should be waged in the streets, on the Internet, on the phones, in our neighborhoods, on college campuses, at our workplaces, and anywhere else we can tell people our stories and demand that the law treat us the same as anyone else.

The last place they think our fight should be waged is in the backroom, because such a fight lacks accountability. While that may sound like an insinuation that No on 8 leaders acted in bad faith, it isn't. The backroom has limited space at the table, and that goes against the nature of this new generation of activists.

So far, the transition of President-elect Barack Obama has been far more transparent than our own movement. Visit Change.gov to see some of the innovative ways Obama is offering online access to members of his transition team, cabinet designates, and senior staff appointees. Obama's administration is also giving unprecedented access to policy documents from meetings dealing with the transition, among other things.

The executive committee of Equality for All should take a cue from our president-elect, for both their own good and that of the movement. Openness is a good thing. Feedback and discussion breed better and stronger ideas and strategy. When we remember to listen, we often surprise ourselves at what we learn. When I suffer a stinging personal loss, I'll ask for advice from just about anyone who's talking.

Instead, there has been mostly silence from the executive committee. What little discussion has taken place has been limited in scope and has offered very little insight. Wanting to know what mistakes were made and what lessons were learned isn't about assigning blame and pointing fingers. It's about collectively finding a path to winning the war.

It's also in Equality for All's own best interest -- as well as the movement's -- to do a full accounting of winning and losing strategies for the sake of our donor base. In addition to the countless low-level donors, there were many who gave till it hurt. Then there are the really major donors. Would Bruce Bastian really pony up another million bucks for a 2010 repeal initiative?

What about the David Geffens of the gay world? Geffen has a capacity like few others to fund a ballot campaign. Presumably he was asked to do so. Yet he gave modestly for someone of his wealth. Why? He was reportedly very disappointed over the loss in the 1998 Hawaii amendment campaign, in which he invested heavily. This may have played a role in his limited support for the Prop. 8 campaign. Geffen gradually increased his giving in the final days of the campaign. That may indicate he had a belief that it could be defeated, setting him up for another major disappointment. Unless there is a game changer, I wouldn't expect Geffen to lead the way on major giving for another campaign. Can we afford this?

I wonder how many others there are like him. We need a game changer. The executive committee members of Equality for All and our national organizations rolling up their sleeves, putting it all out on the table, opening up our movement, and working side by side with grassroots organizers may be just what we need. Together, we make each other better -- and that is how we will win the war.