Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but now others are joining Queerty in holding gay rights activists to the fire and insisting on transparency — something we thought many gay folks would have a stake in! Sure, we’re the media, so all we ever want is a story! And pageviews! And ad dollars! And in order to get that, we rely on some level of openness and democratic processes. Ahh, we’re the devil! But this whole issue of gay rights organizers hiding their top secret polling information from the enemy has the unwanted effect of withholding that same powerful data from other activists and allies.
As Queerty reported before, there was limited media access to Sunday’s meeting in Fresno, where organizers attempted to plan next steps, but then went offline when the data was shared. “Reporters were ordered to leave last Sunday’s equality leadership summit in Fresno during a discussion of recent polling data after meeting organizers, and groups that paid for the poll, expressed fears that the ‘sensitive’ information would provide ammunition to opponents of same-sex marriage,” reports the Bay Area Reporter.
Among those looking to protect the sensitive data: Courage Campaign head Rick Jacobs, who says making the poll data public “gives $86,000 worth of information to the opposition.” (It would also give $86,000 worth of information to the gays.) Jacobs, meanwhile, distancing himself from Sunday’s meeting, saying he didn’t organize it. (So … it was just Meet In The Middle founder Robin McGhee and Cleve Jones, then.)
But despite their best efforts to shield the data from the Poll 4 Equality effort, the results were already “leaked” to some media outlets. So what are some of the new secrets we’re hearing about? BAR:
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
• The poll also shows the marriage equality side doing better in 2012 than in 2010. On a series of similar questions, the poll results show more support for reinstating the right of same-sex couples to marry (46 percent yes, 49 percent no in 2012, compared to 45 percent to 51 percent in 2010), or a constitutional amendment to end California’s ban on same-sex marriage (47 percent yes, 47 percent no in 2012, compared to 47 percent yes, 48 percent no in 2010). [… Poll chief David Binder] gave a slight advantage to 2012, but noted that advantage wasn’t so great, about 1 or 2 percentage points. The reason, he said, is mostly because of the net effect of voters in a presidential election year.”
[Ed: This still doesn’t explain why a ballot initiative cannot be placed on both the 2010 and 2012 ballots, a question we keep getting from Queerty readers, but don’t yet have an answer for.]
• Another important finding from the poll is that when a religious exemption is included in the ballot language, support for same-sex marriage increases. Such language means that the initiative would not mandate or require clergy of any church or religious institution to perform a service or duty that goes against their faith. When that question was asked, the results were 52 percent in support for same-sex marriage, compared to 39 percent against, according to the poll. The religious exemption was a key part of then-Assemblyman Mark Leno’s (D-San Francisco) two successful legislative efforts to secure marriage equality. Both of his bills – in 2005 and 2007 – included the phrase “religious freedom” in the title of the bill.
[Ed: Great, so add a religious exemption. It’s no secret those clauses help set right-leaning minds at ease. Let the National Organization for Marriage twist that one.]
• The Binder-Simon poll includes a series of questions that seem to be based on what the Yes on 8 campaign used in its messaging during last year’s election. Those questions and respondents’ answers seem to demonstrate the toughness of any future ballot fight and signal that California may not be as gay friendly as many people believe, particularly when it comes to same-sex marriage. The questions cover the usual arguments used by same-sex marriage opponents, including the “need to protect traditional marriage as a union between a husband and a wife, in order to have the best moral environment for our families and children” (52 percent of respondents believe that statement is “very” or “somewhat” persuasive, compared to 46 percent who find it “not too” or “not at all” persuasive).
[Ed: Anti-gay marriage proponents already know this stuff. That’s why they latch on to the whole “family” and “children” tactic. And it’s why we need more public examples like The Leffews from the gay side.]
And in case there’s still confusion about media access — which was to have been orchestrated by Chaz Lowe — let’s have BAR‘s Cynthia Laird lay things out for you:
The equality leadership summit had conflicting access rules for the media. Initially, an agenda was sent out by Yes on Equality’s Chaz Lowe stating that the summit would be closed to the press. After questions about that policy from the B.A.R. and other reporters last Friday, Lowe revised the policy and said that LGBT press would be invited, but not mainstream reporters. That prompted a complaint from the Associated Press.
The policy was subsequently changed to state that the summit would be open to the press, but would be off the record.
At Sunday’s summit, facilitator Vincent Jones from Liberty Hill Foundation reiterated that condition, but was quickly shot down by bloggers and others who were in the room, as a decision had already been made to webcast the meeting.
“Today, we’re talking to ourselves,” Jones said at the beginning of the summit when he said it would be off the record before reversing himself and stating that paid media would be asked to leave during the discussion of the Binder-Simon poll. Bloggers were allowed to remain in the room but were asked to turn off their computers. Likewise, those tweeting from the summit were asked to turn off their cell phones.
The B.A.R. and a reporter from the Associated Press protested the decision that forced them to leave the room.
(Photo: Mike Tidmus)
Tarcash
It just seems to me that they are afraid. And the sense of fear does little to help the cause. This is our lives, this is our data, this is our fight, so why to they get to keep secrets?
Can we fire these people?
atdleft
Well thanks, Queerty! Who needs enemies when we have friends like you? Will you please keep helping NOM keep Prop H8 on the books in 2010?
I’m so done with this bullshit.
J. Scott Coatsworth
OK, here we go again. The media were in the room, were askd to leave for the polling part, and agreed. The room was not filled with a couple “leaders” but by a wide cross section of the LGBT community. And if the Queerty team had attended, they would have had access to the full range of polling data provided, if they attended as me,mbers of the community and temporarily took off their press caps.
Finally, there was discussion, and a general sense of agreement, that if we went for 2010 and failed, we’d go back again in 2012, and 2014, and 2016. But there was also an acknowledgement of the huge cost of each of these initiatives, and the fear of what a back-to-back loss would do to the cause and community morale.
Queerty, we know you feel sad that you didn’t get to attend the meeting. And yesm ideally news of every meeting would reach everyone in the community. But this meeting was open to all, and was widely circulated.
And ironically, the key idea that came out of the meeting was the need for unity in the LGBT community against our enemies, and that seems to be the thing you’re most eager to upset.
–Scott
rigs
IMO, include religious freedom clauses, and go for 2010.
MTiffany
@Tarcash: “Can we fire these people?”
Yes. Write to the organizations these people work for and tell them that so long as these people remain working at these organizations you will not contribute any money. Get your friends to do the same.
Matt Deco
This is so silly. I mean, if a presidential candidate was shown a support of 45% to 51% against, he (or she) wouldn’t say “oh I’ll wait for the next election…” he would double up his efforts. He wouldn’t hide these polling numbers – he would find ways to fight back. The time for gays to be subversive has ended.
Cam
Hiding these results makes the movement look shady. Tactics like this lost us the vote last time. Hiding these polling numbers are ridiculous. If the numbers are not great for us then let us know and it will spur us to work even harder. What these folks are doing is idiotic.
J. Scott Coatsworth
Did anyone stop to think that maybe it’s not polling numbers being hidden, but what strategy is being formulated based on those numbers?
And do you remember the Yes on 8 folks saying before they released their commercials “here’s how we’re going to beat them”?
Ask ANYONE who actually took the time to go down to Fresno and attend both the rally and the meeting, and they’ll tell you Queerty is fanning the flames of a nonexistent fire.
Unite the Fight
You mentioned in your other story that you couldn’t find Unite the Fight’s follow-up piece. It went up on UTF Tuesday, I posted it in a comment on your ORIGINAL story to all of this but I guess you didn’t see.
So here it is and please read it: Leadership Summit Organizations Going Back to Community to Assess Next Steps on Marriage Equality in CA.
I also want to state that I didn’t organize the summit nor am I part of the Poll 4 Equality. However, as you will see in my piece, Marriage Equality USA had already planned on going to the community with this polling data by presenting it in over 80 town halls across the state.
Unite the Fight
I want to add – most of the time, Unite the Fight is just me, blogging my opinion and reporting the news on marriage equality.
I started the blog as an angry reaction to No on 8 campaign and as a service to the community and grassroots to find out what happened to the bungled campaign and where and when to be to protest and rally.
Since then it has grown in scope, but it’s still JUST ME.
However, I worked really hard in providing the live stream of Meet in the Middle (with some friends I called upon). I wanted those who couldn’t go to watch. I was EXHAUSTED at the end of the day.
But since it was a success because of all the planning, people thought I was a well oiled machine able to spit out live feeds everywhere. I’m not. Again, it’s mainly just me.
I hadn’t thought much about the summit until I posted it on the blog the day before as a reminder. Petrelis mentioned doing a live stream, I figured “I’ll see what I can do” and when I asked the organizers, I got a “yes.” So I went back to the blog and said I was going to be able to live stream.
The only resistance expressed was due to the polling data being seen across the internet by who knows who. However, as already stated, the plan was already in the works to go out to the community across the state to share it – but in person.
The live stream dying was just a sad coincidence. I tried. But you can see what was recorded at <a href=”http://qik.com/unitethefight.
All this conspiracy theory stuff is crap. Many of these people got involved in reaction to No on 8 (yes, noticeable exceptions) and were angry just like the rest of but are still learning how lead. They’re going to make mistakes.
That’s my opinion. But I’m just a blogger.
Jay Matthew
As someone who attended this meeting, queerty is being absolutely idiotic. The number of “corporate higher up’s” at this meeting represented about 2% of the people, and NONE of them even spoke. (Except Geoff Korrs when he was giving the points his table of activists talked about. He got some really bad hisses when he stood up BTW) The thing about this meeting, and what Queerty does not know, having not been to it, is that the room was full of grassroots activists who do all the damn work. There were over 100 leaders of different groups in that meeting, from across California. That data was for those of us who have been busting our asses doing hard work to get this thing passed, not for the average Joe who just sits back and talk crap while drinking an espresso. The group of people i was sitting with, as well as myself, attended the Meet in the Middle rally the day prior and then slept on the floor of a restaurant to attend the meeting. None of us showered, but all of us gave up our time just to attend this event. Not to mention i dont have a place to live right now, i missed jury duty, i failed half of my classes this semester, i have been neglecting my friends, i have been driving around with expired tags on my car, i dont have a job, all because i have been putting everything i have into this movement. (Some of those things have been fixed not that i don’t have two state wide events breathing down my neck) What have you been doing? How many people have you got involved in activism? How many doors have you knocked on? Phone calls? How much money have you raised? What have you done to help your community lately? This was not helping. The polling data presented the other day has a large amount of things in it that most people would not understand, and some people would make decisions that may not be fully informed ones. take for instance the 2010 and 2012 debate. some might say that they would support a 2012 infinitive based on the polling data, but thousands of people on the streets doing canvassing would feel differently based on their experience with the people. The religious clause in the constitution would leave the doors open for all types of religious bigotry to begin again. The clause about schools leave the doors open to the firing of teachers who do in fact teach equality in their classes. The time to be tactical is now. Think before you speak, and don’t do stuff that makes the jobs of the people doing all the work harder Queerty. we have an opposition, and you might want to remember that.
P.S.
we have an army of over 40,000 people who are trained in canvassing and phone banking skills, and they are just waiting the gates to open.
p.p.s
It sucked waking up to a flood of emails talking about this article, I’m not even fully awake and im responding to another person in the community who thinks he knows whats “really” going on.
Loch Powell
There is a thing we like to call “fact checking”, whether you call yourself a journalist or a blogger, I suggest you practice that. It is imperative to your readers and to our movement that you find out the truth before you inject an opinion. You could very easily create the demise of the efforts of so many to gain equal rights. And this time, fingers can point at you for another failed campaign.
Unimpressed
This story of media access being partially restricted at a mainly volunteer-run event is sad, tired and counterproductive.
Give me a break! There are *always* rules imposed on journalists — embargos on press releases, closed-door hearings in Congress, non-disclosure agreements when previewing sensitive information, etc.
Your attempts to bolster this into some kind of Pentagon Papers standoff are pathetic, and detrimental to the people who are actually doing something productive for LGBT civil rights.
If you don’t like the qualifications imposed on your reporting at an event, it’s fair to voice your concerns with — OH WAIT, YOU DIDN’T EVEN FUCKING *GO* TO THE EVENT. Your incensed outrage isn’t even your own — you have to quote from the reporters WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE. Maybe you were too busy trolling for softcore porn pics to post? You have no excuse: you live in Los Angeles, the event was on a Saturday.
Why, again, wasn’t Queerty there in person to cover the biggest gay rights movement event of the year to date in California?
If Queerty, the Associated Press, BAR, Rex Wockner or anybody else wants to bitch about not having full access to some poll results, they should find somebody willing to pony up $86,000 and commission one themselves. This poll was not conducted by the government, and is not subject to the usual Freedom of Information Act requests one hears about in similar situations.
The way it works for any market research or polling firm is like this: you want a summary of our survey, with a few key numbers? Fine, here’s the press release. You want the entire thing? That’ll be $7,995.00, please. Oh, and we own the copyright, so you are not allowed to republish our findings without permission.
@Tarcash: You want to “fire” these people?
Well, probably 99% of people in the room were VOLUNTEERS, people who care enough about restoring marriage equality in CA that they devote their time, talents and resources to the cause. But maybe you meant the groups that paid to commission the research? OK, let’s throw the bums out! What are we left with then? Neophyte activists with good intentions, but no organizing experience.
Loch Powell
@Cam: It is not being shady at all, it is making sure we are responsible with the information that we have so that we dont arm the opposition with information that will help them to support a campaign against our efforts.
Peggy Moore
Is Queerty funded by NOM? Can YOU guys be transparent and release your funding sources?
This jihad you are on is idiotic and counter-productive. You are completely wedded in the past and are so unimaginative that you cannot see that something different is happening, a new movement is forming, and a new coalition is beginning to coalesce in order to lead.
Let’s get this straight: over 30 organizations, big and small, got together and did a poll together. That is huge in and of itself. It shows that people are willing to put egos and organizational agendas aside and work together. THANK YOU.
This coalition is incredibly diverse. Gay and straight and bi and trans. Established and grassroots. Labor and faith. Multiracial. This is huge and necessary. THANK YOU.
And then this coalition decides to launch a major community engagement process to share as much from the poll as is responsible with everyone. That is, frankly, unprecedented in politics. THANK YOU.
With all of this happening, Queerty and others should dancing in the streets over how far we have come as a political movement since last November. Instead, you folks are determined to write the same story you wrote right after the election, despite evidence that the facts are different, the story has changed, and we are changed.
Peggy Moore
Just to be clear, I am not the Peggy Moore from Oakland, who is a prominent leader up there. I Peggy from Santa Monica.
wondermann
Wait…Queerty didn’t go to the event, but is claiming that there’s some conspiracy going on?
But you wasn’t there!
This is ridic
valley1012
I think this blog is proof positive that utter stupidity is not the exclusive province of the far rights. And that is all I have to say about that
Chaz Lowe
Hello Queerty,
My name is Chaz Lowe and I was one of the organizers for Sunday’s event. I, like many others, have concerns when you post information without checking the sources first. I will attempt to clarify.
First, as an organizer for the event, I was caught in the middle between a plethora of community leaders who said they would not come if the press was invited to the strategy session and the press which believed they were entitled to attend. Initially, the plan was to allow only the LGBT press to attend, but after a nice chat with Lisa from the AP, we decided to open the meeting to all the media. However, on Sunday, Vincent Jones, who was the moderator, was faced with a walkout of community leaders who were upset that the press would post poll data that would be damaging if found by the otherside. A democratic vote was then conducted, and the ROOM voted to close the poll session. NOTE: over 300 organizers from across California were there and an overwhelming majority wanted a closed poll session. It was not one person’s decision.
I must also vent my frustration when bloggers, such as Queerty, post damaging information that will aid the Yes on 8 side. We ARE NOT hiding the poll information from our community, in fact, we have planned 80 community meetings across California to share this info with the LGBT community. We also had a press call yesterday about the poll. However, creating posts, such as ‘All the Things Homophobes can Learn..’ is inappropriate and genuinely hurts the movement.
I also believe the badgering of community leaders who have sacrificed their life for this movement is uncalled for. I myself have gone over 6 months without pay, working 7 days a week and have gotten so low on money that I am literally down to one meal a day. The bullying and egos within our own community needs to stop.
I would also hope that if you take issue with myself or another organizer, you would have the decency to come and talk with us first rather than post information that may or may not be true.
Sincerely,
Chaz Lowe
Yes on Equality
atdleft
I tried really hard to defend this site when you were going overboard in bashing President Obama (and this is from someone who ultimately backed Hillary Clinton during the primaries). I didn’t think too much when you were criticizing other organizations, even though I wondered how you were exactly qualified to do so. But now, this is the last straw. To publicly slander a wonderful group of grassroots organizers that put together the best demonstration for our civil rights since Stonewall is downright despicable and disgusting!
What the hell did Robin McGehee or Jay Matthew or any of the rest of us who participated in the Meet in the Middle do to you? It’s one thing to go after mistakes that “Gay, Inc.” made in last year’s election, but it’s something entirely different to bash good people who were simply out to do good. Robin went into debt to help make this happen. Jay nearly gave up his life. All the rest of us who made the trip spent hundreds or thousands of our own dollars, money that much of us can’t afford, to make sure it happened. We all emptied our hearts, our souls, and yes, our wallets, to make Meet in the Middle happen.
And what the hell did Queerty do? Did you even step away from the beefcake soft porn at wherever you’re at in WeHo for one second? Did you promote Meet in the Middle even once? Did you even bother to send a blogger to Fresno to cover any of the event.
NO! Instead, you’re just bitching and moaning and whining and complaining over something you had no part of. And now you think you have some right to slander what Robin and Jay and Equality Army and Unite the Fight and Courage Campaign and everyone else worked their asses off to do? Unless you intend to do something productive soon in actually covering the movement and lending a helping hand, I recommend Queerty chill the fuck out and stop stirring up shit over nothing.
And until you cease and desist with the lies and the bad attitude, I won’t be coming back to this blog. And more so, I’ll be recommending to all my family and friends that they stay away as well. All of us who really are in the grassroots have spent too much time actually making calls and knocking on doors and donating whatever money we have to sit down quietly and be mocked by a bunch of petty divas who have nothing better to do than sit around and complain.
J. Scott Coatsworth
Chas: Thanks for the great post. A number of us whe were there have been posting the facts in the comments section for days, but this is the 3rd article Queerty has run that sounds like they have an axe to grind – so much the opposite of the feeling at the summit. My partner and I appreciate your clarification on the media part of the event.
Jason Chan
So I have been following this all week and as a fan of Queerty am really annoyed.
I think it’s a lot of self congratulation to say all you want is a story and page views.
This whole nonsense is undermining my enjoyment of queerty.
It furthers my thought as a part time activist, that why would anyone get involved in the lgbt movement when all that is done is ripped the intestines out of anyone who tries to do something by other people who have nothing to do but lash out.
Have you bothered to notice that over the last year Robin Tyler always revolts in a planning process and then everyone calls her a heroine? Have you bothered to report that Michael Petrelis is a loony tune with a criminal record for stalking SF Chronicle reporters because they disagreed with him? Have you bothered to report that he worked with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Crazy) to go after funding for AIDS service organizations? No, you hold up this whack job as our version of Woodward & Bernstein. Hello, reality please.
Meet in the Middle was a huge success but all Queerty can do is bash away at the closed door tactics of this supposed secret meeting its attendees were twittering and facebooking about and from. Give it a damned rest!
While I don’t personally agree that we all need to go to Washington, DC, I appreciate the bringing together of lgbt organizations by Rick Jacobs are trying to do to demand action on our civil rights. This is a stark departure from the mealy mouthed approaches of past leadership that led us to lose Prop 8. We should celebrate this more as progress with some bumps in the road rather than attacking even if that doesn’t increase your pageviews.
GoFish
Queerty – I give up.
You plan the next meeting.
You run the next campaign.
You drop $86gs for vital polling data.
You support all the field teams.
That sounds like the best plan I’ve heard so far.
detroitmak
Why not 2010 and 2012… there is only so much money to go around… these campaigns are costly and if we loose in 2010 we will need even more money in 2012 to try to secure a victory.
goony tunes
Isn’t California about to go into the toilet? You know, bankrupt…but I forget..let’s talk about the real issues :/
daftpunkydavid
who at queerty as an ego so big that they can’t see they’re doing more harm than good with this brouhaha?? whoever you may be: next time, please use your two neurons and publicize info when you know it’s worth it. otherwise, you’re just behaving like a spoiled brat. a stupid one at that. ‘cos who’ll be the first to complain when this thing blows in our face: that’s right, the moronic bloggers at queerty. please stick to what you do best; i think we all agree that your eye candy is at least enjoyable, and does not require you to process anything intellectual or reasoned, which you seem to lack the ability to do. sorry to be so “mean”, be you guys really need to think things through before acting like you did.
Progressive America
Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? Queerty is quickly losing credibility if you had any to lose in the first place. The organizations you attack have been more transparent than any in previous years or campaigns. Specifically Courage takes pains in involving the entire community. Others made mistakes in 2008. The groups we have now are taking great care that we don’t repeat those same mistakes. Something Queerty can learn from because sister… you’re making a big mistake.
getreal
Thank you Jay, Loch, Chazz,adleft, and others. This coverage of an open event of hundreds of grassroots activists as some kind of Machiavellian take over of the equality movement in California would be funny if it weren’t so hurtful. As an activist who also showed up to the leadership without showering because I had been up all night working on an upcoming event after a long hard walk for Meet in The Middle and cooking in the sun all day this angers me. I am getting really sick of Johnny come lately who are sitting on bar stools while some of us are actually doing criticizing but to actually begin to make stuff up? I just don’t understand it. Is Equality California behind this? They bungled the last election and I’m starting to see a pattern that the two major events in our state where grass roots organizers and other organizations are taking a lead are getting scathing untrue coverage. My question is if Queerty is the pre-eminent gay political blog why did they not get someone to cover these events instead of simply making up what happened at them. I smell Equality California. Are they sponsoring Queerty or something? Someone is because someone at Queerty wants to criticize anyone new who steps up to the plate.
dgz
can someone recommend a different blog for me with less bias?
galefan2004
So, just to get this correct, the top secret polling data is 1) COMMON SENSE (I mean come on we already knew that the biggest problem with gay marriage in most peoples minds was the way it interfered with religion) and 2) futuristic? I mean, I would love to see these polling questions (are you more likely to support this in 2010 or 2012?). Honestly, it seems like $86,000 pointlessly wasted dollars to me. The only poll that matters at all is the one that goes on the ballot. Every other poll is completely pointless. Paying $86,000 for one that shows that gay marriage has a better chance if you provide religious protection and believe that people are more likely to do something at one futuristic date compared to another futuristic date is insane.
Beth Holden-Soto
Yeah, after reading that previous article, and now reading this article. I’m done with Queerty. You’ve lost all credibility, and I no longer care about your opinions.
You bash Grassroots leaders and unpaid volunteers. You couldn’t be doing a greater disservice to the LGBTQI community if you were secretly a NOM supporter.
Goodbye.