Legal alternatives to prop 8

[Rye]

Looking in parting shots, I'm assuming this guy has been banned now anyway, but even so, I feel I should point out that referring to homosexuality as a behaviour is wrong. You could behave exactly the same as a straight person and still be homosexual. Homosexuality is an internalised orientation, a preference, the actions and behaviours that logically flow from that are not the orientation itself anymore than all celibate priests are asexual.

Oh, and while gays have not been enslaved, they have been persecuted, executed and experimented on. Even national heroes that saved us from the nazis and contributed to modern computing were isolated and experimented on until they committed suicide. This isn't even counting the male prostitutes that frequently end up dead because confused homophobes fuck them and then panic, or the evil manifest in the fundamentalist-controlled areas of the world. There is no sense denying loving, stable couples the right to marry because their genders are the same. It's just stupid.

[Coyote]

So you're suggesting that the right to marry - which really comes down to "the right to file taxes jointly and have the spouse inherit without specifically mentioning it in the will" - is equivalent to the right to vote, to have an education and not be systematically terrorized by organs of the state?

Uhh... the right to hospital visits for the ill and injured, the right to make decisions on behalf of a spouse in the event they are incapacitated by illness or injury, the right to child custody in the events of divorce, spousal death, or incapacitation...

Across the street my two lesbian neighbors have kids-- two children from two previous marriages that one of the women went through before she became a lesbian. If something were to happen to her, her loving, supportive, educated and level-headed partner would not get custody of the kids-- the biological fathers would. One being a basically nice guy but lazy, under-employed and socially disconnected; the other being a meth addict and general scum. If they were able to get married, and have legal standing to challenge child custody and adoption issues, the childrne can be assured a pretty good chance at life if theri biological mom was out of the picture.

But because "family values" and "think of the chidren"-itis states that lesbians and gays are evil, it is obviously far, far better for little children to go live with their cokehead deadbeat dad than stay with someone who's a decent human being.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

It's a shame the governor wasn't this outspoken during the actual damn election.

Schwarzenegger hopes Calif Supreme Court overturns anti-gay amendment
By 365gay Newscenter Staff
11.10.2008 9:40am EST

(San Francisco, California) As gays and lesbians demonstrated against the banning of same-sex marriage in California for a fifth day Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he hoped the California Supreme Court would overturn the measure.

Speaking on CNN Sunday, the governor called passage of the constitutional amendment “unfortunate … but it’s not the end.”

“I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area,” Schwarzenegger said.

The governor spoke out against the amendment during the campaign. In April, at the national convention of the Log Cabin Republicans, the nation’s largest gay Republican group, in San Diego, he said for the first time he opposed the measure, but predicted it would not get voter approval.

The measure succeeded, however, with a slim margin. LGBT rights groups immediately petitioned the California Supreme Court to overturn it on the grounds the measure is invalid, because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone, by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group – lesbian and gay Californians.

The petition also says that Proposition 8 improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities.

Appearing on CNN, Schwarzenegger urged gays not to give up in the fight for marriage equality.

“They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done,” he said.

That is a marked change from his earlier positions on gay marriage. Legislation to legalize same-sex marriage passed the California legislature twice and each time Schwarzenegger vetoed the bills, saying that the courts, or the people through a plebiscite, should decide the issue.

The California Supreme Court ruled in May that it was unconstitutional to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. Opponents immediately began work on Prop 8.

Supporters of same-sex marriage demonstrated Sunday at a number of churches across the state. Evangelical Christians, the Roman Catholic Church and the Mormon Church actively supported passage of Prop 8.

Carrying signs that read “You Cannot Vote Away Civil Rights,” hundreds protested in front of the Saddleback Church, an Orange County mega-church.

In Oakland, demonstrators crowded onto a roadway in front of a Mormon temple, prompting the California Highway Patrol to close off an exit ramp, because they feared some demonstrators could be hit by traffic.

Thousands of others demonstrated against the amendment in front of the state Capitol in Sacramento.

On Saturday, 10,000 supporters of gay marriage took to the streets in Los Angeles. Another 10,000 demonstrated in San Diego.

On Friday, tensions flared at a vigil at Palm Springs City Hall, when a supporter of the gay marriage ban carrying a plastic foam cross clashed with protesters, according to The Desert Sun. The crowd ripped the cross from her hands and stomped on it. Police made no arrests.

About 2,000 people gathered in Long Beach Friday night and there were three arrests. A thousand people also marched Friday in San Francisco.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I still haven't seen any comprehensive lists of which companies supported prop 8 and which supported No on 8, but I've found a few sites that have lists of the companies they claim donated to Yes on 8.

Here is one.

Here is another.

I've also seen some sites mention these companies, but I am not google-experienced enough to know whether these claims are verified.

-Walt Disney Company (Matt Owens of La Canada donated on behalf of Disney)
I find this one hard to believe. Disney has always seemed supportive of gay rights, so I have to wonder if this information is correct.

-El Pollo Loco

-Bank of America

-Merrill Lynch
This one also seems odd to me.

-Cisco Systems

-Intel

-Taco Bell

-Wachovia Securities

-Northrop Grumman

-A-1 Self Storage

-Radio Shack

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I find it hard to believe that Cisco is on that list after they were on full-page newspaper ads opposing Prop 8.

[General Zod]

I find it hard to believe that Cisco is on that list after they were on full-page newspaper ads opposing Prop 8.

If it's like any other political donation, you're required (or at least strongly recommended) to list the company you work for when you donate. So it's possible it was just a donation made by someone who worked for Cisco, and not on behalf of Cisco themselves.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I find it hard to believe that Cisco is on that list after they were on full-page newspaper ads opposing Prop 8.

The list seemed fishy to me, too. That's why I'd like some feedback or a link to a site I can trust to have reliable information.
I just hadn't seen any posts since about page 1 or 2 that had any businesses listed, and those older posts were very tentative about their information, too.

[apocolypse]

I find it hard to believe that Cisco is on that list after they were on full-page newspaper ads opposing Prop 8.

The list seemed fishy to me, too. That's why I'd like some feedback or a link to a site I can trust to have reliable information.
I just hadn't seen any posts since about page 1 or 2 that had any businesses listed, and those older posts were very tentative about their information, too.

I have to echo what Zod said. When I donated to the No campaign, I had to list the name of the company I work for. Since the information is tied to the name, that doesn't mean the company itself is taking a side. For instance, where I work didn't come out publicly for or against, yet you'll see it listed on the "No" side. (maybe Yes too, I never looked)

[FSTargetDrone]

Keith Olbermann is going to have a Special Comment about Prop 8 on Countdown tonight.

[Fleet Admiral JD]

Dammit, FSTargetDrone beat me to it.

Olbermann sounds like he's not so much railing against religion, but more against those who bastardize Christianity.

[Fleet Admiral JD]

Holy shit, Keith. . . that was beautiful. :'(

[FSTargetDrone]

Dammit, FSTargetDrone beat me to it.

Sorry.

Olbermann sounds like he's not so much railing against religion, but more against those who bastardize Christianity.

Well, if he has to appeal to their sense of right and wrong to get them to think about it, to act more Christian and not bigoted, so be it.

Anyway, here it is (video at the link):

Olbermann: Gay marriage is a question of love
Everyone deserves the same chance at permanence and happiness
CAMPAIGN COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
updated 9:13 p.m. ET, Mon., Nov. 10, 2008

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.

You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:
"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love."

[Knife]

I agree.

[Master of Ossus]

I don't understand why there isn't any backlash against Gavin Newsome over things like this. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Newsome cost Gore the tightly-contested election by massively publicizing gay marriage just before a national election, and his "Like it or not" spiel was almost certainly the most effective advertising Prop 8 could have bought. I wanted to punch him when I saw that. So he just cost California gay marriage, in spite of a ground-breaking state Supreme Court decision. And liberals like him?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't understand why there isn't any backlash against Gavin Newsome over things like this. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Newsome cost Gore the tightly-contested election by massively publicizing gay marriage just before a national election, and his "Like it or not" spiel was almost certainly the most effective advertising Prop 8 could have bought. I wanted to punch him when I saw that. So he just cost California gay marriage, in spite of a ground-breaking state Supreme Court decision. And liberals like him?

I have to disagree. He may be... a political blunt instrument. But to put responsibility on him for that, fuck no. Responsibility lies purely in the hands of 2 groups. The people who capitalized on it for the purposes of furthering their bigotry, and the people who were looking for that tiniest of excuses to capriciously strip people of their rights.

No decent person would say "Well I was for gay marriage before because gay people are my equals, but now that you say that I am going to prove you wrong". What happens is "Well, I leaning toward being magnanimous and vote against this, but now that you have shown you dont know your place...." or "Hey! I have an excuse now!"

What he said didnt turn non-bigots into bigots. It gave the bigots something they could cling to in arguments. They would have voted the same way.

[Guardsman Bass]

Or they might not have voted at all. That was the point; Newsome's public behavior (caught on television) basically gave the homophobic assholes pushing Proposition 8 an attack ad to stir up fence-sitters leaning towards the proposition impetus to go and vote, and saying "Well, it's not his fault; they were the ones that did it" doesn't change that.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Or they might not have voted at all. That was the point; Newsome's public behavior (caught on television) basically gave the homophobic assholes pushing Proposition 8 an attack ad to stir up fence-sitters leaning towards the proposition impetus to go and vote, and saying "Well, it's not his fault; they were the ones that did it" doesn't change that.

Well I suppose there is a distinction between causal and moral responsibility. He was certainly a link in the causal chain, but was not morally responsible for it.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Those Prop 8 bastards would have capitalized on ANYTHING to push their attack. If not Newsome, then they'd use video clips of two men and women kissing. For christ sakes, their major attack ads included a little girl talking about a children's book on gay marriage. Even if gay marriage was being taught in schools, there absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. But most people don't think so. The prop 8 proponents were appealing to homophobia and they knew that many people were going to be susceptible to the whole "we must save our children from gay marriage" horseshit. Whether they admit it or not, most people still have a good inkling of homophobia and that's exactly where the Prop 8 ads hit.

[Master of Ossus]

Those Prop 8 bastards would have capitalized on ANYTHING to push their attack. If not Newsome, then they'd use video clips of two men and women kissing. For christ sakes, their major attack ads included a little girl talking about a children's book on gay marriage. Even if gay marriage was being taught in schools, there absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. But most people don't think so. The prop 8 proponents were appealing to homophobia and they knew that many people were going to be susceptible to the whole "we must save our children from gay marriage" horseshit. Whether they admit it or not, most people still have a good inkling of homophobia and that's exactly where the Prop 8 ads hit.

But those things you think they "would have capitalized on" wouldn't have been nearly as effective as Newsome publicly and deliberately taunting people who are against gay marriage with his comments. It's not like there's a shortage of video of gay men and women kissing each other--they could have used that easily--but instead they led their primary attack ad with Newsome and returned to Newsome's "nothing you can do about it" line at the end of their main ad. Clearly, they thought it was their most effective line of attack. And I don't think they were wrong about that. If Prop 8 had passed by 10 or 15 points, then I wouldn't hold Newsome responsible for that. But don't you think that his deliberate provocation anti-gay-rights groups was worth 2 percent in a tight vote?

Mind you, Prop 8 never would have passed without homophobia--you're right in that that was the primary motivation of people who voted for it. But I'm also convinced that Newsome's idiocy was the tipping point that it put it over the edge, since some people (maybe a few percent) just wanted to stick it to him and tell him to shut up.

Edit: It occurs to me that people outside of CA may not realize quite how obnoxioius Newsome seemed. He's just being a jerk, at that point, and that gave Prop 8 supporters the last little push to get it through.

[Dark Hellion]

You can't argue that someone being a dick has anything to do with the actual moral righteousness of the argument, which seems to be the equivocation you are trying to make. Some big name gay man could have stood on a stage and yelled "I am the queer king of the world and I am checking out every man's ass here right now because I can" and that still shouldn't have any bearing on whether they are denied a right or not. So what some asshat said something stupid. Does that make his opposition anything less of inhuman homophobic, bigoted monsters?

Losing a political process is not a moral issue, and the issue here is simple, like Olberman laid out. You choose to be a human and have some love for your fellow men and women, or you push tribalistic bullshit through.

What if MLK had said "Black men are going to be president, like it or not" and then someone passed a law saying a black man couldn't run for president. MLK might have sparked all the white racists to vote, but so fucking what. They are still racists, and the moral outrage is the same.

We can't afford to pretend political expediency is a form of moral justification, because that is the road back to slavery and the death of the nation.

[Darth Wong]

Edit: It occurs to me that people outside of CA may not realize quite how obnoxioius Newsome seemed. He's just being a jerk, at that point, and that gave Prop 8 supporters the last little push to get it through.

Hell, I've never even heard of this Newsome guy. For me, Prop 8 was an issue that was divorced of local politics and existed entirely in the realm of ethical philosophy and government policy. Perhaps at the local level, personality politics played a bigger role; we all know that personality politics have an unhealthily large influence in general. A large part of Bush's election wins in 2000 and 2004 had to be chalked up to personality politics; his opponents both suffered from a distinct lack of personality.

You can't argue that someone being a dick has anything to do with the actual moral righteousness of the argument, which seems to be the equivocation you are trying to make. Some big name gay man could have stood on a stage and yelled "I am the queer king of the world and I am checking out every man's ass here right now because I can" and that still shouldn't have any bearing on whether they are denied a right or not. So what some asshat said something stupid. Does that make his opposition anything less of inhuman homophobic, bigoted monsters?

Of course not, but politics is unfortunately a lot like sports: sometimes you win because you were the better team, sometimes you win because the bounces went your way, sometimes you win because you cheated and the refs didn't notice. It would be nice if people made political decisions based entirely on well-thought-out ethical philosophy, but we all know that won't happen. Just as many of them will make a decision based solely on a TV ad that "really grabbed me".

[Master of Ossus]

You can't argue that someone being a dick has anything to do with the actual moral righteousness of the argument, which seems to be the equivocation you are trying to make. Some big name gay man could have stood on a stage and yelled "I am the queer king of the world and I am checking out every man's ass here right now because I can" and that still shouldn't have any bearing on whether they are denied a right or not. So what some asshat said something stupid. Does that make his opposition anything less of inhuman homophobic, bigoted monsters?

Losing a political process is not a moral issue, and the issue here is simple, like Olberman laid out. You choose to be a human and have some love for your fellow men and women, or you push tribalistic bullshit through.

What if MLK had said "Black men are going to be president, like it or not" and then someone passed a law saying a black man couldn't run for president. MLK might have sparked all the white racists to vote, but so fucking what. They are still racists, and the moral outrage is the same.

We can't afford to pretend political expediency is a form of moral justification, because that is the road back to slavery and the death of the nation.

The point is: openly and deliberately taunting political opponents is a bad political move. Newsome is a politician. He should be held accountable for his moronic political decisions, which in this case very likely cost gays in the state of California the right to get married like everyone else. I don't understand why people are so quick to defend him, and so willing to look beyond his bone-headed choices, especially given that it clearly influenced the vote just enough to turn what would have been a resounding victory into a gigantic setback.

[Dark Hellion]

I understand the nature of politics, but when deciding upon the basic rights of group we should hold the electorate to a higher standard, even if only amongst each other on this board. Sure, who ever that asshole politician is might have cost them the issue (I am a straight man from IL it's not like I know/care about most of Cali politics) but the fact that this was an issue to be cost at all makes all the shit a moot point. Some ass costing someone an election that shouldn't have to happen in the first place is pointless to talk about. You don't say bad food ruined a picnic if it rained all day. The bad food may have ruined the picnic if you could have had it, but the rain obviously wrecked it first, the bad food is just another bit of shit on top of it.

Newsome may have incited some people to vote the way they did, but the fact that some asshole saying "there's nothing you can do about it" denied someone there fundamental rights is a far bigger problem, and his blame is so minuscule next to groups like the Mormon church and all those companies that donated.

[RedImperator]

Are there any numbers to indicate Newsome's actions had any effect on the election in either direction? Exit polls, maybe, or a jump in support for Prop 8 after his remarks were publicized?

On the other hand...

You don't say bad food ruined a picnic if it rained all day. The bad food may have ruined the picnic if you could have had it, but the rain obviously wrecked it first, the bad food is just another bit of shit on top of it.

That analogy doesn't fly, because, to extend it a moment, nobody knows if it was raining or not on Election Day. If Prop 8 was going to pass regardless of what Newsome said, then criticism of him is a red herring, but if him getting caught acting boorish motivated enough people to get out and vote for it (and perhaps symbolically, against him), then he does share the blame.

It's like, if Barack Obama had dropped his pants on gone on television on October 30 and waved his pecker at the camera, and then lost the election, could you honestly say, "Well, it's all the electorate's fault, for getting so upset Barack Obama waved his dick in their faces that they voted for John McCain"? The electorate is what it is; politicians are supposed to be the professionals who know how to convince the electorate to make the right decision (for a given value of right).

[Master of Ossus]

Are there any numbers to indicate Newsome's actions had any effect on the election in either direction? Exit polls, maybe, or a jump in support for Prop 8 after his remarks were publicized?

Newsome's remarks came out alongside the CA Supreme Court decision, which initiated the Prop 8 issue. The big thing is that Prop 8 passed by about 2 percentage points (not all votes have been tallied, yet), and Newsome was THE face on the majority of "Yes on Prop 8" advertising. These ads played a significant role in shifting support for Prop 8. There was a 10 point swing in a week and a half, after they came out with that Newsome-as-jackass campaign.

A new CBS 5 poll finds that California's Proposition 8 has picked up support in the wake of a television ad campaign that features footage of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom proclaiming same-sex marriage is here to stay "whether you like it or not."

The poll conducted for CBS 5 by SurveyUSA indicates that support for the measure to ban gay marriage has grown among voters in the state over an eleven day period — most especially among young voters.

According to the poll, likely California voters overall now favor passage of Proposition 8 by a five-point margin, 47 percent to 42 percent. Ironically, a CBS 5 poll eleven days prior found a five-point margin in favor of the measure's opponents.

I think people are fooling themselves if they think that, sans Newsome, Prop 8 would've gone through. Even with a large flurry of spending on the "No-on-8" campaign that actually meant that they outspent the "Yes" side, they just couldn't get past Newsome.

On the other hand...

You don't say bad food ruined a picnic if it rained all day. The bad food may have ruined the picnic if you could have had it, but the rain obviously wrecked it first, the bad food is just another bit of shit on top of it.

That analogy doesn't fly, because, to extend it a moment, nobody knows if it was raining or not on Election Day. If Prop 8 was going to pass regardless of what Newsome said, then criticism of him is a red herring, but if him getting caught acting boorish motivated enough people to get out and vote for it (and perhaps symbolically, against him), then he does share the blame.

It's like, if Barack Obama had dropped his pants on gone on television on October 30 and waved his pecker at the camera, and then lost the election, could you honestly say, "Well, it's all the electorate's fault, for getting so upset Barack Obama waved his dick in their faces that they voted for John McCain"? The electorate is what it is; politicians are supposed to be the professionals who know how to convince the electorate to make the right decision (for a given value of right).

To give another example, a lot of Democrats turned on Hillary Clinton because, in their view, she viewed herself as being somehow "entitled" to the Presidency, or as if her victory over Obama in the primary was inevitable. But even as arrogant as she came off, and despite indications that her campaign did, in fact, view itself in such a light, she NEVER went out and taunted political opponents in the same way that Newsome did. Imagine if, on the eve of the Iowa caucuses or another early primary, she went out and told Obama supporters that "Whether you like me or not, I'm going to be the Democratic candidate for President and there's nothing you can do about it." What Newsome did was worse than anything that the Clinton camp did during the primaries, and took the legs out from under Prop 8 opponents at a critical moment.