Obama and the Gays: A Political Marriage 171

“All change it not growth, as all

movement is not forward.”
— Ellen Glasgow,
American novelist

When History Collides:

The Election of Barack Obama
9
and the Passage of Prop 8
By Karen Ocamb

Election night in 2008 was an epiphany. The whole world was watching as America changed
the hands of power, reaffirming its historic trajectory toward justice and equality. Lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender people around the country also swelled with excitement as state after
state declared its vote for Barack Obama, on his way to becoming the first African-American
president of the United States. For if America could choose and accept Obama, surely equality
for second-class LGBT citizens was not far away.
The thrill was no less in California, the mostly blue state that was expected to vote
overwhelmingly for Obama rather than his Republican rival, Senator John McCain. But even
before the polls closed at 8 p.m., there were signs that 2008’s election night could result in an
epiphany of another sort for lesbian and gay Californians: A simple majority of voters could strip
away a fundamental a basic right of a minority at the ballot box.
In San Francisco, where No on Prop 8 volunteers continued the get-out-the-vote effort until
the polls closed, Shannon Minter, the legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights
who had successfully argued for marriage equality before the California Supreme Court, held out
hope that Proposition 8 would be defeated. But quietly, he started preparing for a court challenge
to the anti-gay constitutional amendment that eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry.
At the Music Box entertainment venue in Hollywood, where the election-night party started
much earlier, grim-faced No on Prop 8 campaigners were shouting into cell phones over the
cheers for Obama: “What do you mean people stopped going to the polls in West Hollywood and
Silver Lake? There are still two hours to go before the polls close!”
172 Obama and the Gays: A Political Marriage

West Hollywood City Councilmember John Duran, the longtime board president of Equality
California who had helped raise more than $1.6 million in 15 minutes one night for the No on
Prop 8 campaign, tried unsuccessfully to hide his gathering gloom.
At 8:01, he joined Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center CEO Lorri L. Jean, one of the No on
Prop 8 executive committee leaders, onstage as the crowd roared, watching the huge TV screen
behind them announce Obama as the nation’s new president. Duran, an official Obama surrogate
in Los Angeles, was emotionally torn as Jean tried hard to be a cheerleader, urging the crowd not
to be discouraged by the early negative returns on Prop 8.
By morning, as the world awoke to Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Dream” seemingly no longer
deferred for African-Americans, lesbians and gays in California felt sucker-punched. Prop 8, a
smear-and-fear campaign based on false projections and lies, passed 52 percent to 48 percent.
Grief set in immediately, along with depression, rage, and blame. Protests erupted throughout
the state, followed by endless panels and town-hall meetings. For the next year, activists argued
vociferously at length and in detail over what went wrong and the plethora of mistakes made
by the No on Prop 8 campaign, as well as when to attempt another initiative campaign to repeal
Proposition 8.
One major complaint was the “failure” by the No on Prop 8 campaign to adequately use the
Obama statement opposing Prop 8. But some context is necessary, since the complaint allows
candidate Obama to abdicate any responsibility for the way his name and image were used by the
Protect Marriage/Yes on 8 campaign.
For instance, no one was aware until much later that Obama had fully supported gay marriage
in 1996, then “strategically” modified his position when he ran for the U.S. Senate. In a 2004
interview with the Windy City Times, Obama said: “I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership
and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily
just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious
connotation. I know that’s true in the African-American community, for example. …
“I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I’m less concerned about the name. And I
think that is my number one priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use
a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to
prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don’t want to play their game.”
These are clues to his thinking when he became a presidential candidate. New York Senator
Hillary Clinton was the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination going into
the first-ever presidential forum sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign with a live Logo
TV broadcast on August 9, 2007, in Los Angeles. Obama, however, had buzz, and there was
considerable excitement when the younger political “rock star” walked onstage. (See Part Two,
Chapter Two for full coverage of the Logo debate.)
HRC President Joe Solmonese opened with a question about the role of the church in gay
marriage. Obama said, “My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically
been the word ‘marriage’ from the civil rights that are given to couples.” When Solmonese and
panelists Melissa Etheridge and Jonathan Capehart tried to follow up, Obama talked about his
racially mixed parents, suggesting sensitivity to the issue. But he added: “I have specifically
talked about the degree to which the notion of gay marriage has been used in black churches to
divide. If you think that issue is more important than the fact that black men don’t have jobs, I
profoundly disagree.”
When Capehart asked: “How can you run as the candidate of change when your position on
same-sex marriage is so old-school?” Obama deflected: “Oh, come on,” and changed the subject.
Blogger Joe.My.God wrote: “Dodgeball!”
 Obama and the Gays: A Political Marriage 173

Nonetheless, Obama received a standing ovation. He was so charismatic and his message of
“change” so alluring, many LGBT people deliberately decided to forgo the same intense criticism
they leveled at Clinton.
Trust in Obama was soon shaken, however, when he refused to pull “ex-gay” gospel singer
Donnie McClurkin from a gospel tour in South Carolina. Three months after that, in January,
Obama spoke eloquently at the Ebenezer Baptist Church about homophobia in the black
community. Gays started feeling political whiplash and whispered about Obama wanting to “have
it both ways,” courting the anti-gay black church vote while tossing a bone to the gays.
Though Obama refused to talk with any “specialty press,” in April he nonetheless talked with
The Advocate. He said: “I strongly respect the right of same-sex couples to insist that even if we
got complete equality in benefits, it still wouldn’t be equal because there’s a stigma associated
with not having the same word, marriage, assigned to it. I understand that, but my perspective is
also shaped by the broader political and historical context in which I’m operating.”
The constitutional scholar then made a distinction between the fight for equality—in this case
the historic 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia—and political strategy. Obama said: “And I’ve said
this before—I’m the product of a mixed marriage that would have been illegal in 12 states when
I was born. That doesn’t mean that had I been an adviser to Dr. [Martin Luther] King back then,
I would have told him to lead with repealing an anti-miscegenation law, because it just might not
have been the best strategy in terms of moving broader equality forward. That’s a decision that the
LGBT community has to make. That’s not a decision for me to make.” When asked if he would
assume a leadership role as President Kennedy did with civil rights in 1963, Obama responded,
“But he didn’t overturn anti-miscegenation. Right?”
Here’s where a pattern emerges that suggests Obama has chosen strategic politics over what
his cheerleaders would describe as his “courageous” fight for equality. While King may have had
the choice not to “lead” with trying to overturn anti-miscegenation, gays had no choice about
whether to take up the issue of marriage equality, especially not after right-wing political strategist
Karl Rove and campaign manager Ken Mehlman decided the best way to get George W. Bush
re-elected in 2004 was to incentivize evangelical Christians to vote for anti-gay ballot measures
in several states. [Mehlman came out as a gay man in August 2010.]
Rove was reacting to the legalization of marriage in Massachusetts by way of the 2003
decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. Additionally, San Francisco Mayor Gavin
Newsom suddenly ordered the issuance of licenses to the surprise of same-sex couples, who
had been showing up every Valentine’s Day for years to symbolically request the right to marry.
Newsom said he was reacting to President Bush’s advocating, in his State of the Union address,
an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage. U.S. Senator John Kerry’s
loss to Bush in 2004 was blamed in part on the gay-marriage ballot fight.
The issue of marriage equality came up again when the California Supreme Court ruled on
a consolidated lawsuit stemming from the passage of a 2004 ballot measure denying marriage
rights. On May 15, 2008, the court declared that gays should be considered a minority worthy of
equal protection under the state constitution and that same-sex couples had been deprived of the
fundamental constitutional right to marry. In their 5-4 decision, the justices cited the importance
of the word “marriage” and ruled that domestic partnerships were separate and unequal.
The Obama campaign immediately released this statement: “Barack Obama has always
believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to
fight for civil unions as president. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and
continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of
marriage.”
174 Obama and the Gays: A Political Marriage

Many gays were disappointed. The constitutional scholar’s strategic “political perspective”
once again shaped his public pronouncements, a position basically shared with rival Hillary
Clinton.
Some gays began to parse Obama’s statements. Since his response made no effort to link
his position with repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), did that mean he was
backing away from that position?
But for the most part, gays were swept up in the euphoria of the moment, dismissing
warning signs such as the May 23 Los Angeles Times Poll indicating that a potential amendment
overturning the court marriage victory led, 54 to 35 percent, among registered voters. But the
Times also hedged: “Support for the [marriage] ruling did not necessarily lead to opposition to
the proposed constitutional amendment, and vice versa.”
Critics of the Times poll noted that it didn’t include the thousands of newly registered Obama
youth with cell phones. Additionally, on May 28, California’s Field Poll reported that registered
voters approved of allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry by 51 percent to 42 percent
statewide. The poll also found voters “leery” of the proposed amendment.
On June 2, Prop 8 qualified for the November ballot. It read: “Only marriage between a man
and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
LGBT groups across the country started coalescing around what would come to be considered
a nationwide showdown with the religious right, but most gays and lesbians were so excited about
finally feeling equal in California, they could not fathom their marriage rights being taken away.
The court provided that its ruling would take effect at 5 p.m. Monday, June 16, which allowed
such people as longtime activists Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon in San Francisco and well-known
community event organizer Robin Tyler and her partner Diane Olson in Los Angeles to marry
that evening, which they did. Marriage licenses for other same-sex couples would be routinely
available in clerks’ offices June 17. And so began the summer of same-sex love in California.
And so, too, began Obama’s tack to the right. Clinton conceded the Democratic nomination
on June 6, and 10 days later Obama started using the conservative code—talking explicitly about
marriage being between “a man and a woman.” In a June 16 interview with ABC News’ Jake
Tapper, Obama was asked if gay marriages in California caused him “to rethink your pledge to
repeal” DOMA.
Obama said: “No. I still think that these are decisions that need to be made at a state and
local level. I’m a strong supporter of civil unions. And I think that, you know, we’re involved in a
national conversation about this issue. You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a
woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they
should be able to transfer property, they should be able to get the same federal rights and benefits
that are conferred onto married couples.”
Some of Obama’s gay supporters, as well as some Clinton supporters, who were already
suspicious of Obama, were apoplectic, furious about the code and dissecting what appeared to
them to be a contradictory response.
But most gay Californians shrugged. The November election was so far off, few but the
hardcore politicos were really paying attention.
It is within this context that Obama sent a letter June 1 to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT
Democratic Club saying he was opposed to Prop 8. The letter was sent the same month when the
jubilant mass weddings started and appears to have been taken in stride, sitting on file for weeks
until it was presented during the club’s Alice Pride Breakfast on Sunday, June 29. The California
political blog Calitics reported on it that night, and the nascent No on Prop 8 campaign released
it as well.
 Obama and the Gays: A Political Marriage 175

The letter opened with a congratulatory salutation to the club. It went on saying, “As the
Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in
an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under
the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under
both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate
crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory
efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution
or those of other states.”
The LGBT press reported on the letter, which was widely perceived to be a logical move by
a Democratic campaign seeking votes during gay pride season. President Bill Clinton issued the
first LGBT Pride Proclamation in 1999. Many thought Obama essentially reiterated his previous
position.
However, some politicos with the No on Prop 8 campaign were leery about giving the letter
too much publicity. In 2000, both Vice President Al Gore and Governor Gray Davis came out in
opposition to Prop 8’s predecessor, Prop 22 [California DOMA], known as the Knight Initiative,
at a huge Stonewall Democratic Club media event in West Hollywood during a Gore presidential
campaign stop. Their statements opened by acknowledging their opposition to gay marriage—
and then they said they thought Prop 22 was a “divisive” initiative. Apparently what stuck in the
voters’ minds was the part about them opposing gay marriage.
Obama’s letter received wide attention when on July 1 the San Francisco Chronicle posited it
as a political response to Obama’s Republican presidential rival, Arizona Senator John McCain.
“Obama’s position on Proposition 8 was announced at a club event Sunday after a move by
Arizona Senator John McCain, the expected GOP standard-bearer in November, who last week
[June 27] told officials of Protect Marriage, a coalition that gathered 1.1 million signatures for
the California measure, that he backs their efforts ‘to recognize marriage as a unique institution
between a man and a woman,’” the Chronicle reported, adding that “Obama is skating gingerly
past his previous position on the issue.”
The Chronicle noted that while gay activists wanted Obama to move from civil unions to
recognizing gay marriage as “what’s increasingly seen as a civil rights issue,” they nonetheless
welcomed Obama’s support.
“It’s great to see Senator Obama’s statement, which is consistent with what he has said in
the past about allowing each state to make its own decision,” Geoff Kors, executive director of
Equality California and a leader in the coalition effort, Equality for All, told the Chronicle. “Is it
ideal that he doesn’t support same-sex marriage? No. But it’s important when political leaders say
gay and lesbian couples should be treated equally.”
Among LGBT politicos there was a quietly shared belief that “in his heart” Obama supported
marriage equality. Others thought he could be “educated.”
But the Chronicle pointed out a glaring fact: “Still, the Obama campaign didn’t go out of its
way to announce the senator’s position on a controversial California ballot measure that will have
repercussions across the nation. Instead of a splashy public endorsement ceremony, complete
with beaming supporters of same-sex marriage, Obama announced his support midway in his
letter, which was read at the club’s annual breakfast.”
The Chronicle also reported that “Prop 8 supporters accused Obama of trying to have it both
ways,” something that was apparently becoming a familiar pattern.
“His position makes very little sense,” Brian Brown, executive director of the National
Organization for Marriage, California, told the Chronicle. “If he’s opposed (to same-sex
176 Obama and the Gays: A Political Marriage

marriage), he should just say so. Instead, he’s trying to appease the wealthy elite who support
gay marriage.”
Pushing the behind-the-scenes Obama outreach during gay pride month, on June 27, Michelle
Obama spoke to the Democratic National Committee’s Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council gala
at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York City.
The Rodonline blog got news of the “surprise headliner” the day before. The blog noted that
“Michelle Obama is Barack Obama’s wife and his most important surrogate and this could be
interpreted as a strong signal that, if elected, LGBT issues will be a priority of the administration
and she will continue as the ambassador to the LGBT community. Our leadership would have a
direct pipeline to the Oval Office.”
On the other hand, the blogger wrote, “Obama has regularly ‘mentioned’ gays and lesbians
on the campaign trial during the primary, but has yet to personally address national gay audiences
or leadership. [Distinct from the LGBT presidential forum.] Given the realities of general election
politics and the campaign’s shift to the right and ‘significant focus’ on evangelical outreach, it
probably will never happen. Oh, and there is last week’s redefinition of marriage as ‘one-man,
one-woman,’”
In her speech, Michelle Obama demonstrated what has since become a telling technique—
skillfully reframing a difficult subject. After saying Obama made his support for LGBT couples
“crystal clear,” supporting “robust civil unions,” without explaining what “robust” meant, Michelle
Obama said that her husband says “the federal government should not stand in the way of states
that want to decide for themselves how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples—
whether domestic partnerships, civil unions, or civil marriage. And that is why he opposes all
divisive and discriminatory constitutional amendments—whether it’s the proposed amendment to
the California or Florida constitutions or the U.S. Constitution—because the world as it is should
be one that rejects discrimination of all kinds.”
Indeed, the California Legislature had twice passed a marriage equality bill, both times
vetoed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but Arkansas, Florida, and Arizona
have histories of passing anti-gay state laws. Here she seemed to flip the traditional anti-gay
“states’ rights” argument to make it seem as if states’ rights could be a positive position regarding
same-sex marriage, a confusing theme made more acceptable by the manner of her presentation.
Michelle Obama went on to say that “Barack has the courage to talk to skeptical audiences,
not just friendly ones.” Specifically, she said, “That’s why he told evangelicals at Rick Warren’s
Saddleback Church that we need a renewed call to action on HIV and AIDS.”
Here, however, Michelle Obama was flagrantly disingenuous. Then-Senator Obama had
been invited to Saddleback Church, along with conservative Senator Sam Brownback, to speak
about HIV/AIDS on World AIDS Day in 2006. By then, Warren was well known for his church
advocacy fighting HIV/AIDS in Africa. The pre-visit ginned-up controversy was that Obama was
pro-choice, not that he would urge more spending on AIDS in Africa. But campaigner Michelle
Obama’s brief reference clearly implied that any mention of AIDS to a Religious Right audience
was “courageous.” In fact, Senator Obama’s only mention of gay men was troubling: “While
most would agree that the AIDS orphan or the transfusion victim or the wronged wife contracted
the disease through no fault of their own, it has too often been easy for some to point to the
unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man and say, ‘This is your fault. You have
sinned.’ I don’t think that’s a satisfactory response. My faith reminds me that we all are sinners,”
Obama said.
But Michelle Obama’s appearance before big gay DNC donors raised another troubling point:
Even though they were raising bucketloads of bucks, the money was not being shared, despite
 Obama and the Gays: A Political Marriage 177

repeated requests for help from the No on Prop 8 campaign. There was complacency about Prop
8 and difficulty in raising money, said Kors.
While there was excitement about the prospect of America’s electing its first African-
American president, behind-the-scenes strife and distrust of the Obama campaign continued. For
instance, in early August there was an uproar over the language in the Democratic Party Platform:
It deleted specific reference from the 2004 platform regarding full inclusion of “gay and lesbian
families,” and there appeared to be no mention of the words “gay” and “lesbian.” While the 2004
platform strongly repudiated “President Bush’s divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by
pursuing a ‘Federal Marriage Amendment,’” the reference in Obama’s platform to the anti-gay
constitutional initiatives was considerably milder, reading: “We oppose the Defense of Marriage
Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us.”
LGBT groups wound up supporting the platform and the candidate, though LGBT visibility
onstage at the Democratic convention in Denver later in August was minimal, with little attention
paid to Prop 8 or the other amendments in Arizona, Arkansas, or Florida. Those concerned about
Prop 8 were told: “You’ve got this in the bag.”
Many LGBTs in California shared that sentiment. A Public Policy Institute of California
(PPIC) poll taken August 12-19 indicated that 54 percent would vote against Prop 8, while 40
percent would vote yes. Unexplained was the 47 percent to 47 percent split on whether lesbians
and gays should be allowed to marry.
The Yes on Prop 8 campaign scoffed at the PPIC poll, saying, “Prop 8 backers are busy
mobilizing their base, especially in church congregations.” The Reverend Lou Sheldon of the
Traditional Values Coalition noted that in 2000, polls showed Prop 22 failing until Election Day,
when it passed overwhelmingly.
On Saturday, August 16, when Obama appeared at a presidential forum at Rick Warren’s
Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, Warren asked Obama directly, “Define
marriage.”
“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a
Christian—for me—for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix,” Obama
said. He went on to say he would not support a constitutional amendment with that definition
because “historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution. It’s been a matter of state
law. … I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions.” He
went on, but most people only heard and cared that Obama didn’t support same-sex marriage.
Two months later, in an October 23 email to his thousands of supporters just days before the
election, Warren endorsed Prop 8.
“There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2%
of our population. This is one issue that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. Both
Barack Obama and John McCain have publicly opposed the redefinition of marriage to include
so-called ‘gay marriage,’” Warren wrote. “This is not a political issue, it is a moral issue that God
has spoken clearly about. There is no doubt where we should stand on this issue.”
In December, after Prop 8 passed, Warren compared gay marriage to incest, child rape, and
polygamy in an interview with BeliefNet. He later tried unconvincingly to retract his support for
Prop 8 when Obama tapped him to give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration.
It was only in late September that reality struck with the news that the Yes on 8 campaign
was being heavily funded by the Mormon and Catholic churches and the national evangelical
Christian movement. The Yes on 8 campaign raised almost $16 million from June 1 to September
11. The No on 8 side raised only $11 million during the same period.
“If they continue to have more resources, it will be very difficult for us to prevail” in such a
178 Obama and the Gays: A Political Marriage

vast state where broadcast media matter, Kors told reporters.

Patrick Guerriero, former executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, took a leave of
absence from his job at the Gill Action Fund to become the new No on Prop 8 campaign manager.
On October 1 he told LGBT reporters, “It’s all hands on deck,” after filings revealed the Yes
campaign had $12.75 million in the bank while the No campaign had under $1.8 million.
On October 7, polls by both SurveyUSA and Celinda Lake showed that Prop 8 had a four-
point lead. Steve Smith, a heterosexual man who was a principal with the Dewey Square public
affairs company, was the campaign manager for the No on 8 Campaign. Smith told reporters
the No campaign was being “out-messaged” and outspent. “To hell with orange—we’re going
straight to red [alert],” Smith said.
The Yes on 8 campaign used every medium available—TV, radio, the Internet, and social
media, including messaging to the Religious Right delivered through satellite conferences with
networks of churches. Its rhetoric often tended toward the apocalyptical.
“This vote on whether we stop the gay marriage juggernaut in California is the Armegeddon,”
said the Reverend Chuck Colson. “The future of our nation hangs in the balance!” said the Family
Research Council’s Tony Perkins.
Yes on 8’s television ads also used San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s yelling, “Whether
they like it or not,” referring to same-sex marriages, to frighten churches into believing they
would lose their religious liberty and that children would learn about gay marriage—implying
gay sex—as early as kindergarten.
In this mix—though almost in a stealth fashion—was the Yes on 8 campaign’s effective use
of Obama’s position against gay marriage. As Yes on 8 campaign managers Frank Schubert and
Jeff Flint explained at a “case study” panel on their campaign during an American Association
of Political Consultants panel in 2009, short radio spots during traffic reports featuring Obama’s
voice saying he opposed same-sex marriage, words lifted from the Saddleback Church appearance,
were “critical” to the campaign. The Yes campaign also played a recording of Obama’s voice
during robo-telephone calls.
“Obama does not support same-sex marriage. He doesn’t. He did not support Prop 8—he
opposed Prop 8,” Flint said. “But we didn’t say he didn’t. We took his own words. We took it
precisely in the context it was used. We were criticized for somehow misrepresenting his position.
At the same time the other side is running TV ads saying Obama opposed Proposition 8 and not
telling voters, ‘By the way, he supports traditional marriage and opposes same-sex marriage.’ But
we can’t run a clip of his own voice in a telephone call?”
Most Californians did not see any of the No on Prop 8 ads featuring Obama. But the Yes on
8 Obama ads ironically played well with some gays, too, since they suggested that the Yes on
8 campaign wasn’t racist, by including Obama. Craig Zadan, a film producer, said he was very
nervous about the electorate. “I’m hopeful [about the defeat of Prop 8], but at the same time, I’m
nervous.”
The No on Prop 8 campaign was increasingly frustrated with the Obama campaign. Its
representatives repeatedly asked operatives in the California Obama campaign to ask the national
campaign to have the candidate say something specifically opposing Prop 8 and to demand that
the Yes on 8 campaign stop using Obama’s voice on ads, robo-calls, and mailers to the African-
American community.
Additionally, as the funding situation got tighter, the No on Prop 8 campaign became
increasingly frustrated that the DNC and the Obama campaign were taking much-needed funds
out of California—a state Obama was almost assured of winning. A Democratic fundraiser was
scheduled in Palm Springs featuring U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) and
 Obama and the Gays: A Political Marriage 179

singer Rufus Wainwright, for instance, the day after a No on Prop 8 fundraiser was planned; gays
then canceled tables at the No on Prop 8 event to attend the next-day fundraiser. The complaints
were so loud from the No on 8 side that the Frank event ultimately was canceled.
His Federal Election Commission filing showed that Obama had raised $66 million in August,
including $22 million in contributions of $200 or less via the Internet, compared to McCain’s $47
million.
In mid-October, the Democratic vice presidential candidate, Senator Joe Biden, came to West
Hollywood for a $500-per-ticket rally and a $5,000-per-ticket dinner. At that point, Obama was
leading in the national polls by 11 points and had considerably more money than McCain.
Equality California board president John Duran was allowed to give a pitch for No on Prop
8 at the very beginning of the event, but while people cheered, no one was engaged. No one else
mentioned Prop 8 from the stage at all: The real effort was to raise money and get volunteers to
fly to Nevada or wherever else they were needed for the Obama get-out-the-vote effort.
The next day, Biden appeared on a taped segment of The Ellen DeGeneres Show, where he
told the talk-show host, who had recently married actress Portia de Rossi, “If I lived in California,
I’d clearly vote against Prop 8.”
But that was it. There was nothing more coming from the campaign.
“The fact of the matter is that when it got to the general election, it was very, very tough to
get anyone in [Obama campaign headquarters in] Chicago to focus on California because it was
purely a fundraising place, because it was not a contested state,” said Jeremy Bernard, who led
Obama’s Southern California fundraising with his partner, Rufus Gifford. “So it wasn’t like, ‘Oh,
let’s not touch Prop 8—it’s too controversial.’ It wasn’t on the radar. Now we did push it when
Biden came out—he couldn’t come out [to California] and not say anything. I had meant for him
to say something at the event in West Hollywood.”
But apparently Biden mentioned Prop 8 at an earlier town-hall meeting and therefore would
not say anything more. It was Bernard (who later landed a job as the White House liaison to the
National Endowment for the Humanities) who told Duran to mention Prop 8. The noncontroversial
spot on the DeGeneres show had already been prepared in advance, Bernard said.
“Quite honestly, it wasn’t until toward the end of the campaign that I got a call from John
Duran saying we asked the Obama campaign for more of a quote,” said Bernard. “I said, ‘John,
that’s not realistic. They’re focused on a national campaign—they’re not going to focus on it.’
My argument was, ‘You have quotes from him talking about these type of propositions. Use what
you have. If you wait on a campaign to get a candidate’s statement on something that isn’t right
in front of him, you’ll never get it.’ It was one of the frustrations we had with the No on Prop 8
people. It felt like all of a sudden they were in defense mode.”
Just to show how much Prop 8 was not on the Obama campaign’s radar, Bernard said he talked
to a staffer about being angry when Obama asked Rick Warren to participate in the inauguration,
and the staffer replied that the Obama team was “shocked.”
“We didn’t play in California. We didn’t realize all the baggage that came with him [Warren],”
Bernard says the staffer told him. “Because Obama went to Saddleback Church, the campaign
thought they knew Warren. The staffer said, ‘We didn’t know he was involved in Prop 8’—which
just amazes me,” said Bernard.
Steve Smith, the longtime politico and openly gay deputy political director for the Obama
campaign in California, was surprised the No on Prop 8 campaign didn’t use Obama’s statement
early on.
“Here is the context in which I view Obama and Prop 8,” Smith said. “Each of the three major
Democratic presidential candidates had the same bottom-line position on same-sex marriage: