The 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage in California, would have been defeated if voters in favor of gay rights weren't confused about what they were voting for and if supporters including suburban Bay Area residents and white Democrats weren't swayed by anti-gay TV commercials, according to a new report.
David Fleischer, author of "The Prop. 8 Report," spent two years analyzing 10,000 documents from the Proposition 8 opponents' campaign in the hope of providing a road map for same-sex marriage advocates to reach the altar.
Fleischer, a longtime gay rights advocate, is the founder of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Mentoring Project in Los Angeles, which supports campaigns fighting anti-gay ballot measures nationwide.
The report attempts to debunk the conventional wisdom of some post-Prop. 8 analyses that pinned the measures' victory on huge support among African Americans and Republicans.
While those two groups supported the initiative in large numbers, from Sept. 22, 2008, until the Nov. 4, 2008, election, the report said the "No on 8" campaign "lost most ground among parents, white Democrats, Latinas and voters in the greater Bay Area."
Using daily tracking polls to draw his conclusions, Fleischer said that anti-gay marriage commercials like one called "Princes" "charged that schools would expose kids to inappropriate information about gay people." Even though the report said these ads "only peripherally concerned marriage" they were effective in the campaign's home stretch.
"The anti-gay side knows how to stimulate and exploit anti-gay prejudices," Fleischer said in an interview Tuesday. And until supporters of same-sex marriage learn how to respond more directly, they won't be successful at the ballot box.
The report comes as a federal judge in San Francisco will rule today on the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker will decide whether Prop. 8 violated gays' and lesbians' right of equality under the U.S. Constitution.
Some of the report's many recommendations and conclusions have been thoroughly discussed, often heatedly, by California's same-sex marriage supporters since Prop. 8 passed with 52 percent of the vote.
While backers of same-sex marriage have not reached a general consensus on when to bring the issue before voters again, Marc Solomon, marriage director for Equality California said "we are proceeding as though we are going to be on the ballot in 2012."
During the past year, Equality California has increased the amount of face-to-face conversations it has had with Californians - particularly in Latino and African American communities, Solomon said. The organization has had conversations with 20,000 people in the past 15 months, he said, and at least 25 percent of those people have moved closer to supporting same sex-marriage after those conversations.
Some gay rights advocates criticized the report.
"No reputable political scientist would ever claim that public opinion polls can prove that television ads over a few weeks' time moved X number of voters one way or another on any issue or candidate," said Matt Foreman, director of gay and immigrant rights programs for the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr . Fund.
"It's even more preposterous when talking about same-sex marriage ballot initiatives, where polls have been notoriously and consistently unreliable," Foreman said.
Fleischer said many voters were confused by whether a "yes" vote meant they were supporting same-sex nuptials. "If all voters had correctly understood how to vote to express their opinion on same-sex marriage," the report said, Prop. 8 would have passed by 1 million votes.
But others, including San Francisco pollster David Binder, dispute that claim. Binder, who has extensively polled and analyzed the issue, said "wrong-way voting occurred on both sides of the issue in equal proportions."
The report is online at Prop8Report.org.
This article appeared on page C - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Un juez federal estadounidense  declaró inconstitucional la Proposición 8 que prohíbe el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo en ese país por violar las claúsulas de Protección de la Igualdad y la del Debido Proceso garantizadas por la enmienda 14 de la Carta Magna.

"Los actores desafiaron las claúsulas de Protección de la Igualdad y del Debido Proceso de la Decimocuarta Enmienda, escribió el juez jefe del distrito de Estados Unidos Vaughn R. Walker, cada desafío es meritorio independientemente y la Proposición 8 contradice el derecho de casarse y crea una clasificación irracional en la base de la orientación sexual." escribió el juez en el fallo.

La Proposición 8 votada mediante referendum en noviembre de 2008 prohíbe el matrimonio de personas del mismo sexo en el estado y había sido declarada legal por un fallo de la Suprema Corte de California del 15 de mayo de 2008. Los matrimonios celebrados antes de la fecha no se anularían.

El caso, el juicio Perry contra Arnold Scwarzzeneger, ha sido escuchado por el juez Walker. Anticipando la derrota, una coalición pro-proposición 8 presentando una moción para dejar pendiente una apelación y que la medida no tenga efecto hasta que no la confirme la Corte de Apelación del noveno circuito; ambas partes consideran inevitable una apelación.

Jennifer C. Pizer declarando por los derechos de los grupos LGBT dijo: