I wonder how many readers momentarily sucked in their breath when they saw the first sentence. If you did, you must question yourself why. Might it be that you too reflexively believe that gay people pose a risk to children?

The fact is, gay people have always been around children -– as uncles, aunts, teachers and caregivers. Generally, they have kept their sexuality invisible; more recently the state has  institutionalised a clear separation, in the form of a ban on gay teachers in the classroom.

One might argue that teachers generally keep their heterosexuality low profile too, so what's wrong with keep homosexuality out, but this argument is not supported by evidence. Each time a nine-year-old comes home to tell her parents that her teacher Miss Annie Chua has now become Mrs Foo -- "it was announced today and we were asked to call her Mrs Foo from now on because she got married during the school holidays" -- they are flaunting their heterosexuality.

What's so wrong with Mr Hong telling his class of ten-year-olds that during the vacation week, he will be getting married to his boyfriend Sergio?

"Is he the one who fetched you in his car yesterday?" A boy might ask.

Will this information forever scar the children in the class? Don't be absurd. Will this information open a new window to the world for the kids? Of course. And why not?

Because the parents might not want that, goes the argument.

We hear this argument a lot, but what we don't hear is the opposing argument -- and a strong one it is too: That the purpose of education is to counter the ignorance of parents. That's why children are sent to school at all, to learn the things their parents are unable to impart, to free them from the smallness of their family circle and its views of the world.

Proof of this argument: Have you noticed that it is those parents who are most staunchly religious who resist sending their children to public schools, and choose home-schooling? Why? Because they fear that schools will do precisely what they are supposed to do -- open their children's minds.

* * * * *

 
Prop 8 passed by 52% to 48% at the election of 4 November 2008.

Reviewing a number of analyses of the results, in an effort to tease out some lessons for Singapore, three points struck me:

1. How the opinion polls had been wrong; 
2. The effectiveness of the anti-gay campaign; 
3. The lop-sided voting pattern among African-Americans.

Prior to the 4 November vote, opinion polls had indicated that those opposed to Proposition 8 (i.e. those who are pro-gay equality) might probably carry the day. The gap however, had been narrowing for more than a month.

As Mark DiCamillo, director of The Field Poll in California, wrote on 7 November,

First, a quick review of the pre-election polling done by the two leading public opinion polls in California, The Field Poll and the Public Policy Institute of California. They show the following trend:

* July Field: No = +9 
* August PPIC: No = +14 
* Early Sept Field: No = +14 or +17 (depending on wording) 
* Mid-Sept PPIC: No = +14 
* Mid October PPIC: No = +8 
* Late October Field: No= +5 

* Election outcome: Yes = +4

These data show the No side ahead by double- digit margins throughout most of the pre-television campaign stages. However, as the TV advertising hit in mid to late September, the Yes campaign ads proved to be more effective, and the polls showing the No side advantage slipping.

-- Source

Among the most devastating of the TV ads was this one:

What it did was to push a scare button: that children would be taught that same-sex couples could get married. Amazingly (to me), the gay-equality camp in California tried to deny that nothing would change in the schools, which I consider a hopelessly unconvincing response. In my view, the response should be "Yes, and so what?"

The fear that the above ad invokes is below the surface. It is not so much that the curriculum would change, but that through normalising gay relationships, their children will "turn gay" [1]. Being such a visceral fear, there is hardly any wonder about the ad's effectiveness.

What is the answer to that? I'm not sure I know myself, but I suspect it has to be something along the lines of straight teenagers saying to their parents, "C'mon mom, what's the big deal? My own literature teacher is gay, and for the last two years, my PE [physical education] teacher was gay too."

"How do you know that?"

"Everybody knows that," simultaneously answering and not quite answering a parent's question, something teenagers everywhere are skilled at.

Which is why, at the start of this essay, I said we need to begin to visibilise gay people who are working with children. And instead of avoiding children for fear of causing unhappiness among homophobes, gay people should be proud and happy to do work involving children, if that is what they feel their calling is.

Coming back to the California vote, while the opinion polls saw the gap narrowing, they didn't foresee the final result, which was a 4 percent shortfall for the gay equality side. Many immediate comments pointed to the surge in African-American voters in support of Barack Obama, as a reason why Prop 8 passed. 70% of African-Americans supported Prop 8 -- which many noted was ironical since as recently as 40 years ago, they too were victims of marriage laws that discriminated against them.

As a Yawning Bread reader noted in a private email, this is something "which goes to show that people often support discrimination unless it is against themselves."

How did the other ethnic groups vote?

"Whites voted very narrowly against the ban, 51-49 percent. Asian-Americans voted the same. Hispanics voted for it, by 53-47 percent. Blacks voted for it, overwhelmingly, 70-30. Blacks can be said to have put it over the top. Hypothetically, had no blacks voted, we compute a vote of 50-50," according to an analysis by ABC News Polling Director Gary Langer.

-- Source

Voter-wise however, the ratios were quite different.

Turnout made the difference. Historically, black Californians have voted in about the same proportion as their population, in the 6 percent to 7 percent range, while Latinos, although more than a third of the state's population, have been about 13 percent of voters.

Last week, however, 10 percent of voters were African American while 18 percent were Latino, and applying exit poll data to that extra turnout reveals that the pro-Obama surge among those two groups gave Proposition 8 an extra 500,000-plus votes, slightly more than the measure's margin of victory.

-- Sacramento Bee, 11 Nov 2008, Dan Walters:
Surge for Obama sealed Prop. 8's victory. Link 

Targeting the Hispanics, the anti-gay campaign produced a Spanish-language version of the above ad:

The gay-equality side, in contrast, were faced with having a sell an intellectual argument, an uphill task against the other side's emotional campaign. Worse, from what I've read, it's been quite lily-white with little for ethnic minorities to identify with.

The lesson we need to absorb for Singapore is the importance of looking beyond the English-speaking Chinese. Fortunately, there is a growing discussion about gay equality in the Chinese media, and among Chinese-speaking Singaporeans.

Indignation, our annual gay pride season, for example, always includes Chinese-language events.

What we're lacking, despite my imploring for years whomever I can talk to about this, is any ground-up conversation among Malay Singaporeans, whether in English or in Malay. Chinese Singaporeans cannot do it for them without sounding artificial. They have to talk about the issue with reference to their own family situations and culture.

Role models are very important. See this statement by Korean-American actor John Cho, for example:

* * * * *

 
You'd notice that while I am discussing the success of the religious right in passing Prop 8, I am not sounding despondent. Not only, I suppose, is it because both California and gay marriage are distant from Singapore, but there is in fact a good reason for optimism.

Look eight years back, to 2000, when the battle was over Proposition 22, which was also a ballot measure to deny marriage to same-sex couples, but unlike Prop 8, Prop 22 had the status of statutory law, not a constitutional amendment. [2]

In that election, 62% voted for Prop 22, i.e. against marriage equality. In 2008, despite a massive push by many churches, the similar-sounding Prop 8 got only 52%.

Look also at the data from the exit polls. First-time voters in 2008, predominantly young people, voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin, compared to non-first-time voters (generally older) who voted 56-44 for the anti-gay measure.

Even among Latinos, voters aged 18 to 29 voted against Prop 8 by a margin of 59-41.

In other words, the anti-gay side might have won this battle, but for them, the war is lost.

© Yawning Bread