The Rhetoric of the Gay Debate in a Liberal State

California has long been considered a liberal state on most issues.  People from other states often refer to California as “the land of fruits and nuts” and they aren’t talking about our long history of bountiful agricultural production.  No, our great state is known as the land of crazy people because we have been so liberal for so long.  Last November, a campaign was waged against gay marriage.  I thought that for sure the ballot measure that outlawed gay marriage would be voted down because it is fundamentally a civil rights issue and thought that surely Californians would be true to their hippie, free-love, tree hugging heritage by voting it down.
Then the campaign advertisements started rolling out in favor of the ballot which was against gay marriage.  Paid for by several large religious corporations (religion is big business), the campaign touted the dangers of allowing “those homosexuals” the right to marry.  The campaign writers made claims like our children are going to be taught gay marriage in the public school system and that gay marriage threatens the very foundation of the sanctity of marriage.  How did the other side counter the argument?  They brought in the law, citing civil rights law, hoping that it would be enough.
I was not directly affected by this issue; I am neither devoutly religious nor a lesbian.  However, as a member of this society, I was very interested in how the political agenda of a group could become the agenda of the masses through a very strategic political campaign that resulted in limiting the liberty of ordinary people who also just happen to be gay.  At my job the issue came up with some of my colleagues during break one day prior to the election and one elderly lady who also happens to lead the “Campus Crusade for Christ,” upon hearing that I was against the ballot leaned down, with a stern look on her face and in a very exasperated tone said, “Well, do you know about those homosexuals?”  From her tone one would have thought that we were talking about someone like  Hitler and the atrocities he committed during the Holocaust.  I told her that yes, I actually did know a few gay or lesbian couples that were fine upstanding citizens with regular jobs, good morals, and young children who deserved the legal standing and protection that a government-recognized marriage provides.
For my paper I propose a look at the rhetorical elements of the proposition 8 campaign.  How did the groups that supported the proposition get what is probably one of the most liberal states in the union to limit the civil rights of non-criminal citizens?  I want to take a look at the tactics used in the campaign from the carefully scripted commercials to the visual rhetoric like seeing a little girl holding a book about the princess that married a princess.  I want to look at what we can learn from this campaign that could help educate voters to recognize this sort of chicanery in the future.  If looking at both sides of the issue turn out to be too broad, then I will narrow my topic to analyzing the “Yes on Proposition 8” argument and the methods used to convince the public to vote “yes” without including the debate against the propositions and in support of gay marriage.
There are several places that I can look for sources.  Currently this issue is still getting lots of news coverage because it is still being discussed in the courts.  There are books and articles published from both sides of the debate.  I will also be looking at the campaign itself using online resources to get a first hand account of the tactics used.  Using an academic search engine I will also look for reputable sites that support either side of the argument.  In researching certain arguments I will need to look to the California Board of Education to get their state requirements for education.
The rhetoric surrounding Proposition 8 is rife with religious conviction and is, for many people, a subject with a load of controversy attached.  I propose an unemotional analysis of the campaign and then a discussion of whether or not California is still the “land of fruits and nuts.”