It's becoming very clear that the No on 8 campaign in California specifically told its volunteers not to door knock and most especially not to door knock African Americans, who overwhelmingly voted against marriage equality in California (seriously, read through those comments). They were not helping volunteers willing to canvass and were focused on wonderful things like doing standouts in gay-friendly areas of San Francisco. Big help, preaching to the choir, that is.
If these comments that keep bubbling up are true - and there's a lot of them - then the people who ran the No on 8 campaign were completely incompetent and should never be given the reigns of a major statewide campaign again. Don't canvass weak neighborhoods? Here's one undeniable fact about politics: If you don't ask for someone's vote, they're not likely to give it to you. I can't imagine how many tens of thousands of lost opportunities we had in African American communities because the No on 8 campaign simply decided not to show up. Clearly, if this is true, we didn't deserve their votes. We owed it to them - and us - to be in those neighborhoods, asking for the votes and pleading with them not to strip our rights.
I've done a lot of campaign work in my short life, including leading them, and the most important work to be done is canvassing, by far. It's the best way to reach voters. To think that people were told not to go reach voters, or specific voters, is almost beyond comprehension. The poor souls who got married and will now have their licenses revoked ought to be outraged. And they ought to demand competent, professional campaigning led by someone of the caliber of David Plouffe or John Walsh, not people who are too timid to canvass communities they think won't actually vote for us in high numbers. If you're not changing hearts and minds with strong messaging, you're not winning. Period.
Thankfully, all is not lost in California. There's plenty of reason to hope that Proposition 8 will be thrown out in the courts, because it appears to violate Californian Constitutional Law in that it is a "revision" of the constitution, not truly an amendment. In effect, Prop 8 makes says equal rights exist for all but one subgroup, which in turn violates the equal rights clause in and of itself. So, to be valid, it would have to remove the meaning of what's already there - a revision, not an addition, not an amendment. The CA Constitution stipulates that to revise the constitution in California, to make such exceptions to subgroups, it must come from the legislative branch and include a super majority. Of course, this all depends on the Californian Supreme Court's backbone. And, sadly, this tiny bit of good news is no thanks to the No on 8 campaign.