Ta-Nehisi Coates (at The Atlantic) took that on:

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/prop_8_and_blaming_the_blacks.php

No, you do not have to beg for your rights, but some times you do have to fight for them.

The latter. I am on my fifteenth draft at the moment, but I don’t think it’s sufficiently abject yet.

In all earnest, I think that is a plausible reading. I’m not saying he would twitch a finger in order to bring the blessed day about, but his contempt for those “immoral” “homophobes” standing in the way of the coming pan-sexual Utopia is palpable and seemingly vast.

Likely a case of one death being a tragedy but a million deaths a policy opportunity.

Notwithstanding the monstrousness of longing for the deaths of millions of one’s fellow citizens, this statement is wrongheaded.

Given that blacks and latinos supported Prop 8 by a healthy margin and taking into account their increasing proportion of the population, the demographic trends in the United States militate in favour of less indulgence of homosexuality, not more.

I’m not saying that the older gay rights activists were right. However, if they were wrong, Milk could have made an argument that increasing visibility was, in the long-run, the best route to acceptance. He could have made some argument about why he was more viable as a candidate than they perceived and that having gay, and not merely pro-gay, politicians in office was more critical than he perceived. Ultimately, though, Milk and Smith just storm out of the place with an indignantly self-righteous flourish.

I’m not sure whether this was intended to show Milk as being a bold man of principle, or as a flawed, temperamental man whose political instincts were far from perfect. I suppose I felt like the former was intended, and I disagreed with the message in that case. In the latter case, though — Milk was an imperfect human being and an imperfect politician and activist, yet he deserved to be able to run for office, speak out, and not get shot every bit as much as all of the straights who are imperfect as politicians, activists, and human beings — then I suppose it worked. Maybe either interpretation works.

I suppose this is all a bit tangential, but I suppose the point is that right does not make might, and self-righteousness makes neither. (Although, as in the case of Cara and Milk, self-righteousness doesn’t make wrong, either — at least in broad terms of principle.)

1) “Gay rights advocates, because of their poor campaigning, are rightly blamed for the success of proposition 8.”

2) “Gay rights advocates might have succeeded/might succeed in the future with better campaigning.”

Your argument aptly defends 2), but I think a lot of people want to have 1), and I take it that Cara’s point is that 1) does not follow from 2). (Consider: “she could have avoided being raped by never leaving the house” for a salient example of how 2) does not license 1).) The Rolling Stone article reads like the assignment of blame — of culpability — of 1), and Cara points that out and objects to it.