News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Beyond Acceptance: Parents of Lesbians & Gays Talk About Their Experiences, by Carolyn W. Griffin and Marian J. Wirth
Always My Child: A Parent’s Guide to Understanding Your Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender or Questioning Son or Daughter, by Kevin Jennings
Coming Out to Parents: A Two-Way Survival Guide for Lesbians and Gay Men and Their Parents, by Mary V. Borhek
Families Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell It Like It Is, by Abigail Garner
Sons Talk About Their Gay Fathers: Life Curves, by Andrew Gottlieb.
Out of the Ordinary: Essays on Growing Up With Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Parents, by Noelle Howey and Ellen Samuels (Eds.)California Changes Prop 8 Ballot Language
Jim Burroway
July 23rd, 2008
The original title was “Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment”. Now it’s been changed for the better (PDF: 2 pages):
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTChanges California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments.
Now when Californians go to the polls, they have to think about how their vote may actually take away something that already exists.
Bratton Endorses Marriage Equality
Timothy Kincaid
July 23rd, 2008
Former New York and current Los Angeles Chief of Police William Bratton has endorsed gay marriage and given a donation to the efforts to fight against Proposition 8.
“The Constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” Bratton said this week. “I see no reason why gays can’t pursue happiness through marriage.”
Update
It should be noted that Bratton ran for Mayor of New York as a Republican in 2000. Supporters of marriage equality can make a strong case that opposition to discrimination has bi-partisan support in California.
Laguna Beach Opposes Prop 8
Timothy Kincaid
July 23rd, 2008
Per the LA Times
The majority Republican City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to oppose Proposition 8, intended to define marriage in California as between a man and a woman.
“Laguna has a live-and-let-live attitude,” said Councilwoman Toni Iseman, who recommended the action with Mayor Jane Egly. “We don’t tolerate diversity, we embrace diversity.”
Laguna Beach was - until recently - home of the oldest continuously operating gay bar in the west. But rising housing and living costs coupled with better commuting ability with greater Orange County has severely diminished the gay population of the beachside resort town - or at least those of lesser means. So the Boom Boom Room, like other gay mainstays, is no more.
It is encouraging to hear that the city maintains its commitment to gay equality despite the change in demographics.
Proposition 8 Campaign Fibs About Poll
Timothy Kincaid
July 18th, 2008
Confronted with the latest Field Poll showing that Proposition 8 is not favored by California voters, the supporters of the anti-gay marriage amendment are scrambling to find positive ways to spin the results. Unfortunately, they relying on false statements to do so.
In a news release, Yes on Proposition 8 stated
A new Field Poll released today shows Proposition 8 — the Marriage Protection ballot initiative — is gaining among likely voters, although the survey continues to significantly understate support for the initiative, officials with the Proposition 8 campaign said today. The poll also shows that advocates of same-sex marriage are losing ground, compared to the last Field Poll released on May 28.
This seems contrary to news stories on the poll. But in support of their rather bold claim they state
The latest Field Poll reports support for Proposition 8 is at 42% (up two points since May) and opposition at 51% (down from 54%).
However, that is not really what the May Field Poll reported. In May, pollsters broke their sample in two and asked two slightly differently worded questions about a proposed constitutional amendment.
5a “Do you favor or oppose changing the California State Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, thus barring marriage between gay and lesbian couples?”
Favor 40%
Oppose 54%
No Opinion 6%5b “There may be a vote on this issue in the November election. Would you favor or oppose having the state constitution prohibit same-sex marriage, by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman?”
Favor 43%
Oppose 51%
No Opinion 6%
Although Field doesn’t tell us the combined average, it is likely to be similar to the answer to their primary question:
Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex and have regular marriage laws apply to them?
Disapprove 42%
Approve 51%
No Opinion 7%
In order to have something positive to say, the supporters of the proposition ignore the rest of the results and focus on one subset of one question so as to claim movement on the issue. But not only is this blatantly dishonest, the fluctuation was within the margin of error and no honest pollster would claim that this was an indication of “advances” or of “losing ground”.
However, their claim of understated support is probably valid. The Field Poll did not accurately predict the results of the yes vote on Proposition 22. But it did yield interesting information that we may wish to apply to the current poll.
On February 9, 2000, the Field Poll released results of their polling on Proposition 22, the “Limit on Marriage Initiative”. This was the proposition that rewrote civil code to ban gay marriage (the code found inconsistent with the Constitution by the California Supreme Court).
Proposition 22 provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. If the election were being held today, would you vote Yes or No on Proposition 22?
Yes 52%
No 39%
Undecided 9%
On election day, March 7, the initiative passed 61% to 39%. Clearly the Field Poll did not well predict the “Yes” votes.
But it did accurately predict the “No” votes. While undecided voters may have ultimately chosen to pull the “Yes” lever, those who polled as opposed to the ballot seemed – on average - to hold their conviction.
So lets look at the current Field Poll,
Proposition 8 is the “Limit on Marriage Constitutional Amendment.” It amends the California constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. If the election were being held today, would you vote Yes or No on Proposition 8, the Limit on Marriage Constitutional Amendment.
Yes 42%
No 51%
Undecided 7%
Assuming that the Field Poll underestimated the supporters but accurately predicted the “No” votes, then a vote on Proposition 8 today would fail 49% to 51%.
No matter how they slice it or which way they spin it, today was not a good day for the Yes on Proposition 8 people.
LA Times Article on Methodist Support
Timothy Kincaid
July 18th, 2008
We told you earlier about the support that marriage equality is receiving from United Methodists in California. An anecdote shared by the Los Angeles Times may shed some light on at least one reason why these ministers are willing to face punishment from their national denomination in order to bring joy to the lives of gay couples.
The Rev. Sharon Rhodes-Wickett of Claremont United Methodist Church joined a retired deacon from her congregation to co-officiate at the July 5 wedding of two longtime members, Howard Yeager and Bill Charlton.
The wedding was held off site — at a Claremont complex for retired clergy and missionaries — to avoid violating the rule against such ceremonies in churches.
Rhodes-Wickett, who led the Lord’s Prayer and gave a homily, said she hoped to avoid discipline by stopping short of actually pronouncing the couple married. That action was performed by the retired deacon, who also signed the marriage license.
Rhodes-Wickett said she did not want Yeager and Charlton to leave her church to exchange vows.
“This is my flock,” she said, adding that the men have been together 40 years, 22 of them as members of her Claremont congregation. “It’s a matter of integrity and a matter of what it is to be a pastoral ministry.”
We as a community owe a debt of gratitude to Howard Yeager and Bill Charlton. As best I can tell neither man is an activist. But they have for at least the past 22 years been living activism with an impact that no form of marching or protest can achieve.
New Poll: Californians Saying No to CaMP Act
Gregory Herek
July 18th, 2008
The first California statewide poll to directly measure public opinion about Proposition 8 - the so-called California Marriage Protection (CaMP) Act, a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban marriage equality - suggests the ballot measure is in serious trouble.
As reported at ProtectMarriageEquality.com, a Field Poll commissioned by Oakland’s KTVU-TV found that the marriage ban is supported by only 42% of Californians, while 51% oppose it. The poll numbers offer a double dose of hope for supporters of marriage equality. Not only do the data indicate that the ballot proposition is currently losing outright, they also suggest that its prospects for gaining support during the coming months may be dim.
It is common wisdom in California politics that controversial ballot measures typically lose support during the course of election campaigns. Thus, an initiative with less than majority support at this stage faces serious obstacles to passage.
Nevertheless, it would be a mistake for California marriage equality supporters to be become complacent in response to the poll results.
In my latest post at Beyond Homophobia, I discuss the poll data and their implications for the Proposition 8 campaign.
New Field Poll: Prop 8 Not Popular
Timothy Kincaid
July 18th, 2008
In May , shortly after the State Supreme Court found in favor of marriage equality in California, the Field Poll reported that Californians did not favor amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage, by a margin of 51-43. A new Field Poll released Thursday shows no movement on the issue.
According to the Sacramento Bee,
Fifty-one percent of respondents said they oppose the proposed ban; 42 percent support it; and 7 percent are undecided.
Even the Anti-Gays want Randy Thomasson to Get Lost
Timothy Kincaid
July 16th, 2008
As we’ve shown you before, Randy Thomasson and the Campaign for Children and Families are not likely to go down in history as great thinkers of our generation. I’d go so far as to say that they’re downright loony.
Now it seems that the backers of Proposition 8 want nothing to do with them as well.
Thomasson and CCF were not backers of the current proposition to ban marriage but instead supported an alternate proposition that banned civil unions as well. Their initiative did not get enough signatures, but while it lasted they said unkind things about what is now Proposition 8.
But now Thomasson and CCF want to jump on the band-wagon. And the backers of Proposition 8 are trying to force them out. Publicly.
Law.com reports on efforts to get CCF to shut up and go away.
In a short brief filed Thursday, Folsom, Calif., lawyer Andrew Pugno, counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, argued that rather than back Prop 8, the CCF actively campaigned against it for years in favor of another amendment that would have sharply curtailed all gay rights.
“Only now that the act has qualified for the ballot as Proposition 8 do proposed intervenors support it,” Pugno wrote. “Against this backdrop, there is significant concern that the presence of [the CCF] in this action will substantially interfere with real parties’ ability to effectively defend Proposition 8.”
In an interview Monday, Pugno referred to the CCF as “extremists” who want to go beyond the issue of marriage and “strip away gay rights” of any kind.
Well, Pugno certainly knows Thomasson and his goals. But I would say the differences between them are only a matter of degrees.
(hat tip Good-As-You)
Proposition 8 Goes Forward
Timothy Kincaid
July 16th, 2008
The California Supreme Court decided not to hear an appeal brought by civil rights groups to keep the anti-gay marriage ban off the ballot. Their argument was that
1. Those signing were told that the initiative would not change the law, just keep it the same. This is no longer true. California law now recognizes marriage.
2. The language of the proposition does not amend the constitution. Because it is not just a matter of changing marriage law but instead goes to the heart of equal protection and discrimination against a suspect class, it revises the nature of the Constitution, which is a much more complicated process than just an initiative.
Per the San Jose Mercury News
Without comment, the court unanimously refused to hear the legal challenge, filed last month by civil rights groups. The organizations argued that the ballot measure was legally flawed and should not be put before the voters.
The latest legal salvo most likely ensures that voters will consider the measure, which would amend the state Constitution to confine marriage to a union between a man and a woman.
Massachusetts Senate Votes to Open Marriage to Out-of-Staters
Timothy Kincaid
July 15th, 2008
The AP is reporting
The Massachusetts Senate has voted to repeal a 1913 law used to bar out-of-state gay couples from marrying in the state.
The law prohibits couples from obtaining marriage licenses if they couldn’t legally wed in their home states.
The House is expected to vote this week.
I find that unfortunate. Truly. As a Californian, I wanted us to have the advantage - at least for a while - of wedding tourism.
But I guess I have to be unselfish and offer my best wishes for passage in the House. Then those same-sex couples that are residents of Rhode Island and New York and who wish their state to honor their marriage won’t have to fly to California or leave the country in order to legally marry.
Bumbling Bee Won’t Say Where He’ll Land
Jim Burroway
July 10th, 2008
This is just nuts. Arizona Sen. Tim Bee (R-Tucson), who cast the crucial sixteenth vote to place the anti-marriage amendment on the ballot, just can’t make up his mind about where he stands on the issue. First, he signed on as a co-sponsor of the amendment. Then he took on Rep. Jim Kolbe as his honorary chairman for his race against Gabrielle Giffords (D) for the eighth Congressional district. That led him to try to bottle the amendment up in the state Senate. Then, in the final hours of the legislative session, he blasted the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) for their threats and coercive tactics, but then crumpled under the pressure to cast the deciding vote. That led Kolbe to abandon Bee’s campaign. Then the Tucson Citizen asked Bee about his opinion on same-sex marriage and he struggled to come up with a coherent answer.
Now the Arizona Daily Star is reporting that he won’t answer another simple question: will he vote for the marriage ban in November?
But asked whether he’d support the measure – a hallmark issue for social conservatives – now that he’s voted to put it on the ballot, Bee wouldn’t say, calling it his “private vote.” “I think ultimately, as I tell my members, vote your conscience,” he said.
Bee is trying to play both sides and failing miserably. You cannot denounce CAP’s threats and divisive politics on one hand only to turn around and do their bidding on the other. And you cannot first sponsor a same-sex marriage ban before trying to duck the question just because you’re running in a congressional district that voted against Prop 107 in 2006 by more than a 9% margin.
That 2006 vote was decisive. Bee isn’t. If he can’t make up his mind on this and show some fortitude in front of fellow Arizonans, how can we expect him to make an unassisted decision in Washington?
California United Methodists Support Marriage
Timothy Kincaid
July 10th, 2008
Highland Boulevard is a major street running through Hollywood. And due to a bend in the road between the Kodak Theater and the Hollywood Bowl, those drivers heading north have centered in their windshield the tower of the Hollywood United Methodist Church adorned with a twenty foot high red AIDS ribbon.
This symbol, now a landmark in Hollywood, went up when many others who claim Christianity as their private domain had rejected and demonized those who were afflicted by HIV and AIDS. Fifteen years later, it tells the many thousands of commuters who pass by that this Christian congregation in its beautiful traditional sactuary remains committed to the words that the denomination has adopted, “open hearts, open minds, open doors”.
And this body of believers, a Reconciling Congregation that marches in the Gay Pride parade, appears to be representative of the UMC churches in the state. While national church considers homosexuality to be “incompatible with Christian teaching” and rules prohibit the UMC churches or ministers from conducting same-sex marriages, the California Methodists are declaring their defiance of these rules and their support and welcome of gay couples.
A United Methodist News Service article, via the Dallas Morning News, reports
The church’s California-Pacific Annual Conference [Southern California], convening June 18-22 in Redlands, approved three measures that support same-gender couples entering into the marriage covenant. Each “encourages both congregations and pastors to welcome, embrace and provide spiritual nurture and pastoral care for these families,” according to a June 27 letter to the conference from Bishop Mary Ann Swenson and other conference leaders.
That same week in Sacramento, the California-Nevada Annual Conference [Northern California] approved two measures on the same issue, including one that lists 67 retired United Methodist clergy in northern California who have offered to conduct same-gender marriage ceremonies. The resolution commends the pastors’ work in offering continued ministry.
A Guardian article places the number of Northern California retired UMC Ministers offering to perform same-sex weddings at 82. By congregations declaring their support for the retired ministers, they can express their support for gay couples without the threat of having their active pastor defrocked.
The Southern California conference also voted to oppose Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage amendment.
The support of the state’s United Methodists is most welcome. As more houses of worship declare their opposition to exclusionary political efforts, this debate becomes less a battle between the Holy and the Profane and becomes better understood as an effort by a few to introduce discrimination into the state’s constitution.
Paula Aboud: State Senate Breaks Trust
Jim Burroway
July 10th, 2008
We earlier described how the Arizona State Senate broke its own rules to cram a last-minute vote on the anti-marriage amendment in the session’s final hours. That was when State Senate President Tim Bee finally crumpled under the pressure from Cathi Harrod’s Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), the anti-gay lobbying group that is a political arm of Focus On the Family, to ignore the rule violations and cast the deciding sixteenth vote.
In today’s op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star, Sen. Paula Aboud (D-Tucson) describes how the Republican leadership blatantly broke their own Senate rules to force the vote. She also revealed how immoral these “defenders of morality” really are. Speaking of Republican leaders Thayer Verschoor (R-Phoenix), John Huppenthal (R-Phoenix), and Sen. Jack Harper’s (R-Surprise) actions, Sen. Aboud says:
These three Republican senators have heaped dishonor upon themselves and the institution that they are sworn to serve in order to protect “marriage.” The means do not justify the end — no matter what. State lawmakers, above all, must set the highest example of obeying the law. If they publicly break the rules just to win, they lose their moral authority to serve the state ever again.
These men should not be allowed to break the rules without consequences. The voters have an opportunity to deliver those consequences.
Bee Knows His Anti-Marriage Vote Was A Mistake
Jim Burroway
July 10th, 2008
Arizona State Sen. Tim Bee knows that his crucial sixteenth vote to place the anti-marriage amendment on the ballot was a terrible mistake that he wishes would just go away. Especially now that Kolbe has withdrawn his support. The Tucson Citizen’s Mark Kimble offers this anecdote:
Bee was speechless. He looked at his aide, Dunn, then back at Bermudez. For an uncomfortable 15 or 20 seconds, he said absolutely nothing hunting for an answer. Then Bee said he “was not judgmental,” “likes people of all persuasions” and feels “the core family is an important thing.”
This is not an issue Bee wants in this campaign. But Kolbe’s absence will not let it go away.
And neither will we.
More On Kolbe and Bee’s Parting of Ways
Jim Burroway
July 10th, 2008
Former US Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) still isn’t directly saying why he has withdrawn his support for Arizona State Senate President Tim Bee’s run for Kolbe’s old Congressional seat. But what he’s not saying is leaving little doubt about the reasons.
Last week, Kolbe announced that he would no longer serve as Bee’s honorary chairman. That announcement came just a few days after Bee’s crucial sixteenth vote to place the anti-marriage amendment again on the ballot. A similar effort was rejected by Arizona voters in 2006.
While Kolbe isn’t talking about his decision, that’s not keeping others from talking. Mark Kimble, writing for today’s Tucson Citizen, describes Kolbe’s reversal as “a stunning six-month turnaround”:
On Jan. 19, Kolbe stood at Bee’s side as Bee announced he would run against Democratic incumbent Gabrielle Giffords for the U.S. House in District 8 - a seat that Kolbe held until he retired in 2006. When Bee stressed his commitment to bipartisanship, Kolbe told reporters, “That’s what we need in Washington.”
Kolbe’s support went beyond that. Just last month, Kolbe opened his Washington, D.C., townhome to host a fundraiser for Bee. And now Kolbe is out, with neither man saying why.
Kimble reports that Kolbe remained circumspect in a telephone interview. When asked why he withdrew, Kolbe said he would “not have a long, protracted discussion” about it. But when asked directly whether he still supported Bee, Kolbe demurred, saying, “I’m not going to get into playing that game.”
You know, if Kolbe still supported Bee in the general, non-endorsing, “I hope we can change the seat to a Republican seat” kind of way, that would not be difficult to say. But Kolbe didn’t even offer that minimal support.
But if that’s not clear enough, there’s this: When Bee was asked why Kolbe withdrew his support, Bee said, “Jim has some personal things going on now that he needs to focus on.” What are those “personal things”? Illness? Death in the family? Catching up on All My Children episodes? He wouldn’t say. But whatever they are, they aren’t keeping Kolbe from hosting a fundraiser tomorrow for state Rep, Pete Hershberger (R-Tucson), who is running for the state Senate.
Why Hershberger and not Bee? Maybe it’s because Hershberger was one of only two state House Republicans who voted against the anti-marriage amendment last May.
Connerly Speaks Up for Gay Marriage
Timothy Kincaid
July 9th, 2008
Ward Connerly is a conservative black Republican. He opposes affirmative action and has led successful initiative drives in California, Michigan and Washington to remove race from being considered as part of college acceptance or hiring practices.
While some may think that being conservative and being opposed to affirmative action equates to anti-gay, for Connerly this naturally leads to supporting equality for gay persons. In an interview with the Arizona Republic Connerly said the following:
The government shouldn’t be making distinctions about people on the basis of what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. And those within my party that try to inject the government into that, they’re not the conservative, I’m the conservative. I’m saying, keep government small, keep government out of people’s personal lives. If you’re going to give benefits to people who happen to be straight, give the same benefits to people who are gay. That to me was a very easy call.
I took a lot of heat from “strong conservatives” who said that I was eroding the concept of marriage. I’m not “eroding the concept of marriage.” If marriage is that fragile, that giving people who are gay equal benefit (would cause harm), then we’re in big trouble. I believe in the institution of marriage, but I also believe in freedom. I believe in treating people equally. . . .
I grew up in a time when I was forbidden from marrying people who were not of my race. In 1962, when my wife and I got married, in some parts of the country, we would have been breaking the law. It wasn’t until 1967, when the Supreme Court in the Loving (vs. Virginia) case said that that’s unconstitutional. So, I feel very strongly that the government shouldn’t be treating people differently just because they are gay.
Those conservatives in Arizona who are happy to have Connerly support the end of affirmative action should listen to his advice when voting on the anti-gay amendment in November. And California voters may want to take note of James Kirchick’s article in the Advocate
Connerly, who is black and grew up in the Deep South, told me that efforts to amend his state’s constitution to ban gay marriage remind him of antimiscegenation laws. “For anyone to say that this is an issue for people who are gay and that this isn’t about civil rights is sadly mistaken,” he says. “If you really believe in freedom and limited government, to be intellectually consistent and honest you have to oppose efforts of the majority to impose their will on people.”
Kern Co. Supervisors Reject Anti-Gay Ordinance
Timothy Kincaid
July 8th, 2008
We told you in June about the lunatic idea that Randy Thomasson and the Campaign for Children and Families came up with to try and have Kern County Supervisors put an ordinance in place restricting marriage to the opposite sex.
Not surprisingly, the County’s counsel informed them that this was unquestionably unconstitutional. And the County Supervisors decided that inviting lawsuits that they were guaranteed to lose was not a wise decision.
In a WorldNetDaily article before today’s decision, Thomasson had these words to say:
“This will be as inspirational as the Alamo, without the guns, knives, blood or death,” he said.
The more I hear from Thomasson, the more I’m beginning to think he’s a simpleton. I truly hope that the anti-gays keep him as the voice of Proposition 8; he improves our chances of defeating the bigoted amendment.
In a bit of sad news, however, the Supervisors did not override Barnett and deputize Kern County employees to perform civil marriages. So indigent heterosexual Kern County couples will have to expend additional funds so that elected officials can spite gay residents.
See also:
Barnett Breaks Her Media Silence - Stupidly, of Course
Chad Vegas - Kern Co. School Board Trustee’s Double Standard
Ann Barnett Annoys Local Bakersfield Media
Two More California Counties Stop Officiating at Weddings
CA Anti-Gays either Completely Idiotic or Shameless Liars
No Non-Religious Marriages in Kern County
A Voice of Reason in Kern Co.
Kern Co. (Bakersfield) Clerk Ann K. Barnett Cancels Straight Weddings
More Bakersfield Bigotry
Bakersfield - Not a Place to Plan Your Wedding
Kolbe Ends Support For Bee
Jim Burroway
July 5th, 2008
Last week, after Arizona Senate President Tim Bee (right) buckled under the threats and pressure from Cathi Herrod’s Center for Arizona Policy and cast the cowardly deciding vote to place the anti-marriage amendment on the ballot, we asked where former Rep. Jim Kolbe stood in all this. Kolbe (left) was Tim Bee’s honorary chairman for Bee’s campaign for Congress in Arizona’s eighth district, which was the the seat that Kolbe once held as an out gay Congressman for ten years.
Today, we may have something of an answer:
“I will not be actively campaigning for Bee,” the former Republican congressman said during a telephone interview with the Herald/Review on Thursday.
… Tom Dunn, a spokesman for the Bee campaign, also confirmed Kolbe’s decision. “For personal reasons, Mr. Kolbe is no longer associated with our campaign,” Dunn said. Neither Kolbe nor Dunn provided specific reasons for the former congressman dropping out of campaigning for Bee.
I don’t understand why Kolbe needs to be so coy about this, but I’m glad that he’s distancing himself from Bee nevertheless.
In 2006, the eighth Congressional district defeated Prop 107, that year’s proposed anti-marriage amendment, by more than ten percentage points: 45.4% to 54.6%. That was a significantly wider margin than the statewide tally of 48.2% to 51.8%.
Update: While Kolbe is silent on why he broke with Bee, Daniel Scarpinato is setting the obvious conclusions to print in this morning’s Arizona Daily Star (registration required):
According to Dunn, the switch came within the last week. Also in the last week: Bee, president of the state Senate, was the decisive vote on sending a measure to the ballot asking voters to define marriage in the Arizona Constitution as solely between one man and one woman.
And Kolbe, the only openly gay Republican in Congress before his retirement in 2006, had expressed disagreement with Bee on the issue shortly after it was announced in January that Kolbe would be the honorary chairman for Bee’s campaign. For his part, Bee dodged questions about the measure all year — and avoided bringing it up for a vote until the final hours of a 166-day legislative session. Up to that point, Kolbe had been active in the campaign throughout the spring and summer, hosting a fundraiser for Bee in Washington just last month.
… The support of Kolbe — a highly popular moderate during his 22-year tenure representing Southern Arizona — was a major highlight of Bee’s long-awaited campaign kickoff in January. Kolbe had refused to endorse the GOP nominee for his seat in 2006, Randy Graf. And we all remember how that ended.
For those outside of Arizona who don’t know, Graf lost badly what had been a reasonably reliable Republican seat to Democrat Gabrielle Giffords.
Meanwhile, Bee and Cochise County Republicans are trying to pretend that all is well.
LDS Battle Plan for California Anti-Marriage Amendment
Jim Burroway
July 5th, 2008
The message below, by public relations leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, a.k.a “the Mormons”), was sent to Orange County LDS Public Affairs personnel and other church leaders in California.
A brief introduction of some the names mentioned below is in order. Elders Russell M. Ballard, Quentin L. Cook, and Dallin H. Oaks are members of the church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the second highest presiding group under the direction of the First Presidency. Elder Lance B. Wickman is a member of that church’s First Quorum of the Seventy, a leadership group beneath the Quorum of the Twelve. L. Whitney Clayton is also a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy as well as the Presidency of the Seventy.
To: All OC Public Affairs Personnel
Cc: Other Interested Persons
By now many of you serving in Public Affairs may have been invited by your Stake Presidency to join other stake priesthood and auxiliary leaders in attending a special meeting. That was to discuss points that originated last Sunday, June 29, with a historic live interactive telecast emanating from SLC among Elders Ballard, Cook, Wickman and Clayton with CA Stake Presidents.
We have been asked to study out the above issue -– starting with the First Presidency letter that was read in Church last Sunday and the Proclamation on the Family. [That letter is available here (PDF: 1,08KB/2 pages) — ed.] You should all have copies of these items. As the year goes on, Public Affairs is apt to get ever more involved, under proper Priesthood direction. This will be especially true after Labor Day, when getting out the vote will be crucial. Meanwhile we are asked to use “our best efforts” and to do “all we can” to support this initiative with both our “means and time.”
To help you get prepared, here are some pertinent materials I have gathered on this issue, for your summer reading.
1. In Re Marriage Cases. See attached PDF summary of these consolidated cases, as issued by the Cal Sup. Ct. on 5-15-08. The majority decision is 121 pages long plus concurring and dissenting opinions. Essentially, the court has determined that any classification based on sexual orientation is a “suspect classification” that requires “strict scrutiny” under the “equal protection” clause of the CA Constitution. It also found that the CA Constitution has granted a “fundamental right to marry.” In 1948, that enabled the court invalidate statutory restrictions on interracial marriage. On these grounds, the court then proceeded to invalidate the existing statutory restrictions on same-gender marriages that were passed as Proposition 22 in 2000.
2. The Protectmarriage.com website. This is the key website of the central coalition of churches and other organizations that have been promoting what is now Prop. 8 for over a year. You will first see a list of member organizations and sponsoring individuals belonging to this coalition. Also see links on the left-hand side for “FAQS” and some good talking points under “Why it is needed.”
3. LDS.org Website. See this long but exceptionally important and well articulated 2007 interview by Public Affairs with Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman on “Same-Gender Attraction.” It is at: http://newsroom.lds.org/ ldsnewsroom/ eng/ public-issues/ same-gender-attraction
4. Meridian Magazine. “What difference will same-gender marriage make to you?” See this link: http://www.ldsmag.com/ familyleadernetwork/ 080627marriage.html Also see http://www.ldsmag.com/ familyleadernetwork/ 080619ignore.html These articles explore some of the possibly unintended consequences of this recent Cal. Supreme Court decision.
5. NB Stake Talking Points. See attached PDF with some key talking points created by my own Newport Beach Stake President Weatherford Clayton. More official talking points will are being prepared and will be provided through proper channels by LDS Church HQ in Salt Lake City.
6. Church News Article. From 2004 issue on the benefits of families raised within male-female marriages
HISPANICS AGAINST PROP 8. See first email attached above.
HISPANICS WHO SUPPORT IT. See email #3 attached above.
As the June 20th First Presidency letter said, more information will be made available to you from time to time through local priesthood channels.
You may also be aware that the new Managing Director of LDS Public Affairs in SLC will be Michael Otterson. He has been serving as assistant to Bruce Olsen and is originally from Australia. Brother Olsen will be the new San Diego Temple President.
Most sincerely,
Joseph I. Bentley, Director
Orange County Public Affairs
[Personal contact information redacted — ed.]
[Hat tip: Nick Literski]
Anti-Gay Politics, Arizona Style
Jim Burroway
July 1st, 2008
The Tucson Observer has published a first person account of the final hours of the Arizona Senate’s passage of the anti-marriage amendment. In this Legislative Update by Representative Steve Farley (D-Tucson) you really get a sense of the boorish, contemptable behavior of a Republican majority with no regard for their own rules. And you also get a sense of how spineless Senate President Timothy Bee was throughout all of this.
After the budget was finished Thursday night, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Mesa) made an attempt to adjourn sine die and end the session right away. Unfortunately, he got the wording wrong, so Majority Leader Tom Boone (R-Peoria)–who had other plans in mind for a number of unfinished bills–made a substitute motion to recess which canceled out Biggs’ motion when the vast majority of the body, unsure what to do, stood in support of Boone.
That paved the way for us to come back the next day for a horrible day of legislating where a whole lot of bad things happened, none worse than the resurrection of the anti-marriage amendment.
You may recall that we have spent much of the session fighting Republican efforts to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to outlaw Gay marriage, which is already illegal. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Phoenix) carried out an ingenious strategy to derail the House version of the bill several months ago.
As a referendum, it is not subject to veto by the Governor — it goes directly to the voters if approved by both houses of the Legislature. Right-wingers in the House have been conspiring with the Center for Arizona Policy ever since to find a way to bring another version to the floor.
On May 12, that new version, SCR1042, passed out of the House by one vote when Rep. Marian McClure (R-Green Valley) changed her vote to Yes, under pressure from her partners running for the Corporation Commission–Bob Robson (R-Chandler) and Bob Stump (R-Peoria). They all have been led to believe that the anti-marriage amendment will bring more hard-right voters to the polls in November, and they will benefit from it. It would appear it doesn’t matter to them how many LGBT people get hurt on their way to higher office.
Despite withering pressure from the hard right lobbyists, the bill never made it to the floor. Senate President Tim Bee (R-Tucson) apparently came to understand that a yes vote on the amendment would compromise the image of moderation and bipartisanship he has built up over the years, so he refused to bring it forth while at the same time saying to members of his own caucus that he would bring it forth in time.
His caucus members brought it forth for him on Wednesday when they voted to force it to the floor, but it did not receive the votes to carry at that time because the 16th vote was in a cabin in northern Arizona — Senator Karen Johnson (R-Mesa). She is not running for re-election, and had declared early in the session that her last day would be June 21. She left and planned not to return.
What she didn’t plan on was members of her church–including her bishop for Arizona–surrounding her cabin at all hours of the day and night praying for her that she be moved into returning to Phoenix to vote for the amendment.
The pressure worked, and she arrived at the Capitol on Friday, when the bill would be brought back up for reconsideration. Senator Tom O’Halleran (R-Sedona) was rumored to be gone as well, but he stayed to vote Yes. Sixteen votes in favor, including Tim Bee, were present, but we found out that two of them, Senator Pam Gorman (R-Anthem) and Karen Johnson, had plane flights out of town that evening and would be gone by 7pm.
So we forces of reason had our mission — drag things out until those two were gone, then adjourn sine die. For reasons way too complicated to explain in this already voluminous missive, we had to filibuster in the House and in the Senate, without making it appear we were actually filibustering. Rep. Sinema served as field general, and she picked four of us to do the talking, based on the fact that we always did a lot of talking and we didn’t want others to catch on to what we were doing.
The four were Reps. Prezelski (D-South Tucson), Ableser (D-Tempe), Ulmer (D-Yuma), and me. We asked a whole lot of questions in caucus (at one point we stretched out discussion of two of the bills to 40 minutes), in Committee of the Whole, and in explaining our votes in third read and final passage. We were so convincing that certain other members of our own caucus who were not in on the plan began to openly mock us for talking too long and told us to sit down and shut up. In the end we were able to extend debate past 7pm.
Our colleagues in the Senate were doing the same thing on the floor, but things were not going so well. Republicans began suspending Senate rules left and right to deprive the Democrats of talking time, and in one case suspended an entire calendar of bills that had already been passed, a move that had the effect of killing them. People called each other names and nearly got into shoving matches. Senators cried, while other senators openly laughed at those who cried.
Decorum broke down almost completely as the torchbearers for the “moral majority” followed a scorched-earth policy in their single-minded quest to take away rights from LGBT people. After 7pm, it became clear that Gorman and Johnson had no intention to leave to make their planes, and by 7:20, the filibuster could hold out no longer.
The vote was called for through a series of rule suspensions, and voting finally proceeded. Senator Carolyn Allen (R-Scottsdale) left in disgust before the vote. Senator Paula Aboud (D-Tucson), the only open lesbian in the Senate, talked about the power of the love between her and her partner, and asked the other senators, “Why are you afraid of our love? Are you afraid of me? Do I scare you?” Every Republican (besides Carolyn Allen) voted yes, then turned their backs and left the floor in the middle of Aboud’s speech.
After all had voted except President Bee, the tally stood at 15 in favor. Weighing in last, Bee explained his vote. He hammered the Center for Arizona Policy and its tactics, calling the issue divisive and saying that the lobbyists in favor of the amendment had “confronted members in hostile ways and coerced them.”
Many of us watching held our breath, wondering if Bee would step up courageously to do the right thing–not the easy thing. Would he vote No, and show that he puts policy above politics? Would he reject the Republican strategists who were convinced the anti-marriage amendment would help spur conservative voters to vote for him in his congressional race against Gabrielle Giffords?
His voice moved swiftly lower–almost to a whisper–as he concluded, “But my constituents want to vote on this, so I will vote Aye.”
With that, Tim Bee cast the deciding 16th vote, and in effect personally placed the anti-marriage amendment on the ballot once again, ensuring that the divisiveness will continue into the electorate at large.
This concluded the session like a punch to the gut. Exhausted and dispirited, we adjourned sine die shortly thereafter without doing much else. Bills that were in process died, including a vital bill to enact new tax credits for attracting huge solar energy plants to Arizona–plants and factories we are currently losing to California and Oregon in increasing numbers. But apparently, outlawing Gay marriage again was much more important than rebuilding our economy through renewable energy.
After lambasting CAP’s political tactics, Bee turned around and blamed his constituents for his cowardly vote. His constituents don’t deserve being scapegoated like this. They already voted on this in 2006 and gave a resounding “no” — 47.5% to 52.5%. That was wider than the statewide margin of 48.2% to 51.8%. And the Congressional district that he wants to represent come November also said “no” by a wider margin still: 45.4% to 54.6%. What part of “no” does Bee not understand?
