Box Turtle Bulletin

Catholic Group Releases Completely Bogus “Poll”

A press release from the Knights of Columbus, makes the following dramatic claim.

A new poll of California voters shows Proposition 8, a proposed constitutional amendment that would reserve marriage for opposite-sex couples, has a 9 percentage point lead among likely voters, 52% to 43%. The poll was conducted for the Knights of Columbus by the Marist College Institute of Public Opinion between September 28 and October 5, 2008.

That would certainly be of concern… if it were even remotely true.

There are two types of polls, those that seek to obtain information about the views and attitudes of those surveyed, and those that seek to provide a false sense of authority to a questionable claim.

If I were seeking to know whether Joe’s Ice Cream or Suzy’s Ice Cream was a preferred brand, I might do a poll that asked participants a straight-forward question that revealed brand preference. “Which Ice Cream brand do you prefer, Joe’s or Suzy’s?”

But if I trying to get people to buy Joe’s Ice Cream, I might run a poll asking, “If you knew that Suzy’s Ice Cream was made in filthy and unsanitary conditions and that the profits go to support terrorism, which brand would you buy, Joe’s or Suzy’s”.

To understand this new “poll” from the Knights (PDF), you have to know a bit about the players

The Knights of Columbus are a Catholic fraternal order. Some of what they do benefits various charities and other efforts seek to impose their Catholic faith on the laws that impact their non-Catholic neighbors. The Knights of Columbus have given over $1,285,000 to the Yes on 8 Campaign.

The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion is a survey research center at Marist College, “a non-sectarian college that privileges its Catholic heritage in all areas of university life.” Marist is a conservative college.

I have found no indication that the Marist Poll is generally fraudulent of disreputable. But even the most casual of observers can see pretty quickly that this effort for the Knights of Columbus is nothing more that a smoke screen created to give substance to a blatantly untruthful press release.

The first indication that there may be shenanigans is in the chief question on the poll. Reputable polls will ask questions that are likely to elicit a response that will correlate to what will happen when the voter enters the booth. Not in this case.

California voters will be asked to vote yes or no on the following:

8. ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and 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 on state and local governments.

One would expect, then, for a poll seeking voter intentions to ask a question that reasonable approximates the ballot question. It should reference same-sex couples and discuss eliminating rights. Marist asked the following:

Proposition 8 is the “Limit on Marriage Constitutional Amendment.” It amends the California constitution to say 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?

That’s not the same question. The name given by Marist may fit well with their religious agenda, but it isn’t on the ballot. And no where in Marist’s question was any indication that same-sex couples would have their rights eliminated.

Thereafter the poll gets more interesting. Their other questions fall under what is called “push polling“. It’s where a “pollster” is phrasing their statement in the form of a question but the objective is to sway the voter, not obtain their unbiased opinion.

The language in Proposition 8 defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman was approved by more than 61% of California voters in 2000. Earlier this year, four judges in San Francisco overturned this vote and declared that gay people have a constitutional right to be married. Do you think the judges were correct in their decision, or not?

And then there is a string of completely dishonest claims

Please tell me whether each of the following makes you more or less likely to support Proposition 8. What if you learned that:

• If Proposition 8 passes, gay or lesbian couples will still be able to form civil unions and have the same rights as married heterosexual couples
• If Proposition 8 fails, heterosexual couples who want to be legally married in a church that won’t perform same-sex marriage would then have to be married outside their church
• If Proposition 8 fails, priests, ministers, and other clergy who won’t perform same-sex marriages because of their religious beliefs will face lawsuits and may lose their right to perform heterosexual marriages
• If Proposition 8 fails, children in public schools will be taught that marriage is a relationship between any two adults rather than a man and a woman
• If Proposition 8 fails, religious schools that provide housing for married students may lose their tax-exempt status if they don’t do so for gay or lesbian couples
• If Proposition 8 fails, religious adoption agencies that place children only in homes with a mother and a father will not be able to place children in foster homes

And my favorite

Please listen to the following views about same-sex marriage.

(A) Same sex marriage should NOT be law if priests, ministers, and other clergy who believe the Bible allows for marriage only between a man and a woman will not be able to legally marry these couples in their place of worship without risk of lawsuits or loss of their tax-exempt status.

(B) Same sex marriage SHOULD become law, so gay and lesbian couples may have the same rights as other couples through marriage.

Do you believe same sex marriage should not be law or should be law?

Wow. Those are my two choices?

And so on they go.

But even with the ridiculousness of the “poll”s questions, I still have questions about the polling methods. It is not clear in which order these questions were asked. If the Push Polling came before the question about voting intention, then 52% saying that they support Proposition 8 is the result of the Push Poll rather than a reflection of the voters’ intentions when they picked up the phone.

This does seem to be likely. The results of the question about “four judges in San Francisco” overruling “61% of California voters” also resulted in 52% to 43%, an unlikely coincidence.

Also, considering the dishonesty stinking up the rest of the “poll”, I would have to question the methods by which the samples were selected. Choosing to call only on land lines, selection of calling time, and many other variables can all result in skewed results. And what of sample selection, is it representative of the diversity of the voting population?

Based on the questions they asked, I can’t be blamed for my suspicion that Marist cut whatever corners would result in the desired press release. Clearly, the desired conclusion was far more important than an honest assessment of the current status of voter opinion.

And so the anti-gay Knights of Columbus have released their bogus “poll” saying what they wanted it to say. And they only had to give up their very last shred of integrity to do so.

Caught: Teacher Indoctrinating Students About Gay Marriage

It’s true that teachers are trying to indoctrinate children with their own views about same-sex marriage without consulting with parents or even giving them the option to not have their kids subjected to the teacher’s political beliefs.

The Californian reports

A Salinas High School teacher who distributed “Yes on Proposition 8” literature to her students last week has been asked to refrain from doing so by administrators.

School children were being exposed to issues about multiple-partner sex and other sexual practices and arrangements without even a parent being informed of content in the material provided.

The literature that was passed out to students says it is important to protect marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.

The one-page statement also says it is critical to vote yes on Proposition 8, saying its failure would eventually force the state to approve “polygamy, polymory, incest, group and other ‘creative’ arrangements for marriage.”

Oh the tragedy. The shock and horror. I should prepare an advertisement claiming that Yes on 8 is teaching school children about “King and Queen and Queen and Niece“.

Fresno Bee Opposes Prop 8

The Fresno Bee opposes Proposition 8

All loving, committed couples should have the right to marry, with all the benefits and obligations that relationship incurs. That’s the law now in California, and it should remain the law. The state constitution shouldn’t be used to turn some people into second-class citizens. Vote “no” on Proposition 8.

And even more importanty:

The claim that schools will be forced by the state to teach “gay marriage,” featured in TV ads flooding the airwaves, is a flat lie. Local school districts control such curriculum, and state law permits parents to withdraw their children from lessons they find objectionable.

Which makes it official.

Every major newspaper in every significant geographic area in the state has now officially taken a position in opposition to Proposition 8.

Joe Biden: “If I Lived In California, I’d Clearly Vote Against Prop 8”

Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee appeared on Elen DeGeneres’s program where he spoke of his opposition to Prop 8.

Biden: First of all, congratulations.

DeGeneres: Thank you, thank you.

Biden: Number two, if I lived in California, I’d clearly vote against Prop 8.

DeGeneres: Fantastic!

Biden: You know, by the way, Barack and I both opposed a similar attempt nationally, that was an attempt to talk about a constitutional amendment which I think, I think it’s regressive, I think it’s unfair, and so I vote no.

Degeneres: No on Prop 8. Fantastic. That’s what I wanted to know…

See also:
CBN: Sarah Palin Supports Federal Marriage Amendment

To the Woman Who Lives Across the Street and Watched Me Grow Up

I grew up across the street from a soft-hearted Mormon woman (and her late husband) in Ventura, CA. Back during the Prop 22 election she confessed to my mother her guilt and conflict because she felt a “yes” vote was a vote against a gay man down the street she knew personally.

Today I received a text message from my mom (she’s so hip) alerting me to a “yes on prop 8” sign that had appeared on the soft-hearted Mormon’s lawn.

I’ve never formally come out to her but I think the time has come to mail her a hand-written card:

With the upcoming vote on prop 8 I’m sending letters to people in my life who may not be aware people that I, and other people they care about are gay or lesbian. Under prop 8, I would no longer be treated as a full and equal citizen in the place I call home.

ARC Student Recall Election Update

On October 1 we reported that the student body government of American River College in Sacramento had endorsed Proposition 8. This triggered a recall effort from frustrated students.

We had noted that five of the supporters were part of the vehemently homophobic Slavic community in Sacramento. The Sacramento Bee provides addition information.

Three of the other student leaders up for recall are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In June, church leaders urged Mormon followers to “do what they can” to support Proposition 8.

Student Association Vice President Blaze Jeppesen, who authored the measure, declined to talk to The Bee about what role, if any, his LDS faith played in his decision to bring the hot-button issue to campus.

Association President Jacob Johnson, who also is a Mormon, said since he was conducting the meetings, he remained impartial. He said he didn’t try to influence the council and didn’t vote on the issue.

But Johnson said his faith is important to him and he supports Proposition 8.

His sister Heather Johnson supported the campus resolution and is on the recall list.

North County Times Provides Confusing Editorial on Prop 8

The editorial board of the North County Times (a newspaper with circulation of about 95,000 serving Northern San Diego County) has taken a libertarian stance on marriage:

We believe the California and federal governments should not be in the business of defining marriage, especially not in an era with societal views on sexual orientation in flux, and that government should leave the definition of marriage to individual faith communities to determine.

This would allow government to deal with all civil unions or domestic partnerships without regard to sexual identities or religious traditions, and allow equal rights for all.

Defining marriage is something we believe is best left to the individual and the faith communities.

Based on this position, they then say

Vote your consciences on Proposition 8.

Wait. What?

There is no neutral stance on Proposition 8 for those who favor libertarian ideals or seek to reduce governmental interference. This amendment would introduce beuorocratic intervention into the lives of individuals and their bodies of faith, inquiring as to the make-up of the couples, approving some and denying others.

If one truly believes that the State has no business defining marriage, one cannot in good conscience support an amendment that does just that.

North County Times joins the Modesto Bee as the second paper with a “vote your conscience” position.

Newspaper Endorsements

Hollywood Party to Fight Prop 8

Not busy on Tuesday? Got an extra $25,000?

If so, run on over to Ron Burkle’s house for dinner. Melissa Etheridge will be singing, along with Mary J. Blige. You’ll get to chat up the celebs, expected to include Babs herself. It’s definitely A-List Hollywood.

Here’s hoping that Burkle’s party is full to overflowing and that guest have such a great time that they feel compelled to write a big check on top of the per-plate charge.

Mormons Petition LDS Leaders Opposing Anti-Gay Political Activities

A group of about fifty Mormons presented stacks about 300 letters and a petition to officials of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints yesterday opposing the church’s efforts in support of Proposition 8 in California.

The letters were bundled in fifteen stacks and wrapped in pink ribbons, to be split among the Mormon Church’s three-man First Presidency and twelve apostles. The group sang the Mormon hymn “As I Have Loved You, Love One Another” during the event.

The protesters also deposited several manila envelopes containing signatures on the petition. It asks the LDS Church to stop “political organizing efforts and financial support of attempts to use the government to restrict the secular and religious rights of gay and lesbian individuals and publicly retract their request that members of the LDS Church support such measures.” The group also delivered bunches of carnations representing people they say have lost their lives in the gay marriage debate. They were referring to suicides by gay Mormons.

“We urge LDS leaders to read these letters and listen to their words,” said Andrew D. Callahan, an LDS high priest in Nebraska, who organized an Internet petition drive for Mormons who oppose the amendment known as Proposition 8.

Callahan, you may recall, faces a disciplinary hearing for charges of “conduct unbecoming a member of the church and … apostasy.” That hearing was originally scheduled for September, but has been put off until after the elections. Callahan runs the web site Signing For Something, which features several statements from fellow Mormons opposing the church’s efforts on behalf of so-called “marriage amendments” in California and Arizona.

Oct 15-16 SurveyUSA Poll Shows Not Much Change

CBS5 has a new SurveyUSA poll out today and it is not much different from the one released on October 6th.

The poll of 615 likely voters released Friday found that 48 percent favored Proposition 8, while 45 percent planned to vote against the measure. Seven percent said they were not yet certain.

The poll has a four percent margin of sampling error.

The last poll found that 47 percent in favor and 42 percent opposed. It is difficult to draw any conclusions from this new poll or to show any shift in the electorate.

As I said on the 6th, I don’t put much trust in the SurveyUSA polling methodology. And in reviewing the breakout, some things seem illogical. For example, voters age 50-64 are more likely to vote “no” than voters 18-34 or 35-49. This seems inconsistent with what socialogists have noted in trends of acceptance.

Additionally, this poll finds Asian-American voters opposing Prop 8 by 48% to 42%, while a recent survey of Asian-American voting intentions found opposition to be 57% to 32%.

However, this poll should inspire us to greater efforts.

Ellen Buys Airtime to Oppose Proposition 8

Ellen DeGeneres has been using her popular daytime talk show to get out the message that same-sex marriage is life-changing and beautiful. She has also recorded a 30 second message to spread the word, a message that was viewed 80,000 times.

Now the Sacramento Bee is reporting that she cares so much about getting out her message that she’s funding the airing of the ad.

Eddie Fernandez of the No on 8 campaign said DeGeneres is starting by purchasing $100,000 in air time for the ad.

This appeal, made and paid for by someone that listeners may feel that they know and love, may make this proposition personal for some viewers. I commend Ellen on her efforts and generosity.

Mohler Sees the Bigger Picture

In the world of anti-gay activism, there are those who will say or do anything to advance their anti-gay agenda. Integrity has long since been discarded and honesty always take a back seat to insinuation, innuendo, and sometimes blatant lies.

Take, for example, a recent outing by first graders to celebrate the marriage of their teacher to her wife. The bare facts, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, are these:

• The lesbian teacher had not requested that her students attend the ceremony.
• A parent decided that it would be good for the students to go congratulate their teacher and came up with the idea for the outing.
• The interim director approved the trip as a “teaching moment”.
• Parental permission was required and two families opted not to have their children attend. They remained at school with another class.
• The children went at noon, rode a public bus, and walked one block to the courthouse. The trip did not significantly diminish their scholastic endeavors.
• The children did not attend the wedding, but waited outside the courthouse and threw rose petals when the teacher came out. She was surprised and pleased.
• At least one child wore a “No on 8” button which reflected the political views of her parents.

This story has delighted the anti-gay industry. Writers have distorted the story and passed it on for others to take it even further from the truth.

OneNewNow falsely states:

For the school-sponsored trip, 18 first-graders — ages 5 and 6 — were taken to San Francisco City Hall to witness the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner.

Yes on 8’s Chip White told CNSNews:

“The other side claims that we’re lying (when we say) that same-sex marriage will be taught in schools. This field trip shows not only will same-sex marriage be taught in schools, but it already is being taught in schools,” he said.

Concerned Women for America’s Leslie Smith claimed

Conservative and liberal critics alike are decrying the use of taxpayer money to bus the students to the ceremony under the auspices of “education.”

CWA’s Wendy Wright went beyond getting the facts wrong and blatantly lied when she said

And it didn’t take long for activists to go straight to children to advance their agenda, as if other people’s children are merely pawns.

Consistent through out the repeating and retelling of this story is a need on the part of anti-gays to create a situation that did not occur. Their desire to win an election has vastly overpowered any instinct towards telling the truth.

But there are some individuals with whom I sharply disagree but who also try to keep their claims this side of fraudulent. They may take positions that I find contrary to both Christian principle and American philosophy, but their words are not generally dishonest – or at least not blatantly so.

One such person is Albert Mohler, the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

Mohler has also reviewed the story about the San Francisco children and found it disturbing. But Mohler’s distress is not based in bogus taxpayer bus expenses or in the pretense that the will of parents was disregarded. He does not rant about “exposed to the ceremony” or other misstatements of fact. Dr. Mohler has a broader concern.

Human society is a complex reality, but certain constants have framed that reality for human beings. One of those constants has been the institution of marriage. The respected status of the heterosexual pairing, set apart for exclusive rights and respected for its functions for the society, is among the most important of those constants. Even where deviations from this pattern occur, they are of interest merely for the fact that they are deviations from this norm.

The legalization and normalization of same-sex marriage undermine that constant. What had been a clear picture now becomes confusing. Marriage had been universally understood to be heterosexual. Now, it is something else. The picture is further confused by alienating the heterosexual breeding and parenting function from marriage. Not only does marriage appear now to be what it never was before, the essential functions of marriage are up for grabs.

The pictures in the mind change.

What Dr. Mohler rightly notes is that this battle is not truly over first grade field trips. It isn’t really over parental rights or churches being sued.

What the battle over the legal recognition of same-sex marriage is about is the cultural recognition of same-sex unions as part of the definition of marriage. It’s a reflection of a society that no longer views gay persons as objectionable or inferior and which no longer gives preference and privilege to the institution of heterosexuality.

Those of us who favor equality emphatically state that the State cannot treat citizens dissimilarity. And that marriage is a civil right which cannot be eliminated to meet the demands of some churches’ doctrines.

But although Mohler is talking about Proposition 8 and encouraging its passage, that isn’t really at the heart of his complaint. It isn’t so much that a state has allowed marriage as it is that a society has rejected his moral argument.

The battle over Proposition 8 is a struggle over some of the most fundamental principles of life, society, and meaning. In the eyes of same-sex marriage advocates the battle is for equality, dignity, and respect for homosexual relationships. In the eyes of same-sex marriage opponents, the battle is for the preservation of an institution essential for human happiness and thriving.

Both sides in this debate understand that issues right at the core of human dignity are at stake. Each side understands that the decision on this question will shape the future of our civilization.

And though Mohler writes his piece to rally the troops, I think he knows that even if he wins the battle that is this proposition, he has lost the war. Mohler knows that his church, and many others, have for years appealed to the people. They have preached sermons. They have staged rallies. They have knocked on doors and done good works and even reverted to cries of hellfire and damnation.

And society has listened to their “good news” and found it neither good nor news. Their appeal to tradition and a literal interpretation of Genesis, their insistence on sexual rules that seem to be based on nebulous morality rather than on pragmatic approaches to pregnancy, disease, and emotional health, their conflation of religion and partisan politics, and their efforts to control those around them have caused conservative evangelical Christians to become viewed with hostility and distrust.

If their brand of Christianity is to be relevant to the world around it, they need to find a message that most will find to be helpful and useful to their lives. Because today’s youth have access to more information and shared experiences than ever before, appeals to ignorance or baseless dogma will doom a church for future generations.

Insistence on anti-gay dogmatism in a culture that is coming to value and respect their gay neighbors may alienate an entire generation. And I find within Mohler’s writing a suggestion that he may on some level recognize that Southern Baptists run the risk that it may be too late.

As he noted:

It turns out that parents had the right to use an “opt out” provision to keep their children at the school, and not at the ceremony at City Hall. According to the paper, two families did just that. Two. Eighteen students participated in the field trip. This, you must understand, is the new normal.

Bilingual East-LA Newsgroup Encourages a “No” Vote on Proposition 8

Eastern Group Publications is a media outlet that is likely unfamiliar to most Californians. But this newsgroup prints ten local newspapers that reach a demographic that may not see itself represented by the Los Angeles Times or the Daily News. These bilingual weeklies targeted at a mostly Hispanic readership have a combined distribution of well over 100,000:

• Bell Gardens Sun
• City Terrace Comet
• Commerce Comet
• East Los Angeles Brooklyn-Belvedere Comet
• Eastside Sun (Boyle Heights, East LA)
• Mexican American Sun
• Montebello Comet
• Monterey Park Comet
• Northeast Sun (Highland Park, Cypress Park, Glassell Park, Eagle Rock, El Sereno, Lincoln Heights)
• Wyvernwood Chronicle

And while this may not be exactly the editorial I would have crafted, nonetheless I welcome EGP’s position:

Prop 8—Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Why is this Proposition on the ballot? Government cannot legislate morality. We believe marriage should mean a man and a woman becoming wedded, but if gays believe they are morally entitled to legally wed, we don’t believe there is anything that will change their minds. The courts have already affirmed this right, so should we.
Vote No

This pragmatic “Who Cares?” approach may well resonate with their readers.

Newspapers Opposing Proposition 8

SD Union-Tribune’s Second Prop 8 Editorial

The San Diego Union-Tribune is not pleased about the content of the Yes on 8 advertisements.

The “Yes on 8” forces have recently waged an offensive but terribly effective war on the airwaves to convince voters that, if they don’t draw the line at gay marriage, before they know it their children will learn about same-sex unions in public school.

How shameful. That is not what this debate is about. Parents have the right to be notified if such a thing is discussed in class, and to remove their children if necessary. The ads don’t mention that.
…
Enough with these petty political games. This is serious business. Let’s shelve the theatrics, and think about what would be best for all Californians. The answer begins with equal rights for everyone and a No vote on Proposition 8.

This is their second editorial opposing the proposition.

Bakersfield Californian says No to Prop 8

Bakersfield, though only a two hour drive from Los Angeles, is worlds apart when it comes to equality and support for members of gay community. In June, Kern Co. Clerk Ann K. Barnett cancelled the performance of all civil marriages rather than allow gay people to avail themselves of the services of the county.

So it is especially sweet that the Bakersfield Californian has come out in strong opposition to Proposition 8:

The bottom line is the California Constitution and ultimately the U.S. Constitution. Both guarantee all people equal protection and equal rights under the law. We must not support any constitutional amendment that would serve to take away fundamental rights. It’s as simple as that.

Californians need to move beyond the divisiveness that Prop. 8 has engendered and embrace tolerance and reconciliation. Live and let live.

We recommend a NO vote on Prop. 8.

Newspapers Opposing Prop 8