Box Turtle Bulletin

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You !!!

We reported to you on October 7 that the No on 8 campaign was worried because they were being outspent, and without our message being heard we were facing frightening poll results.

At that time the Yes on 8 supporters were out-contributing us by 3 to 2.

It seems that our supporters have heard the plea. And the fundraising deficit is beginning to diminish. The Mercury News reports:

After sounding the alarm last week about its $10 million fundraising deficit, Equality California, the lead organization for the No on 8 campaign, has raised more than $3 million within California since Oct. 6.

The No on 8 campaign has also received commitments for an additional $4 million in donations that have not been received, said Kate Kendell, a member of the campaign’s executive committee. “That has been extraordinary, and has certainly we think helped us close the gap on the $10 million they had out-raised us, but we are not the least bit sanguine about this.”

Recent significant pledges and contributions include (Advocate and CA Sec. of State):

• $1,000,000 – California Teachers Association (total $1,250,000)
• $500,000 – Steve Bing
• $120,000 – Tom Bombardier and John Fowler
• $100,000 – T.R. Knight
• $10,000 – Suze Orman
• $10,000 – Larry Basile and Jonathan Crutchley
• $5,000 – Eric McCormack (Will and Grace)
• $5,000 – Dana Delany (Desperate Housewives)

Other contributors have given generously with five and six figure contributions (including a $650,000 contribution that seems to have caught no press). As they have not been publicized, they may be seeking a low profile so I won’t draw attention to their names. But these contributions come from various walks of life, many are heterosexual, many are not extravagantly wealthy. Business have contributed, as have trade groups, political associations, and religious groups.

Thank you to all who have contributed.

All is appreciated and more is needed. Please continue to contribute what you can, not only to No on Proposition 8 but also to efforts to fight against Proposition 102 in Arizona and Amendment 2 in Florida.

In the same time period,

Since Oct. 6, large contributions to ProtectMarriage.com, the lead group supporting Proposition 8, have totaled just $405,969.

Pro-Prop 8 Chinese Ad Equates Same-Sex Marriage to Pedophilia

… and incest and polygamy.

These people running this campaign have no shame whatsoever.

Chico Enterprise-Record Says “No”

You may recall that the Yes on 8 campaign has the endorsement of a sole newspaper, the Paradise Post. And you may know that Paradise is a small neighbor of Chico.

Well, the Chico Enterprise-Record has released their voter recommendations and it seems that the attitude in Butte County is not universally in favor of discrimination.

Proposition 8 would overturn the right of same-sex couples to marry, getting around the pesky little constitutional requirement of equal treatment for all by amending the constitution.

We still fail to understand why this is the government’s business, and the proponents’ arguments just don’t catch much traction with us. How can preventing some people from marrying protect marriage? Wouldn’t banning divorce be better?

The arguments against same-sex marriages seem close to arguments against mixed-race marriages you’d hear back in the ’60s. Hopefully we’ll get beyond all that some day. Vote no on Proposition 8.

Newspapers Opposing Proposition 8

Asian Americans Plan to Vote No on Prop 8

A poll of Asian Americans reveals that they do not favor amending the constitution to enshrine discrimination against gays. (SJ Mercury-News)

The poll found that 57 percent of Asian-Americans likely to vote in the Nov. 4 election oppose Proposition 8, which would reverse last spring’s California Supreme Court ruling that gave gays and lesbians the right to marry. Only 32 percent planned to vote for the measure. Eleven percent were undecided.

The poll (pdf) found the proposed amendment to be out of favor with all subsets of this population.

Across all national origin groups in the survey, more opposed than favored the changing the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. An outright majority opposed the measure among Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans, and Vietnamese, and a near majority of Japanese Americans (46%) and Asian Indians (47%) did so as well.

Steve Bing Gives Half a Million

Steve Bing, a producer of such movies as Beowulf and Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World, has pledged $500,000 to the campaign to fight against Proposition 8.

Bing is what one might call “notoriously heterosexual”. Let’s hope his giving sets an example for those in the entertainment industry who are gay or who have benefited greatly from gay support.

An Open Letter to Madonna

Dear Madonna,

You are coming to Los Angeles next month as part of your Sticky and Sweet Tour. Several of my friends are going and they’ve asked me to get a ticket as well.

In fact, among some of my friends, being one of your fans is almost an expectation. More than one were teen-age members of your fan club (they’re in their 30’s now) and while only one actively collects memorabilia anymore, the idea of missing a concert of yours is unthinkable.

I’m sure you’ve figured by now that these friends are gay men. After all, Madonna, gay men make up a huge majority of your loyal fans, those who buy every album and keep your name and music relevant.

And I do enjoy your music. I own several CD’s and caught your last concert in Las Vegas. It was a great show and I hear the new one is as well.

But I will not be going.

You see, Madonna, when you make a career out of appealing to a gay audience, when you cultivate your Gay Icon status, and when you make hundreds of millions of dollars in the process, you owe something back. You owe the loyalty to the gay community that they have given you.

And you are not fulfilling that obligation. You have given NOTHING to the fight in California, Arizona, and Florida to protect the rights of the gay citizens of those states. I guess you think that you have better things to do with your money.

So if you are looking for me to drop down a couple hundred bucks to watch you lip-sync, it isn’t going to happen. I too have better things to do with my money. For one thing, I’ll need to pick up the new Fall Out Boy album.

Sincerely,

Timothy Kincaid

p.s. Feel free to pass this message on to Barbara Streisand, Bette Midler, and Cher, all of whom have also given nothing to the cause.

New Editorials Opposing Proposition 8

We have a few additional newspapers who’ve added their editorial voice in opposition to Proposition 8

The Los Angeles Daily News is LA’s smaller and slightly more conservative paper and bases its readership in The Valley and other suburban areas.

The supporters of the ban, which include several faith-based organizations and churches, see this as a movement toward societal acceptance of a group that they don’t think ought to exist. Under the U.S. Constitution, they have a right to think that. But it doesn’t allow them to deny equal rights to anyone.

The Santa Rosa Press-Democrat

It’s time to put this issue to rest.

The court ruled that the state constitution does not tolerate a distinction between unions of opposite-sex couples and those of same-sex couples. And we don’t believe that voters should, as a matter of equity, fairness and decency, go out of their way to rewrite the constitution to create such a distinction.

The Stockton Record

To approve Proposition 8 is to codify discrimination. Californians cannot let that happen.

Newspapers Opposing Proposition 8
Newspaper Endorsing Proposition 8

Conservative Press-Enterprise Opposes Prop 8

The Press-Enterprise is the leading newspaper for the Inland Empire, that section of Southern California which is East of the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego. This area is conservative and the Editorial page of the PE often reflects that political slant.

The PE has just released a recap of their voter recommendations and, not surprisingly, their endorsements for Congressional, Assembly, and State Senate seats consist of ten Republicans and one Democrat.

However, they also recommend a “No” vote on Proposition 8.

As the Press Enterprise editorial on September 27 stated,

The court ruling merely made marriage legally available to couples who until now did not have that option. The decision to marry is those couples’ business, and no one else’s. There is no compelling public policy reason to reverse that arrangement, and voters should say no to Prop. 8.

It’s nice to see the message get out that those who favor Republican representatives can also join in this principled stand against an unnecessary and discriminatory effort.

Newspapers

Pepperdine Statement on “Yes On 8” Television Ads

“George Pepperdine” — I don’t know if that’s his real name or if it’s a pseudonym in honor of Pepperdine University’s founder — left a statement from Pepperdine University in our comments section. This statement by Pepperdine University president Andrew K. Benton addresses the recent controversy over the “Yes on 8” television ads which prominently displays Pepperdine’s name.

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: University Faculty

FROM: Andrew K. Benton

RE: University Neutrality and Academic Freedom

DATE: October 14, 2008

I want to provide an update on an issue that weighs heavily on many of our minds: encouraging academic freedom while refraining from political endorsement by Pepperdine University. As most are aware, Yes on 8 ads airing on television and radio feature one of our professors. The Pepperdine name is prominently displayed in the current round of ads and many vocal supporters and opponents of Prop 8 see the opinions expressed as not only the professor’s, but Pepperdine’s as well.

Many of our professors write op-eds, books and give speeches; and they are appropriately identified with Pepperdine University. My first reaction to this series of television ads was that Pepperdine was too prominent. Many on the faculty disagreed, some agreed strongly. At the faculty conference I learned that a disclaimer would satisfy the professor and others who were involved. We offered language that was simple and clear, and while we knew the firestorm would continue in some quarters, we felt a straightforward disclaimer would allow the professor his right to speak and our right to remain outside any role of endorsement in the political fray. The next day, I learned that the professor and those promoting Proposition 8 preferred to withdraw Pepperdine’s name completely. We agreed. It was a change from a position announced just the day before, but it seemed a stronger measure and appropriate.

Just prior to running a second ad, the campaign announced to us that in their opinion it would be more effective if Pepperdine’s name was back in. They added a disclaimer, albeit so small and bare, that most do not see it. It was not the language which we had suggested. They did not ask us; they told us what they were going to do, and they did it.

Without any involvement in the campaign, Pepperdine has been lionized and vilified. We have been given credit where it is not due and blamed beyond anyone’s wildest imaginings. I, and perhaps many of you, continue to receive words of praise and condemnation from people who are either thanking us, or sharply criticizing us. Whether the writers are for or against Prop 8, I take no comfort from either position as it puts us where we don’t belong — in partisan politics.

This is a very challenging situation. We believe that the right to freedom of expression must be balanced with the fact that universities cannot endorse political candidates and propositions. We can host debates, we can educate, but we can’t endorse.

We regret when anyone supposes that we are inappropriately involved in a political issue when we are not. We will take whatever measures we deem appropriate to correct the misunderstanding. I will be writing to alumni and donors to explain the delicate nature of the balance we strike. We must not chill the right to free expression, but we must also avoid the appearance (intended or not) of political partisanship.

You can be of service to our institution by helping us clear up this confusion with those who may ask. I appreciate your understanding, your assistance and your patience.

Villaraigosa Supports Marriage

PolitickerCA is reporting that LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is increasing his effort to oppose anti-marriage initiative Proposition 8.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa jumped fully into the Prop. 8 fray Monday, sending out a statewide message via the Courage Campaign, a grass- and netroots activist organization, urging people to defeat the measure.

The popular Democratic mayor, who is thought to be actively considering a run for governor in 2010, also announced he was personally donating $25,000 to the effort directed at getting voters to reject the initiative that would permanently codify marriage in the California Constitution as being strictly between a man and a woman.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor for representing me and my fellow Angelinos in our efforts to retain our equality.

Mormon Leadership: You (and not I) Should Sacrifice

The Sacramento Bee has an article today about the sacrifices that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have made so that they can take away the right to marry from same-sex couples.

Rick and Pam Patterson gave $50,000.

He drives a 10-year-old Honda Civic to his job at Intel. She is a stay-at home mom who makes most of the family meals and bakes her own bread. The couple, who have five sons between the ages of 3 and 12, live in a comfortable but modest three-bedroom home in Folsom.

David and Susan Nielson gave $35,000.

The couple will forgo a vacation for the next two years and make other sacrifices to pay for their donation, he said.

Yes, they are faithful members of their church. And while the couples deny that they were pressured to contribute, both couples did so after the June 29 letter came out from the First Presidency and the church leadership requesting that Mormons “do what you can”.

However, this sacrifice seems not to have extended to the leaders actually contributing from their own personal funds. A search of the contribution database listing all contributors of $100 or more yields:

• President and Prophet Thomas Monson – $0.00
• 1st Counselor Henry Eyring – $0.00
• 2nd Counselor Dieter Uchtdorf – $0.00
• Apostle Boyd Packer – $0.00
• Apostle L. Tom Perry – $0.00
• Apostle Russell Nelson – $0.00
• Apostle Dallin Oaks – $0.00
• Apostle M. Russell Ballard – $0.00
• Apostle Joseph Wirthlin – $0.00
• Apostle Richard Scott – $0.00
• Apostle Robert D. Hales – $0.00
• Apostle Jeffery Holland – $0.00
• Apostle David Bednar – $0.00
• Apostle Quentin Cook – $0.00
• Apostle C. Todd Christofferson – $0.00

Perhaps “our best efforts” means something different to the leaders than it does to the followers.

A Poorly Conceived Show of Support

This past week a parent of a first grader in San Francisco thought it would be a good and supportive act to have the children in the first grade class surprise the teacher by showing up for her wedding to her same-sex partner. The school’s interim director thought this was a good idea and a “teaching moment” and so they organized a field trip. In total, 18 children from the charter school participated and two families chose to have their children remain at school with another first grade class.

I do not think that first graders are too young to know about marriage. Nor do I think that same-sex marriage is any more shocking, confusing, or inherently controversial than a marriage between persons of the opposite sex. And I don’t think that an outing to the marriage of a teacher is an inappropriate excursion for school children.

But I do think that one must be aware of the ramifications of ones decisions and choose wisely.

It is three weeks before California voters will decide whether to take away the right from same-sex couples to marry. And those who support the anti-marriage amendment have decided that fears about children are their strongest argument.

Surely even the most obtuse of parents and administrators had to have been aware that their actions were tailor-made for use by anti-gay activists. I find it hard to understand what they were thinking.

I know that San Francisco is insular and a conservative is hard to find. All of their friends and acquaintances support marriage equality and no doubt they thought this was a brave show of support. But did they not see the potential for misrepresentation or were they truly naïve enough to believe that supporters of Proposition 8 would behave admirably?

This should not be an issue. The parents were the ones who decided to which marriages their children would be exposed. This is not an example of “gay marriage being taught to first graders” over the objections of parents.

And I truly do appreciate the attitude behind their choice.

But anti-gays have already begun to use this in their effort to deny me equality. And I find it frustrating and annoying that the actions of some presumably-heterosexual people in San Francisco may well provide the basis for some Californians to become afraid of treating me equally.

Think, people. Think.

Ventura Star adds its “No” to the Chorus

Coming out in opposition to Proposition 8, the Ventura Star says

The Star urges a “no” vote on Proposition 8, which would embed discrimination in the California Constitution.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George, writing the majority opinion, got it right in the May ruling: “An individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”

Newspapers Opposing Proposition 8

Sacramento Bee says No to Prop 8

Of the fifty largest newspapers in the nation, six are in California. And with the Sacramento Bee’s position on Proposition 8, they are unanimous in their opposition to the anti-marriage proposition. The Bee says:

Just as an individual’s sexual orientation is not a legitimate basis on which to deny housing or a job, it is not a legitimate basis on which to deny individuals the right to marry. Californians should reject the call to amend the state constitution to exclude some people from marriage. That would be a black mark on the constitution, just as past exclusionary acts remain a stain on California’s history.

Vote “no”

The six largest newspapers in California (and the US) are: The Los Angeles Times (4), the San Francisco Chronical (21), the San Diego Union-Tribune (26), the Orange County Register (36), the Sacramento Bee (37), and the San Jose Mercury News (49). See Newspapers Opposing Prop 8.

A Newspaper Endorses Proposition 8

Well, we knew it had to happen and finally it has.

Although there are a string of newspapers opposing Proposition 8 and although that list ranges from big city behemoths to rural community news sources, from liberal to conservative, English and Spanish, we knew that some day, somewhere, an editorial board would favor the anti-marriage proposition.

They came close with the Modesto Bee. Although the editors in Modesto discussed the proposition in terms of “defining marriage” rather than taking away the rights of citizens, they ultimately decided to leave it up to the voter and made no recommendation.

But now supporters of Proposition 8 have cause to rejoice. They finally have a newspaper endorsement, the Paradise Post.

The Paradise Post is the local newspaper for Paradise, a mountain town in Butte County, a conservative area that supported Proposition 22 by 69%. Paradise has a population of perhaps 30,000 and the Post has a circulation of about 8,000. It’s not much surprise that the supporters of the anti-marriage should have found an ally in this local paper.

The Post editorial goes on a bit about how they are not homophobic (“Nothing could be further from the truth”) but the bulk of their editorial is about “radical redefinition”, warnings about polygamy, and fear about the evil intent of “gay activists”. Their closing argument is a masterpiece in unintended irony:

Tolerance of homosexual couples is one thing. And we are certainly all for tolerance. But condoning, embracing, giving society’s official stamp of approval (which is precisely what legal gay marriage does) is quite another. Please vote YES on Proposition 8.