Box Turtle Bulletin

The Right Side

Writing in the Ventura Star, Republican columnist Scott Harris raises what I think is a most convincing argument as to why a voter should oppose Proposition 8 (and other anti-gay marriage amendments). Among his list of eight reasons, he provides

It is easy to say that I would have supported interracial marriage if I were old enough to have lived through the then-controversy. In years to come, when the same-sex issue has faded to all but historical irrelevance, I want to be able to tell my grandchildren that I was there, publicly supporting those who needed the support. It will be the best way to know that if I had been in Birmingham in the ’60s, I would have stood on the right side of the hoses.

Tracy Press Says “No” to Prop 8

A local newspaper in Tracy, CA (population about 80,000) has printed an editorial opposing Proposition 8.

Despite what this initiative’s supporters say, marriage and domestic partnerships are not the same — and this constitutional right doesn’t dictate health education programs for public schools.

We’ve said it before in this space, and we’ll say it again. The freedom to marry is fundamental in our society, just like the freedoms of religion and speech. Our laws should treat everyone equally.

No on 8.

Tracy is a conservative community and the Tracy Press is considered to be conservative in outlook, although they did oppose Proposition 22, an early anti-gay marriage effort.

The Tracy Press is a small family owned newpaper with twice weekly publication and circulation of less than 10,000. What they have to say probably isn’t going to tip the scale for the vote. But their voice is a welcomed addition to the growing call to vote down this discriminatory proposition.

Rabbis Oppose Proposition 8

Anti-marriage activists like to present their constitutional amendment efforts as appealing to those “from secular and faith backgrounds, from Christian to Jewish, Mormon to Muslim“. The amendments are based, they’ll tell you, on “Judeo-Christian values”.

But their Judeo-Christian efforts seem to be missing the “Judeo” component.

The LA Times is reporting that the Board of Rabbis of Southern California has overwhelmingly decided to oppose Proposition 8.

The board — a collection of leaders from the Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox movements — this week declared its opposition to the measure, which would amend the California Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Leaders of the board said they wanted protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples.

And this was not some rote decision by some ivory towered committee

The board has more than 290 members. Roughly 120 took part in Wednesday’s vote, the largest number of rabbis to weigh in on such an issue in recent memory. Vogel said Friday that 93% of those who cast votes supported the resolution.

Many of the Rabbis do not support religious same-sex marriages within their faith. But they recognize that the terms of civil marriage should not be dictated by a religious majority.

So where then is the Jewish support for Proposition 8?

Well, perhaps they are referring to Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc. After all, I doubt the “New Testament Jews” are part of the Board of Rabbis.

Thanks, Levi’s

Look down at your legs. If they have denim on them, you can thank Levi Strauss. You can also thank his family today for their commitment to equality.

Robert Haas, the great-great-grand-nephew of the founder has given $100,000 to defeat Proposition 8 and announced that he is putting the reputation and the strength of his company (and $25,000 of its cash) to the effort as well. (Forbes)

The San Francisco-based jeans maker said Thursday it will co-chair with Pacific Gas & Electric a group trying to drum up opposition to Proposition 8 in the business community.

How proud am I that I spent my college years in 501’s!

Forbes is also reporting that the influential Valley Industry and Commerce Association has voted to oppose Proposition 8.

The most eloquent argument we got from an employer is they spend so much on human resources dealing with different benefits under domestic partnership rules versus married employees

Business has come to know that bigotry and discrimination are luxuries that we can ill afford at a time of economic crisis.

Um, Sorry Prop 8 Folks, But the Vote Was To OPPOSE

The supporters of Proposition 8 seem to be finding it difficult to extend their endorsements beyond their base. Yes they have all of the Republican State Senators and and 19 of 32 Repubican Assemblymen, but no Democrats or Independants. And they can’t get either of the two statewide elected Republicans, the Governor and the Insurance Commissioner.

Yes, they have the Church of Scientology of San Diego, Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., and Creation Research of North America but they have yet to win the endorsement of any major newspapers or mainstream voters group.

And while the mayors of Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Oakland are all opposed to the proposition, the Yes on 8 campaign proudly announces support from the Mayors of Danville, Rancho Santa Margarita, Chino, Chino Hills, Corona, Cypress, Duncan, Folsom and Anaheim. You’ve probably even heard of Anaheim.

So perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising to see the Yes on 8 folks desperatly cling to any endorsement that they can find. But claiming support where there is none? Now that’s just tacky.

On their website, Yes on 8 proudly lists the Los Angeles Unified School District, better known as L.A.U.S.D, as supporters. One problem. The LAUSD Board unanimously voted on September 9 to oppose Proposition 8.

“Proposition 8 undermines the culture we are all working to create here in LAUSD: one of respect, inclusiveness, and strength through diversity. I am very proud that the Board voted to affirm the right of all committed couples to marry, and rejected the bigotry behind Proposition 8,” Board President Monica Garcia.

Well, maybe it was an accident. I suppose to some folks “endorse” and “oppose” can be confusing concepts.

UPDATE: The LAUSD endorsement has now been removed from ProtectMarriage’s site.

Prop 8 Opponent Faces Possible Excommunication from LDS

Andrew Callahan, a member of the LDS Church in Hastings, Nebraska is facing excommunication over his web site opposing California’s Prop 8.

Callahan’s blog at Signing for Something features a statement that he says that all members of the LDS church have been taught: “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government …” (Doctrine and Covenants 134:9).” But it appears that acting on that message may get Callahan in trouble with church leadership.

Callahan says he got a letter from his church stake leaders Monday night, which says, “…you are reported to have participated in conduct unbecoming a member of the church and have been in apostasy.” The LDS disciplinary hearing is tomorrow.

Update: The disciplinary hearing has now been put off until at least November, a move likely intended to keep this controversial issue out of limelight until after the elections.

Pro-Prop 8 LDS Leaders: “The Work Depends On Us”

Amid continuing reports of heavy Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ involvement in anti-marriage campaigns in California, and Arizona, a Wiki website has released a document which provides further evidence that the nuts and bolts of the Prop 8 campaign in California is almost exclusively an LDS-driven effort.

The brief document, which was on document posted on Wikileaks earlier this week, appears to be brief notes for a meeting of LDS officials working to defeat California’s Prop 8. According to the document:

The brethren emphasized that there wasn’t much participation from non-LDS people. The work depends on us.

The document goes on to describe their strategy for placing yard signs — a strategy which experienced a serious hickup when LDS campaign leaders decided to outsource their signs to China. Those signs were due last Monday, but now won’t be expected for another couple of weeks.

According to the leaked document, the next phase in the campaign is the “Persuasion Phase”, which appears to include phone-banking:

We need about 20 people per zip code to call the “mushy middle” people. That will take about 5 hours per person. There will be two surges, one the end of Sept. or early Oct. and the other at the end of Oct. to the first of Nov.

The plan also describes poll monitoring to ensure their members show up to vote, and a voter registration drive using ward lists maintained by individual LDS churches.

The poster at Wikileaks describes the document as a handout to a small group of local LDS church leaders. It was emailed to at least two other people that the poster was aware of. The poster also notes that “producing the document publicly online could result in ecclesiastical punishment for the publisher.”

When marriage amendment battles started appearing in California and Arizona, it was assumed that evangelical churches would be carrying the load. While many of those churches continue to support these so-called “marriage amendments,” the real surprise has been the extent to which one single denomination has placed so much of its resources and financial muscle — as well as the direct involvement of that denomination’s leadership and organizational structure —  to impose its theological positions on the state.

As I said before, this should concern everyone who cherishes religious liberty in this country.

“Yes on Prop 8” Signs On A Slow Boat From China

The economy is sinking and people are losing their jobs across the country. What better time than now for proponents for California’s Prop 8 to outsource their one million “Yes on Prop 8” yard signs to China?

Those “Yes On Prop 8” signs were intended to miraculously appear on lawns all across California at 7:00 am on September 22 to give the appearance of a sudden “blossoming of support” (their words, oft repeated) for the initiative, according to plans devised by LDS backers of California’s “Yes on Prop 8” campaign. But a serious glitch in that plan means that those signs weren’t ready for last Monday’s launch.

Julia Rosen Calitics blog contacted Gena Downey, producer of the cult Mormon film “God’s Army,” who works on the “Yes on Prop 8” campaign. Downey responded with an email confirming that those million signs are “still in route from China” and aren’t expected for another couple of weeks. Rosen concludes:

So, the Yes campaign, rather than purchasing some good old fashioned union made in America lawn signs, they went to some cut rate producer in China who blew the delivery date by at least three weeks. What, they couldn’t afford traditional American signs?

That seems to have worked out well. Why does the Yes on 8 campaign hate America?

Outsourcing jobs to China seems like a very strange way to “protect families” in America.

[Hat tip: Nick Literski]

No on 8 Ad Hits the Airwaves

The campaign against Proposition 8, the California anti-gay marriage amendment, has been collecting funds and promising an advertising effort. Now they have begun to deliver.

Historically, advertising around gay issues has been complexing, leaving average gay concerned about whether the No on 8 campaign would skirt the issue or reach the right audience. I wondered if same-sex marriage would be mentioned, if gay people would be the focus, and if the program selection would be based on audience or whether the ads would only run on Bravo and Logo or at 3:00 am.

So I was a little surprised last night while watching the season opening episode of Dancing With the Stars when an ad came on with a lovely older couple asking us to treat all of their children the same. But it did answer some questions.

It appears that the No on 8 advertising will be structured to reach the broadest markets. Karen Ocamb reports

Here’s where it is scheduled to air: Dancing with the Stars Premier, Heroes Premier, Grey’s Anatomy Premier, The Presidential Debate, Survivor, Ugly Betty Premier, The Office Premier, Colbert Report and The Daily Show, The Today Show and Good Morning America, Ellen, Oprah, The Tonight Show and David Letterman, Saturday Night Live…and more, per the press release.

Nor will the campaign shy away from using either the words “gay” or “marriage”.

If Prop 8 passes, our gay daughter and thousands of our fellow Californians will lose the right to marry. Please don’t eliminate that right – for anyone’s family.

However, at least in this first ad, the focus will be on presenting those with whom the straight viewer can empathize.

So far I’m impressed. Let’s hope that the advertising is effective.

Of course, the supporters of Proposition 8 have trotted out their talking points, some of which are so obviously nutty that you wonder if it they lose votes everytime they say them.

Churches will be required to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies or face prosecution under anti-discrimination laws.

Only the koolaid drinkers believe that.

Public Schools will teach that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are normal and acceptable-and if you disagree, you are a bigot.

And this argument has the ill advised effect of reminding undecided voters that the ones who are opposed to marriage equality are going to be perceived as bigots (and that many of them are bigots). That’s not what I’d consider an effective tool at recruiting support.

Steven Spielberg Gives $100,000 to Fight Prop 8

Another Hollywood heterosexual has joined Brad Pitt in helping our community fight against the attack on our equal treatment under the law. The LA Times is reporting that Steven Spielberg and Kate Capshaw have announced that they will contribute $100 K to the No on 8 campaign.

LA’s Black Cat Bar To Be Designated A Historic Cultural Monument

Our essay last January 1 about a riot that was sparked when police saw men kissing at the stroke of midnight on New Years Day has had an impact. I’ve just received word from Wes Joe that the Black Cat bar, the scene of the 1966/67 riot which birthed a renaissance of the gay rights movement in Los Angeles, has passed an important hurdle in becoming a City Historic Cultural Monument:

Hi, happy to report that on Thursday the LA Cultural Heritage Commission approved designation of the Black Cat as a City Historic Cultural Monument.  An important hurdle since they’re picky — the other 2 applications up that morning were denied.

Next step is a City Council Committee, then the full Council.  Hopefully not a big deal since we have the strong support of the City Council President.

Thanks again for The Temerity of a Kiss, which really helped motivate us to do this.

An aside, noticed the button in today’s piece on Frank Kameny.  In doing the research at the ONE archives I came across a cover of Tangents magazine covered with buttons.  Couldn’t resist putting that in the application material.  On Thursday one of the persons giving testimony, Alexei Romanoff, had owned the bar down the street from the Black Cat that was also raided New Year’s morning 1967.  Showed him the page and he remarked that he had over 700 such buttons.

Thanks again!  Wes

Thank you Wes for helping to preserve an important cultural landmark.

Proposition 8: Words Matter

In previous postings, I’ve explained how studies have shown that some survey respondents are more reluctant to forbid or ban something than to simply “not allow” it.

Applied to California’s Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that aims to amend the state constitution to bar same-sex couples from marrying, this research suggests that at least some voters might be influenced by how the ballot measure is worded. They may be less likely to support a proposition framed as banning marriage equality, and more likely to support one that is framed as simply defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Now the latest Field Poll shows that the wording does have an impact, mainly on the 30% of likely California voters who aren’t already knowledgeable about Proposition 8.

When the ballot measure was framed as eliminating marriage rights for same-sex couples (as it will be in the official ballot summary), a whopping 58% of this group opposed it. By contrast, only a plurality (42%) opposed the measure when it was described as a “limit on marriage” — the wording favored by Proposition 8 backers.

In my latest post at Beyond Homophobia, I discuss the Field Poll findings in greater detail and consider their implications for the final seven weeks of the Proposition 8 campaign. Although the latest survey results are more good news for marriage equality supporters, they shouldn’t be cause for complacency. The amendment can still pass if its supporters turn out their voters in disproportionate numbers.

San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial: No on Proposition 8

The San Diego Union-Tribune mirrors the shift in thinking that Californians have had since Proposition 22:

In the past, this page has advocated civil unions for gay couples rather than marriage. But our thinking has changed, along with that of many other Californians. Gay and lesbian couples deserve the same dignity and respect in marriage that heterosexual couples have long enjoyed. We urge a No vote on Proposition 8.

They join the Los Angeles Times and the San Jose Mercury News.

(hat tip to reader Stefano)

Field Poll: Prop 8 Support Declining

A new Field Poll indicates that Proposition 8 is losing support among likely voters. (Press-Enterprise)

A Field Poll survey released today found that 38 percent of likely voters support Prop. 8. In July, 42 percent of those surveyed backed the measure.

Fifty-five percent of likely voters oppose Prop. 8, an increase from 51 percent who opposed it in July. The percentage of undecided voters remains at 7 percent.

This should not, however, cause us to lose concern or focus. The Yes on 8 campaign has a huge war-chest and will likely begin running advertisement at the end of this month. We need to fight every step of the way and sacrifice whatever we can to keep our hard-earned equality.

Mormons and California’s Prop 8

We noted that a significant percentage of the supporters of Arizona’s Prop 102 are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons).

Well, according to an article in the Salt Lake Tribune, that is also the case with California’s anti-marriage proposition.

The Web site, Mormonsfor8.com, tracks contributions to ProtectMarriage.com daily and tries to determine whether donors are LDS by scouring the Internet and asking visitors to the site to help identify any Mormon donors.

So far, the Web site has determined that about a third of ProtectMarriage.com’s donors are LDS, with their contributions totaling close to $5 million.

“If we could identify every Mormon, I think that probably 85 to 90 percent of the donors would be Mormon,” said Cedar City resident Nadine Hansen, creator of Mormonsfor8.com. A member of the church herself and a former Californian, she considers the site to be informational and neutral on the issue of Prop. 8.

Hansen may think that it is a selling point that Mormons are bankrolling Prop 8. But I believe that anti-Mormon sentiment in California is strong – especially among those inclined to support the amendment – and tying the campaign too closely to the church could result in a strong rejection of the proposition by the voters.