Box Turtle Bulletin

Brad Pitt Gives to Fight Proposition 8

Back in September 2006, Brad Pitt announced that he and Angelina Jolie would not marry because gay people could not marry:

Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able

Some might have thought that was just a convenient way of supporting a cause while avoiding pressures to marry. But now Pitt has put his money where his mouth is. The LA Times is reporting that he has given $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign.

Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn’t harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8

It Could Have Been Huckabee

So far this presidential campaign season has seen a markedly reduced emphasis on cultural issues. Unlike George Bush’s efforts to define his distinction from John Kerry by the extent to which he reviled gay couples and sought the restriction of their rights, Sen. John McCain has mostly avoided any reference to gay couples and has, at times, seemed almost apologetic for his views.

But it might not have been this way. Governor Huckabee was considered a credible candidate and could have been the Republican Party’s nominee. And Huckabee would have delighted in crafting his campaign around anti-gay activism – oh, pardon me, protection of marriage, family, and (I kid you not) the universe.

Huckabee was in Southern California this weekend to preach sermons about Proposition 8. The Ventura Star reports

The former Arkansas governor and Southern Baptist preacher spoke from the pulpit of Calvary Chapel Thousand Oaks in two services focused on Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He told about 1,000 people that marriage was created and defined by God, just as the Mona Lisa was created by Leonardo da Vinci.

“God doesn’t want me to take my brush and paint over his masterpiece,” he said.

Huckabee may appreciate Da Vinci’s work today. But somehow I find it easy to imagine that he would be among those who supported the 1476 prosecution of the artist on sodomy charges.

After all,

Huckabee said he wasn’t there to tell people how to vote on Proposition 8. But he told people that laws related to both life and marriage will determine the future of the universe.

And anything can be justified when you’re protecting the future of the universe.

DiFi Says “No” to 8

Moderate Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein has finally spoken on her opposition to Proposition 8.

The views of Californians on this issue have changed over time, and as a State, I believe we should uphold the ability of our friends, neighbors, and co-workers who are gay and lesbian to enter into the contract of marriage.

I urge Californians to oppose Proposition 8.

DiFi now joins Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer and Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in opposition to this discriminatory measure. And if there are any statewide elected officials that support Prop 8, they’ve been awfully quiet about it.

Episcopal Bishops Endorse Marriage and Oppose Prop 8

As expected, the top six Episcopal Bishops in California announced their opposition to Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage amendment.

The bishops argued that preserving the right of gays and lesbians to marry would enhance the “Christian values” of monogamy, love and commitment.

“We believe that continued access to civil marriage for all, regardless of sexual orientation, is consistent with the best principles of our constitutional rights,” said the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles.

Palm Springs Paper Opposes Prop 8

On Sunday the Palm Springs Desert Sun printed an editorial encouraging a “No” vote on anti-gay marriage amendment Proposition 8:

Same-sex marriage does not diminish marriage between a man and a woman. It’s a basic civil right that everyone – regardless of gender – should have. The time has come. Therefore, we oppose Proposition 8.

They join the LA Times and the San Jose Mercury News.

Prop 8’s Message to Youth: Blatant Lies and Transparent Bigotry

The supporters of Proposition 8 have set up a website geared towards youth at iProtectMarriage.com. And perhaps they think that adults are too well informed because they reserve their really crazy homophobic slurs and lies for the kiddies.

It’s horrible.

And not just their goal, but their message and their methods. It’s sad and pathetic and completely condescending. You have to wonder if the designer of the site has ever met a young adult.

There is a “Decide for Yourself video quiz” that you can take in which your response triggers either a “you’re right” message or a lecture from a pop-up talking head. It’s about as subtle as a freight train.

And it is astonishing the number of obvious and blatant lies that these “people of faith” are willing to spout in the name of their religion, including:

While death, divorce, and other circumstances may prevent it in many cases, the best environment for raising children is traditional marriage. More than ten thousand studies document significant advantages kids experience when raised by committed and loving moms and dads.

• Two parent families benefit children according to the APA, not just “traditional” marriage. These studies DID NOT compare heterosexual couples to gay couples; they compared heterosexual couples to heterosexual singles.

If same-sex marriage remains legal, what will happen if a church or religious institution refuses to perform a marriage ceremony for individuals that runs contrary to its belief system? If it refuses, it may be accused of discrimination and be subject to a lawsuit. That is not freedom of religion.

• What if the Catholic Church refuses to marry divorced couples or a Jewish Synogogue refuses to marry non-Jews or if a Mormon Church doesn’t recognize a marriage outside of a Temple … oh wait, they already do.

Prop. 8 isn’t against something, it’s for marriage, of one man, one woman, for life.

• For life? Really? I didn’t see the language that banned divorce. And not “against” something? HA!! I’m surprised that whoever wrote that didn’t immediately burst into flames.

If Prop. 8 does not pass, children as young as kindergarteners must be taught about same-sex marriage.

• A judge made them remove this lie from the voters manual.

Simply put, traditional marriage is better for us, mentally, physically and psychologically. We’re not making it up; public health statistics confirm this.

• They go on to spout comparison studies between single and married heterosexuals and pretend that they apply to gay couples.

What this means is that fewer of your tax dollars go to pay for social programs caused by unhealthy and unwise living.

• I thought this “wasn’t against something” and that “civil unions give them the same rights as marriage”. Nah, this is just an example of active homophobia.

Quick, name a major faith tradition that doesn’t support marriage between a man and a woman. Can’t? Neither can we.

• Really? Because if you mean exclusionary definitions, they are not supported in California by Episcopalians, United Methodists, Reform Jews, Quakers, United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalists, and many many many others of faith]

Removing the definition of marriage means it’s open to whatever anyone thinks it is, and that includes extreme stuff like polygamy, man-boy love, and multiple partners.

• No one is “removing the definition of marriage”. Oh, and by the way, if you really aren’t just a great vile puddle of bigotry, why the reference to “man-boy love”? You just couldn’t let that pass, could you?

Same-sex marriage separates marriage from parenthood. In Norway, where it has been accepted for a decade, marriage has nearly disappeared, and 70 percent of children are born out of wedlock.

• We debunked that myth earlier this year.

But by far the most dishonest and cynical thing on their site is this doozie:

Q: Isn’t banning gay marriage just like banning interracial marriage?

A: It’s completely unrelated. Blacks who endured prejudice can’t wake up in the morning and not be black. None of us can be counseled out of our race or ethnicity. But homosexual behavior is a choice, and countless gays and lesbians have left the alternative lifestyle.

Is there really anyone out there that honestly believes that gay people can “wake up in the morning and not be” gay? That isn’t even the message coming from Exodus and other reorientation ministries.

And it isn’t very effective. Today’s youth know full well that no one wakes up a different orientation and they know that this site is lying to them. And the true bias and bigotry displayed here wouldn’t fool a closely-protected, secluded, home-schooled teenager.

But I guess the Prop 8 folks are so cynical that they think that bigotry and bald-faced lies are the way to go. I truly hope that whoever is in charge of the Proposition 8 campaign stays in charge. This sort of lunacy will only help the cause of those who are speaking honestly and in favor of equality.

Episcopal Bishops to Oppose Proposition 8

The AP is reporting that the authority of the Episcopal Church in California will be announcing their opposition to Proposition 8 tomorrow.

The Right Rev. Marc Handley Andrus, Episcopal bishop of California, and the Right Rev. J. Jon Bruno, Episcopal bishop of Los Angeles, are scheduled to join other faith leaders and gay couples Wednesday in speaking out against Proposition 8.

Anti-gay Lifesite News expands:

All six bishops in the state will officially protest the traditional marriage amendment, according to the Sacramento Bee. The Right Rev. Marc Handley Andrus, Episcopal Bishop of California, will hold a press conference at San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral on Wednesday to represent the church’s position, “calling for compassion, love and equal protections” for homosexual couples.

The AP closed their article with a comment I found interesting:

Their work is designed to counter the huge organizational and financial push the amendment is receiving from leaders of the Roman Catholic and Mormon faiths.

It is my impression that Proposition 8 has taken on a peculiar image, one which its supporters would do well to avoid. There is a growing perception that the proposition is a joint endeavor by the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church and is opposed by other branches of Christianity. This may become even more pronounced as the public becomes aware of opposition by United Methodists and Episcopalians.

That percerption, I believe, will not be advantageous to the supporters of the proposition.

Why Each State is Important

There are three anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment propositions on ballots in the upcoming election.

ARIZONA

Arizona has the distinct privilege of being the only state to date that has rejected efforts to instill anti-gay marriage discrimination into its constitution. Anti-gays have claimed that the only reason for their failure was because their last attempt in 2006 also sought to ban other forms of partner recognition and are now offering a “more benign” amendment that only bans same-sex marriage.

The Arizona battle is of tremendous importance.

If anti-gays win in Arizona, this will send a message that persistence pays off. And then future states (like Florida, if we win there) can expect that they will be back each election with an increasingly “nuanced” amendment until they win. But if Arizona rejects Proposition 102, the financial backers of anti-gay marriage amendments will be a bit more reluctant to throw their money into losing efforts.

This state has the unique opportunity to tell anti-gay organizers that “no” means “no” and not to come back for more.

CALIFORNIA

California is only one of two states which offer marriage certificates to same-sex couples. California is also by a significant margin the state with the largest population. And California is often considered a leader in social progress and a setter of trends.

Considering the sheer number of gay families impacted by Proposition 8, and the importance of the state as a leader, the California battle is of tremendous importance.

And this importance is not lost on anti-gays. As Donald Wildman, head of the American Family Association said,

If we lose California, if they defeat the marriage amendment, I’m afraid that the culture war is over and Christians have lost.

Hyperbole aside, this is the first time that voters have been voting specifically on marriage itself, rather than on the threat of possible marriage. If Californians vote to keep their same-sex marriages legal, it removes the claims by anti-gays that it is judicial activists and gerrymandered legislatures that are forcefully redefining marriage against the wishes of the populace.

According to the latest polls, voters seem to oppose the proposition and do not appear to be swayed by the efforts of the supporters. But the vote is very very close and no one can predict the outcome.

FLORIDA

The anti-marriage amendment in Florida appears – to me – to receive the least attention of the three, especially on this website. Part of that is because I live in California and Jim Burroway lives in Arizona and so these two states are the focus of our attentions.

Yet the Florida battle is of tremendous importance.

Of the three, only Florida’s amendment would ban civil unions and domestic partnerships. Florida’s Proposition 2 reads

In as much as a marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

Those who oppose this amendment have an advantage; a constitutional amendment in Florida requires a 60% majority of those voting. Further, because Florida has a large retirement community and because this amendment would impact heterosexual senior citizens who use local domestic partnership arrangements to establish protections without endangering social security benefits, the opposition to this amendment has broader appeal.

The most recent polling shows that the proposition is favored by more than half of the voters (55%), but not by enough to pass. Additionally, it appears to be trending towards those who oppose the amendment. But again, this is far too close for comfort.

Florida is a swing state in the presidential election and turnout could depend on the direction and extent to which the state trends in the next two months. And while it is unlikely that either Obama or McCain will seek to tie their campaign to the success or failure of this amendment, it’s difficult to predict the impact of the election. A surge in either black voters or newly-energized evangelicals could provide those who oppose our lives with additional votes.

The Importance

Collectively, we have the opportunity to send a very strong message this year. Should we win in all three states we will be able to state that those who experience same-sex marriages within their communities have found them to be no threat, that anti-marriage efforts will not win you election in a swing state, and that coming back to a state that has rejected discrimination is a waste of time and money.

So here is a question for our readers: is this issue as important to you as a new pair of shoes? Does it matter as much as that luxury you may be allowing yourself, whether it’s a new car or just dinner out at McDonalds?

Most of us do have some expendable income and even those of us who live very close to the edge can often make sacrifices if the cause is important enough.

This is the most you will ever see me act like a political or religious fundraiser. But I’m willing to sound like Pat Robertson if it will encourage you to take the next step.

Please link below to the state of your choosing and make a contribution today.

Arizona: No on Prop 102

California: No on Prop 8

Florida: No on Prop 2

“A Personal Attack on Myself and My Family”

The San Diego Union-Tribune has received a copy of an e-mail exchange between Doug Manchester, a large contributor to anti-gay marriage Proposition 8, and Paul Wilkins, his chief financial officer. In it Wilkins expresses concern about the financial impact that a boycott could have on Manchester’s hotel properties and offered suggestions as to how to diminish the threat.

Manchester had an interesting response

“I appreciate your rightful concern,” Manchester wrote in a July 29 response, but he added: “I am now really angry and I consider this a personal attack on myself and my family.”

What a telling example of the mindset that the anti-gay Culture Warriors have created in our country. The existence of my family is considered a personal attack on theirs. Even suggesting that they not put funds towards harming my family is a threat to their family.

Mr. Manchester may be a charming person. And his hotels, I hear, are lovely. But for as long as Doug Manchester defines the health and vitality of his family by the destruction and dismissal of my own, I’ll not contribute a cent to his business ventures nor in any way enrich his him or his clan.

Further, those in the San Diego area may wish to contact Fred Karger with Californians Against Hate and set aside some time towards reminding Mr. Manchester that one isn’t entitled to become indignant when one’s attack on other families and their freedoms are questioned.

Analysis: California Voters Are Rejecting Prop. 8

Supporters of marriage equality got some good news last night when the results of the latest statewide poll by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California were released.

The telephone survey of 2,001 California adults, including 1,047 likely voters, reveals that Proposition 8 –­ the proposed constitutional amendment to bar same-sex couples from marrying — is losing badly. Among likely voters, only 40% plan to vote for the amendment, compared to 54% who say they will vote against it. The remaining 6% are undecided. (The margin of error is +/- 3 percent.)

Opposition to Prop. 8 doesn’t come exclusively from those who say they generally favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry. The sample was evenly split on that question -­ 47% of likely voters favoring marriage equality and 47% opposing it. Thus, consistent with other polls, some respondents who don’t personally support marriage equality nevertheless oppose enacting anti-equality legislation. Indeed, Prop. 8 is supported by only 69% of the likely voters who generally oppose allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Prop. 8 backers tried to find a ray of hope in the PPIC data, noting that amendment supporters were more likely to say the outcome of the vote is “very important” to them ­- 57% versus 44% of amendment opponents.

In my latest post at Beyond Homophobia, I explain why the math behind this claim is flawed. I also discuss the poll findings in depth and consider their implications for the Proposition 8 campaign.

Poll: No Movement on Proposition 8

The Public Policy Institute of California released a poll yesterday showing that Proposition 8 continues to have limited appeal.

Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to allow marriage only between a man and a woman, is trailing 40% to 54% among likely voters, according to the poll. In a separate question, pollsters asked respondents if they support or oppose allowing gay men and lesbians to marry. On that question, Californians were evenly split, 47% to 47%.

This is the fourth major poll and it confirms the results of previous polling and seems to illustrate that the LA Times poll was likely an anomaly:

May 20-21, LA Times

54% Yes
35% No

May 17-26, Field Poll (average of two questions)

42% Yes
53% No

July 8-14, Field Poll

42% Yes
51% No

August 12-19, PPIC

40% Yes
54% No

Other than the LA Times poll, these are all within the margin of error and seem to indicate that the opposition to the proposition is fairly solid.

I’ve not seen the response of Yes on Proposition 8, but I can project a couple likely claims.

The anti-marriage activists will likely point to the question about whether Californians favor allowing same-sex couples to marry and announce that less than half of Californians are in favor. They may also claim that this is a decrease (though the PPIC reports that this hasn’t changed since August 2005).

Additionally I suspect that they will point out that anti-marriage Californians are more passionate in their support for Proposition 8; and the PPIC report does support that claim. Of those intending to vote yes, 57% said the outcome is “very important” while only 44% of those opposing Proposition 8 placed the outcome in the highest level of importance. Those stating the results to be “somewhat important” were 29% and 31%, respectively.

However, even if only those who place the highest importance on the results of the vote showed up at the polls, opponents would still outnumber supporters. And if “somewhat important” voters are added in, the proposition would lose in a landslide.

Lesbian Kicked Out of Fed Building by Rogue Security Guard

The quirky little Contra Costa Times surprises me with how many stories they report that somehow are overlooked by larger higher-profile papers. And again, while the Los Angeles Times and the Daily News both covered international news, the Contra Costa Times found a little story from Van Nuys:

A routine trip to the Social Security office Monday turned into 30 minutes of shock, disbelief and irritation for Lapriss Gilbert, who was forced to leave the federal building by a guard who objected to her “lesbian.com” T-shirt.

As she headed for a line to pick up a Social Security card for her son, Gilbert was stopped by a guard who said her T-shirt, naming an educational and resource Web site for gay women, was offensive.

As it turned out this story says much more about the attitudes of Southern California than it does about this particular security guard. The police showed up with a federal agent to allow the woman to conduct her business only to find that another security guard had led her to the front of the line. The federal spokesperson filed a complaint with the security company.

As a bystander reported:

Paul Dumont said he witnessed the entire incident.

“For her to be told to leave was completely unnecessary, especially considering how peaceful and quiet she was responding the the security officers,” Dumont said. “Nobody in that office felt her T-shirt was offensive by any means.”

S.J. Mercury-News Editorial Opposes Proposition 8

San Jose is the third largest city in California and the heart of the Silicon Valley. And the San Jose Mercury News has joined the Los Angeles Times in opposing the anti-gay marriage amendment, Proposition 8. Their editorial opens thusly:

Of all the reasons people give for banning gay marriage – the purpose of Proposition 8 on the November ballot – the most difficult for us to fathom is that a marriage between two people of the same sex somehow diminishes the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

Marriage is the most personal of commitments, and it already means different things to different couples. Some marry for love, others expediency. Some have children, others don’t, or couldn’t if they wanted to. There is no merit test; people marry despite histories of domestic violence, rape or child abuse. Why would couples determine the value of their own vows based on who else is allowed to take them?

A Smart Protest

Too often issue politics becomes partisan. The problem morphs from a protest against the objectionable views of some Republicans or Democrats into a protest against their party registration.

And far too often activists within our community have fallen victim to such a mindset.

I understand why. It’s far easier to apply a label and assign enmity than it is to listen, consider, and reason why someone may differ with you on some issues. Besides if we pick a side we get to view ourselves as heroes and the “others” as the evil enemy.

It’s the exact same motivation that drives anti-gays.

But it isn’t particularly effective in winning debates or effecting change. And when the outcome is important, we don’t have the luxury of making enemies. We have to build our arguments around shared values, compelling evidence, and an appeal to decency rather than messages of enmity and war.

Which is why I am so very pleased with the approach that Fred Karger and Californians Against Hate took towards a fundraiser organized by the San Diego Republican Party Central Committee for the anti-gay marriage amendment, Proposition 8.

Surely it must have been tempting to stage a protest that would villianize the evil Republicans. And most assuredly some gay activists when planning such a protest would come bearing signs that said ‘Republicans are Haters’ or with a big red circle and a line through the letters GOP.

But Fred recognized that many Republicans in California are open to a message of inclusion and decency and an appeal to vote “No” can be received positively… if they have not already been made the enemy. So he took another approach.

He and his protest team presented signs that spoke of the amendment and of marriage, but not of party affiliation. And he presented those attending the event with a list of quotes from notable individuals who have spoken out against bigotry – all Republicans: Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Barry Goldwater, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Congressman Clair Burgener, and San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders.

When Karger spoke to San Diego 6 he emphasized that the amendment is not something that should be supported by rank and file Republicans but that rejecting discrimination and bigotry is a value that Republicans can proudly share.

“This is truly the fringe element of the Republican Party,” said Californians Against Hate Founder Fred Karger. “These people are out of step with the Republican Party.”

“We hope to inform those attending about the rich history and philosophies of so many Republican leaders who fought for equality and against discrimination and hate,” said Karger

This is, I believe, a very smart approach. It may not change the opinions of any attendees but it does establish that opposition to this amendment is welcome from all voters of any party.

Prop 8 Supporters Reveal their Animus

One would think that supporters of Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage amendment, would know that the editorial board of the LA Times would not be receptive to anti-gay posturing. And surely they could figure out that the Times had some methodology of letting others know just what they had to say.

But those who find their life motivated by animus seldom realize how hateful and extremist they can sound. Karin Klien, a times editorial writer, shares with us some choice tidbits from the Times’ meeting with marriage opponents.

At one point, the conversation turned to the “activist judges” whose May ruling opened the door to same-sex marriage, and how similar this case was to the 1948 case that declared bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional. According to one of the Prop. 8 reps, that 1948 ruling was OK because people are born to their race and thus are in need of constitutional protection, while gays and lesbians choose their homosexuality.

And

In any case, one Prop. 8 supporter said, gay rights are not as important as children’s rights, and it’s obvious that same-sex couples who married would “recruit” their children toward homosexuality because otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers. Even editorial writers can be left momentarily speechless, and this was one of those moments.