Box Turtle Bulletin

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.

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.

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.

The Avocate: Arizona’s Marriage Battle “Feeling Ignored”

I missed this article from the Sept 23 issue of The Advocate:

Now that hope is being put to the test in California, Florida, and once again, Arizona, which all face ballot initiatives against same-sex marriage this election cycle. But while donations are pouring in to defeat the initiatives in the first two states, money is only trickling into Arizona’s gay rights groups. … If donations and attention are the currency of this campaign, marriage equality advocates could be up a creek.

“We’re hearing from individuals who have the money to fight these things that they’re giving to California and Florida because they feel like they can win there — and are skeptical about our chances here,” says Robert Tindall, a Phoenix human resources consultant and board member for the state’s American Civil Liberties Union. Adds Rebecca Wininger, a member of the Phoenix chapter of Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, “To say that one fight is more important than another dismisses the other fights.”

Donations and attention are most certainly the currency of this campaign. Arizona turned back a so-called “marriage amendment” in 2006, becoming the first state in the nation to do so at a time when everyone thought it was impossible.

But just because we did this in 2006 doesn’t mean that it will automatically happen again in 2008. This is a different election with a different electorate, and our opposition is already airing television commercials.

We can defeat Prop 102 again, but we cannot do this without your help. Help us preserve your 2006 victory and tell them that when you say no, you really mean no. This is important because this has implications for other states in the years to come — including California, should Prop 8 go down in defeat there. Please give as generously as you can.

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.

One-Third of “Yes for Prop 102” Contributions Come from Mesa, Arizona

That’s right. As an update to our earlier report, further analysis of the contributors of at least $10,000 to the “yes” campain for Arizona’s Prop 102 shows that 70 out of 190 — more than a third — come from Mesa, Arizona. This includes three of the four $100,000 individual contributions.

Mesa just happens to be the home of Arizona’s oldest LDS temple.

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.

Mormons and Arizona’s Prop 102

A huge dust-up exploded on the front page of the Arizona Daily Star this morning. According to the Star, Kyrsten Sinema, campaign chair for Arizona Together, characterized Proposition 102 as a “mostly Mormon-backed attempt to rectify what it calls a ‘polygamy problem’ in the eyes of voters”:

The opponents’ argument against the ballot measure also rests on convincing voters that Mormons and other religious groups are seeking to “impose their views on people.”
…

Sinema said the ballot measure is a reflection of the Mormon church “working hard to convince the public that they are mainstream.” She said her background, being raised Mormon in Tucson, gives her the credibility to make the charge.

“I don’t think Arizonans are interested in having the Mormon religion dictate public policy to them,” Sinema said.

Sinema contends that at least three-quarters of the individual donors to the campaign are with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, based on her group having Googled donor names along with “LDS” or “Mormon.”

While that method of verifying the religion of donors may be questionable, Sinema points to top backers with ties to the Mormon church: $100,000 from philanthropists Rex and Ruth Maughan, and $40,000 from Kristen Cowley, an organizer of the LDS Easter pageant.

Last June, just as the Arizona Legislature voted to place Prop 102 on the ballot, the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) sent a letter to California churchesto be read during Sunday services which asked its members to “do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time.” I have it on good authority from Mormon colleagues that a similar campaign has been underway in Arizona since July.

Proponents of Prop 102 charge that questioning the LDS’s heavy involvement in the marriage battle in Arizona amounts to bigotry:

Michele Baer, spokeswoman for the campaign pushing the amendment, calls the focus on
Mormons a “political scare tactic from the opposition.”

But Baer — herself a Mormon singer — could not explain why voters would be scared of such involvement by Mormons.

“I don’t know,” she said. “I’m just saying that there is such broad-based support across all political, religious and ethnic backgrounds that support this proposition.”

And Baer wouldn’t comment on where the bulk of the funding is coming from, calling that “campaign strategy.”

“I can’t share,” she said. “They can look at public records.”

It certainly is a matter of public record. A look at the Arizona Secretary of State’s web site reveals that “Yes For Marriage” collected some 190 contributions of $10,000 or higher. Four individuals contributed $100,000, 6 contributed $50,000, and 25 contributed between $20,000 and $50,000. The site, of course, does not list religious affiliation, so it’s difficult to know how many of these contributors are LDS members.

Does anyone have time to google 191 names?

But there is this interesting fact: of the 190 contributions of $10,000 or higher, 70 came from Mesa Arizona — home to Arizona’s oldest LDS Temple and a very significant Mormon population. Mesa contributors include three of the four $100,000 contributors. In fact, the temple is located on a street named for the family of one of those $100,000 contributors — David and Nancy LeSueur.

I fully expect this line of questioning to be very controversial. My email inbox is already full about this. But I do think it is newsworthy that one religious denomination appears to be bankrolling a serious public policy initiative under the guise of a broad-based grass-roots organization. If that doesn’t send a chill down the spines of everyone who cherishes religious liberty, I don’t know what does.

The campaign to defeat Prop 102 is desparately outfunded. We’re struggling to afford radio ads, while the “Yes” side already has ads on television. Please give today, whatever you can.

[Updated at 7:20 PM PDT to include additional information about Mesa, Arizona contributors]

Lynne Cheney Endorses Marriage Freedom

Second Lady Lynne Cheney spoke with Harry Smith at CBS’s Morning Show on Sunday where she endorsed marriage freedom.

Transcript:

Smith: Can I show another really personal question? Because we just ran the George Tokei story…

Cheney: Un-huh

Smith: … and because marriage is legal for gays in California. Would you wish that for your daughter?

Cheney: Well, I would wish my daughter to have happiness and freedom to make her own choices. The Vice President said in the debate with Joe Lieberman – ever so long ago in 2000 – that freedom in this country ought to mean freedom for everyone.

(hat tip GoodAsYou)

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.