Box Turtle Bulletin

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

Tucson Citizen Endores “No” on Prop 102

The Tucson Citizen yesterday published two editorials urging voters to vote no on Prop 102, the proposed constitutional amendment to further ban same-sex marriage. The first editorial, an op-ed by Arizona State Sen. Paula Aboud recounts the legislative debacle which led to Prop 102 appearing on the ballot, and concludes:

Opponents say, ‘Let the people vote.’ We did vote in 2006, they just didn’t like how the people voted. Don’t write discrimination into the Arizona Constitution. Vote no on Prop. 102 – again.

The Citizen’s editorial board backed Paula’s op-ed with an editorial of their own:

Constitutions historically have been altered to expand rights. Think of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which secured civil rights for former slaves. Or the 19th Amendment, which gave women the vote.

But, as Sen. Paula Aboud chronicles in a guest column below, a conservative fringe group bullied Arizona legislators into putting Prop. 102 on the ballot, even though it would imprint the state constitution with the language of intolerance.

We need to send a message to the rest of the U.S. that discrimination is not what Arizona is about. We need to send a message to legislators – think of it as dropping them a card – to stop monkeying with our constitution and to get to work on real issues facing the state.

With all of the attention being paid to the battle in California, we are facing a serious funding shortfall in Arizona. Supporters of Prop 102 have raised about $3 million. We are way behind. Please give TODAY, as generously as you can.

Money Pouring In For AZ Marriage Ban

Money is pouring in for Arizona’s backers of the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage:

While many of the citizens initiatives on Arizona’s November ballot have been bankrolled by special interests, a measure to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman has received an influx of campaign contributions from individuals in recent weeks.

The Yes for Marriage campaign pulled in more than $2.3 million from 160 donors across the state since the secretary of state’s reporting period that ended Aug. 13. That brought the campaign’s total to about $3 million.

Most contributions have been between $10,000 and $25,000. But Jeff and Holly Whiteman of Mesa gave $100,000, as did Gary and Lori Wagner of Peoria and the Pete King Corp. of Phoenix.

We desparately need your support. The longer LGBT’s and allies sit on the sidelines, our 2006 victory will turn into a 2008 loss. Which means that Focus On the Family will be able to draw the conclusion that if they don’t like how voters decide one year, all they have to do is come back again the next time.

Please give TODAY, as generously as you can.

“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.

Republican Delegates Support Civil Unions

The New York Times has polled the delegates to the Republican and the Democrat national conventions and compared their positions with those of the voting members of their party. Invariably, on each issue (with one exception) the demographics broke down as follows (from most conservative to least):

Republican Delegates
Republican Voters
All Voters
Democratic Voters
Democratic Delegates

However, quite surprisingly there was one issue in which the Republican Delegates proved to be slightly less conservative than Republican voters at large: recognition for gay couples.

Republican voters support marriage with 11%, civil unions with 28%, and no recognition with 57%. Fewer delegates support marriage (4%), but many more support civil unions (43%). Astonishly, more Republican delegates support recognition of same sex couples (49%) than do not (46%).*

Sadly, while that survey is unexpected good news, it is not reflected in the platform of the Republican Party. Although civil unions are not mentioned by name, they seem implicit in the following language:

Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives. [emphasis mine]

The anti-gay languages continues for several more paragraphs and homophobic sentiment is reflected throughout the platform. It really is a nasty document.

Traditionally, the platform of the Republican Party has been turned over to the extreme right of the Party and mostly ignored by candidates and local party activists. In fact, in several instances the 2008 platform takes a position that is directly contrary to the stated position of the presidential candidate.

But if this survey is accurate, perhaps with time and with a growing national support for gay and lesbian Americans, there will come a day when concessions are not made to intolerance and the party platform of both parties will be neither shameful nor discriminatory.

* More than half of Democrats who expressed an opinion, both party and voters, support marriage.

(hat tip to reader Charles)

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.

AZ Ballot Will Describe Prop 102 With Legally Accurate Language

A headline like that should be a given, but — this being Arizona — one cannot always take such things for granted.

Thanks to a deal between Secretary of State Jan Brewer and Attorney General Terry Goddard, the November ballot describing Prop 102, Arizona’s latest anti-marriage amendment, will remind voters that Arizona law already bans same-sex marriage. This clarification is especially important this year with all the attention being given to California, where same-sex marriage is currently available. Not only is there intense national attention on California, but a large portion of Arizonans live in California media markets.

Similar language was placed on the ballot for a previous anti-marriage amendment in 2006. That amendment was defeated by nearly 3.6%, making Arizona the only state in the union to have turned back an attempt to further ban same-sex marriage in the constitution.

Prop 102 supporters have filed suit against Brewer and Goddard, demanding that any reference to state law be stripped from the ballot descriptions. The lawsuit, however, may be too late. The final go-ahead was given Tuesday night to start printing the publicity pamphlets, which will be sent to the home of every registered voter. The pamphlets, like the ballots themselves, will have the agreed-upon description.

Arizona has had a law banning same-sex marriage since 1996. That law also bans recognizing same-sex marriages conducted in other states. On October 8, 2003, a three-judge panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the Arizona Defense of Marriage law against a challenge brought by two men who were denied a marriage license by a court clerk. The Arizona Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal on May 25, 2004.

Supporters of Prop 102 have out-fundraised opponents by more than 150:1. Please support our campaign to defeat Prop 102 again.

Where Has Burroway Been?!?

You may have noticed that I haven’t been posting much lately. And the way things are shaping up, I won’t be posting much between now and the election.

Last week, I was selected to serve as co-chair of the Vote No on Prop 102 campaign. Vote No on Prop 102 is a broad based coalition of citizens working at the community level to conduct a grass-roots “retail” campaign to get out the vote and carry the message on Prop 102 to the different constituencies. We will be focusing our efforts on southern Arizona , but we are also interested in facilitating similar efforts elsewhere in the state.

The reason we’ve chosen to focus on Southern Arizona is threefold: 1) it’s where we are, 2) we haven’t been able to raise much money, and we need to make sure it is used effectively, and 3) Southern Arizona is where our greatest opportunity lies in defeating Prop 102. Let me explain.

In 2006, Arizona defeated a similar marriage amendment by 3.6 percentage points. Five counties voted to defeat the amendment, and the remaining ten voted to approve it. The largest margin of votes came from Pima County in Southern Arizona, which defeated the proposition by 42,806 votes, or 15.6%.  That margin was large enough that even if all the other four counties which defeated the amendment had merely tied, the proposition would have still gone down by 18,532 votes state wide — 1.2% — on the strength of Pima County’s vote alone. Pima County was the only county to provide a large enough margin to guarantee defeat in 2006, and it is imperative that the grass-roots effort which worked to ensure that margin is repeated again in 2008.

This is not to say that working in other counties to defeat the amendment is not important. We are working alongside Equality Arizona on similar grass-roots efforts throughout the state. But based on voter data from 2006 and the successful grass-roots campaign that was waged throughout Southern Arizona, we feel that the anchor to another victory is in southern Arizona.

Nevertheless, we are also interested in supporting and facilitating grass-roots campaigns in whatever way we can elsewhere in the state, particularly in Apache, Coconino, Maricopa and Santa Cruz counties — all of which contributed to victory in 2006. We are already engaged with local efforts in several communities in Cochise county, and we believe there are similar opportunities in Yavapai and elsewhere. Our financial health will determine the extent of the support and resources we can extend throughout the state, but as you know, our finances are very poor at the moment.

We are busy formulating a campaign plan, we’re lining up some exciting allies, and we will have more information to share as the outlines of the campaign takes shape. We don’t have much time, and more critically, we have very little money. Please do what you can to help and contribute generously.

Thank you.

Indian Tribe Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage

The Coquille, a Native American tribe in southern Oregon have become the first in the United States to decide to recognize same-sex marriage (The Oregonian).

As a federally recognized sovereign nation, the tribe is not bound by Oregon’s constitution. And on May 8, the tribe adopted a law that recognizes same-sex marriage and extends to gay and lesbian couples all the tribal benefits of marriage.

And while the state cannot interfere in inter-tribal matters, the planned marriage between Kitzen and Jeni Branting could play a part in a larger legal question.

Because the Coquille is federally recognized, a marriage “occurring within the tribe would actually be federally recognized,” Gilley said. And that would violate the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law that says the federal government “may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose.”

As a result, the marriage between the Brantings – who share the same last name after changing it to reflect their commitment – could become a test case if challenged by the federal government. Gilley said it could test the boundaries of tribal independence nationwide. .

“This could be a test of sovereignty,” he said.

New Jersey Still Supports Marriage

In August 2007, Garden State Equality commissioned a poll from Zogby International to inquire about attitudes of New Jersey residents regarding same-sex marriage. They found that converting civil unions to marriage was acceptable to New Jerseyans.

They have repeated the polling again this year and found that attitudes have held steady or slightly moved in the direction of marriage equality.

When reading commissioned polls, one has to be careful that the questioning itself is not driving the answers. And with eight questions on gay marriage, and one on gay friends, at some point reliance on poll conclusions becomes a bit self-serving. This is especially true when language such as “A recent UCLA study showed that allowing same-sex marriage could add as much as a half a billion dollars to the New Jersey economy in tourism and wedding revenue over the next three years” is included in the question.

But the first question on same-sex marriage follows a series of general questions about the favorable or unfavorable opinions of elected officials and is probably worded in a manner adequate to provide a reasonable indication of public sentiment (though push words like “freedom” are included).

From August 2007:

New Jersey allows gay couples to enter into civil unions but not marry. Do you agree or disagree that New Jersey should give gay couples the same freedom to marry as heterosexual couples?

Agree 48.1%
Disagree 44.6%
Not Sure 7.2%

From August 2008:

Currently, New Jersey lets same-sex couples enter only into civil unions, while California and Massachusetts give same-sex couples the freedom to marry. Do you support or oppose same-sex couples in New Jersey also getting the freedom to marry?

Support 50.1%
Oppose 42.3%
Not Sure 7.6%

Even disallowing a bit for the advocacy language of the questions, I think we can conclude that more residents of New Jersey support same-sex marriage than oppose it.