Box Turtle Bulletin

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.

AZ Senate Ethics Complaint Dismissed

Dismissed, just like that.

You may remember, Arizona state Sen. Ken Cheuvront (D-Phoenix) filed an ethics complaint against Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise), claiming that Harper and others conspired to break a filibuster and force a vote to put yet another anti-marriage amendment on the ballot. During the debate, a senator’s microphone was cut off and the floor was turned over to another senator so the vote could be taken in violation of Senate rules.

The GOP-led Senate did everything they could to brush the ethics complaint under the rug. Senate President Tim Bee (R-Tucson), whose own spineless “leadership” allowed the infractions to take place opined that he “didn’t see the point” of conducting an ethics investigation. Meanwhile, Senate leadership tried to pull a last-minute “fix” of the ethics panel’s membership. The ethics panel eventually met, only to decide they didn’t need to call any witnesses. And with no witnesses other than Cheuvront and Harper, well, I guess they decided there was nothing to see here.

And with that party-line whitwash, Arizona’s corrupt, do-anything-for-a-win GOP-controlled political culture remains intact.

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.

LA Times Editorial: Oppose Proposition 8

The LA Times has issued its first recommendation of the upcoming election:

It’s the same sentence as in 2000: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Yet the issue that will be put before voters Nov. 4 is radically different. This time, the wording would be used to rescind an existing constitutional right to marry. We fervently hope that voters, whatever their personal or religious convictions, will shudder at such a step and vote no on Proposition 8.
…
To be sure, the court overturned Proposition 22, a vote of the people. That is the court’s duty when a law is unconstitutional, even if it is exceedingly popular. Civil rights are commonly hard-won, and not the result of widespread consensus. Whites in the South vehemently rejected the 1954 Supreme Court decision to desegregate schools. For that matter, Californians have accused the state Supreme Court of obstructing the people’s will on marriage before — in 1948, when it struck down a ban on interracial marriages.

Fundamental rights are exactly that. They should neither wait for popular acceptance, nor be revoked because it is lacking.

An 8 Reminder

Today, on 8/8/8, take a moment to consider what you can do to defeat Amendment 8.

UK’s Gay Divorce Rate: 1%

This is based only on a couple of years’ worth of data, so it’s hard to know if this is significant. But according to Pink News:

Between December 2005, when gay and lesbian couples gained the legal right to formalise their relationships, and December 2007, there were 24,629 civil partnerships in England and Wales. Couples have to wait at least a year before they can apply for a dissolution of their partnership. Her Majesty’s Court Service told PinkNews.co.uk that between December 2006 to 28th July 2008, there have been just 245 petitions for a dissolution.

According to Pink News, some of those disolution figures may include unions, marriages or partnerships entered into overseas and dissolved by the courts in England and Wales. There are no comparable figures for heterosexual divorce, although the report suggests that somewhere under a quarter of all marriages end in divorce in the first ten years.

Who Is Behind Arizona’s Marriage Amendment?

This woman: Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy. CAP is an official state policy council of Colorado Springs-based Focus On the Family.

This is the lobbyist who Arizona Senate President Timothy Bee (R-Tucson) denounced from the Senate dias — just before he crumpling himself under the pressure and casting the deciding 16th vote to put yet another anti-marriage amendment before the voters. Arizonans already said no to a previous attempt in 2006. Herrod didn’t like that answer, so she’s trying again for 2008.

Here’s shorter video featuring Cathi Herrod. Notice the message discipline. You can help to defeat Arizona’s Prop 102 here.

[Hat tip: Tucson Observer]

Marriage Recognition

A reader brought to my attention a rural Utah newspaper’s policy about printing wedding announcements for same-sex couples. Because the paper’s policy was pretty much standard (you’re paying for the ad so we won’t discriminate), that didn’t catch my attention. But the comments did illustrate an attitude that I think is often overlooked.

In the current battle over marriage, some who oppose allow same-sex couples to marry will argue that as long as the rights are the same then it’s not discriminatory to disallow the word “marriage”. Even some gay folks say, “I don’t need the word “marriage” as long as I have the same rights”.

But I contend that the word “marriage” is of incredible value because average people recognize marriage as unique and distinct. Further, as much as some may not want you to have one, they will recognize your marriage if the state does.

Consider the attitudes behind the authors of the following comments on the Herald Journal’s website:

Gay marriage does not exist in Utah. It doesn’t belong on the header “Wedding Announcements”. Either change the header or stop the false advertising.

(I suppose if the “wedding” occured in CA or MA, that would be a different story.)

and

I do, however, think it would mean more if they would actually take that leap and tie the legal not in Cali. Maybe they did or intend to. But if not, in my opinion this is a little less announcement worthy than it would have been had they driven the extra miles to deepen the commitment through contract. (not necessarily move the whole ceremony) My marriage means more. Not that we love each other more or less than these two do. It’s just that my wife and I have more to lose. We can’t just break up anymore.

I wouldn’t say any of that had same sex marriage not become legally recognizable in Cali.

Neither of these individuals seemed particularly supportive of the notion that gay persons should be treated equally in Utah. Yet both reluctantly recognize that a marriage in California is, indeed, a marriage and therefore it isn’t wrong to include it in their local paper’s announcements.

Anti-gays are correct that the battle over marriage in California (and Massachusetts) is critical. Gay couples returning from these states with marriage certificates will irreversibly change their home states.

Not because their state will recognize their marriage; most probably won’t. But because their neighbors will.

(hat tip to cowboy)

Faith and Family Drive Marriage

Every anti-gay knows that gays don’t really want marriage. They are just hoping to destroy marriage, the country, and civilization as a whole.

Well a study out of the University of Illinois suggests that the reasons that gay couples have for legalizing and ritualizing their relationships may well be similar to those of heterosexual couples.

The study looked at 190 gay couples in downstate Illinois and identified two subgroups:

Legalizers – those who had prepared legal documents to give protection to their union.

Length of relationship was the strongest predictor that a couple would legalize their relationship. Legalizers in this sample were more likely to belong to a supportive religious congregation than non-legalizing cohabiters, Oswald said.

“Faith communities may be important sources of legal education and advocacy for same-sex couples,” she noted.

Ritualizers – those legalizers who had participated in a commitment ceremony.

Having children and identifying religious beliefs as being very important in their daily life were the strongest predictors that a legalized couple would ritualize their relationship.

In fact, mothers and fathers in this study were 3.5 times more likely to have had a commitment ceremony than lesbians or gay men who lived together and had legalized their relationship but had not been part of a commitment ritual, she said.

If this observation in Illinois also applies to California and Massachusetts, those most likely to marry are those who have been together a long time, have children, and a strong religious life.

Yeah, I can see how that would be a threat to the institution of marriage.

Marriage in Massachusetts

It’s official kids, you can marry in the Bay State even if you live in the Show Me State (AP).

Gov. Deval Patrick has signed a bill repealing a 1913 law that barred couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their union would not be valid in their own states.

Out-of-state gay couples will be able to marry immediately if a court waives the state’s standard three-day waiting period for them.

Mass. House Votes to Allow Out-of-State Marriages

The AP is reporting

The Massachusetts House voted Tuesday to repeal a 1913 law that had been used to block gay marriages involving out-of-state couples, all but assuring that the state will allow same-sex couples to wed regardless of where they live.

The 118-35 vote came after the state Senate approved the repeal earlier this month, and Gov. Deval Patrick has said he will sign the bill. The measure requires one more procedural vote in each chamber before it is to the governor.

Frothing Lunacy, Part 2

Perhaps Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, found Bam Bam Barber to be an inspiration. Because Garlow has come up with some projections about Proposition 8 that rival Barber’s carnival of nutjobbery.

Garlow has organized a teleconference with pastors and lay leaders to explain to them just how important it is for Prop. 8 to pass. “[If] we lose, we go to jail. How soon I don’t know. But the fact is this is the kind of case where political correctness is bearing down,” the pastor contends. “If a pastor refuses to perform a homosexual wedding, if we lose on this, he will be or she will be so incredibly vulnerable at that time.”

He is organizing training for California pastors and lay leaders to get out the Christian vote in November — and he has a message to pastors who are reluctant. “If you don’t care about this campaign, don’t want to get involved, you can go to jail and start a wonderful prison ministry,” Garlow adds. “But if you want religious freedom, we’re going to have to win this thing.”

The sad thing is that Garlow is not just some anti-gay whacktivist ranting whatever he thinks will get him attention.

Garlow is the pastor of an influential church with regular attendance of several thousand. And he’s making these bizzare claims as though he believes them to be true.

Public Utility Opposes Prop 8

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), the largest public utility company in Northern California, has announced that they oppose Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage amendment. (LA Times)

Giving a financial and public relations boost to gay marriage proponents, PG&E announced today that it is giving $250,000 to the No on Proposition 8 campaign. *

The utility also said it will spearhead the formation of a business advisory council that will seek to get other businesses around California to to defeat the ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

AT&T and Wells Fargo have also contributed to efforts to opposite this discriminatory amendment.

I wonder if those Northern California anti-gays who are boycotting McDonalds are willing to stand on principle. Will they be willing to go without water and power, or does their passion only extend to changing burger brands?

UPDATE

* Wells Fargo and AT&T have given to Equality California. Their contributions have not been earmarked for opposition to Proposition 8.

Will Arizona Be Abandoned?

This is a question I am asked nearly everyday from folks in Arizona and from folks around the country. They ask questions like how much support came from outside Arizona in 2006? Will anyone outside of Arizona give money this time to defeat Prop 102? Will anyone inside Arizona give money? How do you feel about so much money going to California? What about Florida? Can Arizona win this one too? Do you feel abandoned by those supporting California especially but also Florida since Arizona is the only state in the nation to defeat an anti-marriage amendment?

There is no easy answer to any of those questions. Frankly, I’m not sure there is value in even trying to come up with an answer. I do believe however, the real value lies in the fact that we are even having this discussion. Internal and external to Arizona.

In an odd way it shows people care. They care enough about Arizona’s contribution to the movement to worry whether we might be slighted financially in this campaign season. They care enough about our statewide LGBT infrastructure to be concerned we are not damaged in the process – at least hopeful that we might escape long term or irreparable damage.

Instead of answering those questions with only the “what’s in front of us” view, I prefer to answer from a 30,000 foot perspective. That means we have to look at our work as a marathon and not a sprint. It means we cannot be angry or feel slighted by donors who, from their own perspective, believe their need and desire to participate in the movement, to make a difference, is best served by giving to a campaign that in their opinion would provide the greatest impact to achieving equality – to meeting their personal political goals. Because we all come from different backgrounds, different economies, different cultural experiences, no one has any right to pass judgment on another for the decisions we make in political giving. Sometimes those decisions are very personal, sometimes they are just hard core strategic moves and sometimes they are the simplicity of altruism.

The higher ground at 30,000 feet allows us to let wash beneath our feet the hardness created by politics – in a way it is cleansing. Don’t think for a minute though that coming down from the high ground to do the work is easy. But we have to have a place to land. Something you can touch, hear and believe in. For me that place is community – it is the work. It is the very place where we interact with one another on a very human and hopefully humanitarian level. It is that place that sometimes stinks, sometimes is so loud with opposing voices you can’t hear yourself think and on occasion calls into question our belief in that very humanity we seek to be a part of.

Over the past several weeks in particular we have been fighting a battle that stems from the worst display of disintegration of democracy I have ever witnessed. We are fighting with every tool at our disposal to call out those who would seek to limit the fullness of our lives in order to advance their own.

Amidst our ongoing Senate debacle we have organized and are executing our 2008 elections strategy; we have organized a Statewide Coordinated Campaign to defeat Prop 102; and we continue to build the capacity of Equality Arizona – design and deliver programs that change hearts and minds while also managing a hard-hitting public affairs agenda to change public policy.

We need a win in California. We need a win in Florida. We need a win in Arizona. That very trifecta has the potential to change the face of American politics. Just for clarification, “trifecta” as a slang term is used to describe any successful or favorable phenomenon or characteristic that comes in threes (according to Wikipedia). That’s what our national agenda should be about.

There is often much angst about coastal states dictating what happens to the rest of the country but today, we need to support our coasts! And yes, tucked into the Southwest – in a place in mid-August where you’re sure you’re already doing time in purgatory – we WILL continue to do our part to advance equality – to contribute to the greater good of our great state and our nation.

Do we want and need your contributions? Yes! Not at the exclusion of California or Florida but in addition too. Just do it. Don’t hesitate, don’t even blink. Just write the checks…address one to California, one to Florida and one to Arizona and sign them simply…from one who cares.

Barbara McCullough-Jones is the Executive Director of Equality Arizona. You can support Arizona’s efforts at the Vote No On Prop 102 website.