Box Turtle Bulletin

AZ Senate To Investigate Ethics Complaint

In a surprise move after Arizona GOP leaders tried to “fix” the makeup of the Senate Ethics committee at the last minute, the committee voted 3-2 this afternoon to investigate the actions of Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise) on the last night of the legislative session. Harper’s actions in breaking the Senate rules cut off debate and forced a vote on the anti-marriage amendment.

[Ethics committee chairman] Sen. Jay Tibshraeny, R-Chandler, sided with the two Democrats on the panel in concluding that further inquiry is needed to “clear the air” on what happened when Harper, chairing floor debate, shut off the microphones of two legislators in the middle of discussion. That cleared the way to table that issue and vote to put a measure on the November ballot to constitutionally ban gay marriage. Harper left Monday’s meeting and the building before the session was over and did not return calls seeking comment.

At the time he shut off the microphones, Harper said he had made a mistake. But Harper has since said the move was a conscious decision because the two lawmakers were “making the same point over and over again.” The Ethics Committee hearing will give panel members a chance to ask Harper about the inconsistencies.

…

Harper interrupted the dialogue between Cheuvront and Aboud and turned off their microphones. “I clicked on the wrong thing,” he said at the time. “I clicked on the ‘clear mikes’ (button).”

But rather than turning the floor back to the pair, he instead recognized Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor, R-Gilbert, who moved to table further debate, paving the way for a vote on the gay marriage ban. And Harper ignored clearly audible calls for a “point of order,” which is supposed to stop action.

Harper and Sen. Ken Cheuvront (D-Phoenix), who lodged the complaint, are both expected to appear before the panel. It’s unclear who else may be called.

Bastian Gives $1,000,000 to Fight Proposition 8

At Saturday’s controversial Human Rights Campaign dinner in San Francisco, WordPerfect founder and HRC Board Member Bruce Bastian wrote a check for a million dollars to fight against the anti-gay marriage amendment in California. (San Francisco Chronicle)

Bastian grew up in a conservative, Mormon family in Twin Falls, Idaho. He went on a mission for the church and received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Mormon-sponsored Brigham Young University. But he has been at odds with the church’s view on homosexuality since coming out as a gay man.

The Mormon church has spoken strongly in favor of Prop. 8. In a June 20 letter, the church’s top leaders called on California Mormons to “do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time.”

Bastian heard this call and felt that he needed to do what he could to counter the effort.

It is not yet certain as to what organization is the recipient of the Bastian’s contribution or who will make decisions of how best to utilize the money raised by HRC on Saturday night. However, we hope that HRC will work with Californians who are most familiar with the local culture and that turf wars will not result in a divided front in our efforts to retain our rights.

We also hope that HRC will join with local efforts in Arizona and Florida in their battles to keep discrimination from becoming enshrined in their state constitutions. If HRC takes steps that appear to be cooperative and contributory to the citizens of the states impacted, it would go far to begin rebuilding trust from those in the community who have felt betrayed or ignored by the national organization.

AZ GOP Tries To “Fix” Ethics Committee

How low can Arizona’s Republican-led Senate go?

A few days ago, we reported that state Sen. Ken Cheuvront (D-Phoenix) filed an ethics complaint against Jack Harper (R-Surprise), the Senate chairman who deliberately broke Senate rules to force a vote on the anti-marriage amendment by shutting off a microphone during debate. Now the Arizona Republic is reporting that the GOP-controlled ethics panel has tried to stack the panel with a last-minute substitution ahead of tomorrow’s hearing:

Like all legislative panels, the majority GOP has an advantage. But that advantage nearly became a strangle-hold: One of the two Democrats, Rep. Leah Landrum Taylor, remains on doctor-ordered bed rest following childbirth and can’t attend. Republican leadership’s answer? Replace her with another Democrat who can’t be there, of course. Sen. Victor Soltero wasn’t asked before he was appointed, and is scheduled to be away on vacation. Democrats finally scored with an assist from committee chairman Sen. Jay Tibshraeny.

“I believe to maintain the integrity of this important process, Senator Landrum Taylor needs to be temporarily replaced with someone who is able to attend the meeting,” Tibshraeny, a Chandler Republican, wrote in a memo to Senate President Tim Bee. (Emphasis added by The Republic.)

Sen. Richard Miranda is now slated to fill in for Soltero to fill in for Landrum Taylor. No word yet on who will fill in for Miranda for Soltero for Landrum Taylor if something happens.

Want to know how blatant Harper’s rule-breaking was?

Try following this: At the time Harper cut off mikes for Cheuvront and [Sen. Paula] Aboud [D-Tucson], he immediately apologized and called it inadvertent. But, from his position presiding over the session, Harper didn’t return speaking privileges to Aboud, who had been cut-off in mid-sentence. Instead, Harper turned over the floor to a poised and ready-to-speak Sen. Thayer Verschoor. Now, though, Harper claims he was right to turn off the mikes, because he believes the debate was “dilatory” and, thus, out-of-order.

We can safely expect a whitewash on Monday, par for the course in politics today. A majority of Americans feel that we are on the wrong track, and for the first time in fourteen years, Arizona voters hold the same opinion. Is it any wonder with state and national leadership like this?

Thanks, Ducky

Life has a way of circling back on you.

In the late 80’s, I rented, with roommates, a very cool flat-roofed glass-walled house in the Nihonmachi (Japantown) section of San Jose. This was definitely the House of Love as everyone I knew who lived there met someone, fell in love, moved out, and was replaced with another single person.

Rich, one of the original three, fell in love with Chris. And though for all practical purposes he moved in with Chris (including for the time his very unique mother stayed with me for three weeks), Rich was my roommate for over a year.

Rich was the one who brought in Ducky as a roommate. Ducky was a small, funny, quirky girl with a mullet (though she wasn’t a lesbian). And, in addition to adding to the flavor of the house, she put up with me (not an easy task at the time).

I always thought of Ducky as “Ducky”, so when reading an article in 2004 about some woman named Kate it took me a while to recognize the name. But when I read that Kate looked to her best friends, a gay couple named Chris and Rich, as a model for how a marriage should work, memories came rushing back.

This week I receive a mass-email plea from “Jim & Kate DeLaHunt for Equality California” asking for contributions to help the fight to keep marriage legal. It started:

Ten years ago, we decided to take the plunge.
We got married.

Standing at our side were our friends, Rich and Chris. I don’t think we would have gotten married without their good example.

Jim and Kate promised to match the contributions brought in by the plea.

To my old friend and roommate Ducky, I say thank you for your support for the rights of my community. Thank you for lending your voice, your time, your efforts and your money to a cause that many straight people believe doesn’t really benefit their own lives.

And to Rich and Chris, thanks for modeling what love, commitment and marriage are all about.

Now to our readers: If you want to make a difference in an election battle that is likely to directly impact the lives of all gay Americans, please contribute to Equality California.

French Support Marriage

Canadian anti-gay news site LifeSiteNews.com is reporting on a recent poll taken in France

According to the survey, 62% of respondents were in favor of allowing homosexual “marriage,” up from 45% in a similar survey conducted in 2006, and 51% were in favor of allowing homosexual couples to adopt, up from 36% in 2006.

France currently provides limited recognition of couples by means of a contract called Pacte civil de solidarité (PACS).

Bee “Doesn’t See The Point” of Ethics Investigation

Arizona State Senate President Tim Bee (R-Tucson) rejected a request to appoint a bipartisan panel to investigate whether Republicans broke legislative rules when they improperly ended a filibuster attempt to vote on the same-sex marriage amendment:

“I don’t see the point in it,” Bee, a Tucson Republican, said Wednesday of the request to appoint an independent panel. “If I were to appoint a separate commission it wouldn’t have any authority other than to have a hearing.”

… Bee said, “I had concerns about the way that came down that night,” but he said he would leave the decision to the Ethics Committee. He said he was “absolutely not” involved in any plan to break Senate rules.

A Senate attorney has already concluded Senate Chairman Jack Harper (R-Surprise) violated the rules by cutting off the discussion. Sen. Ken Cheuvront (D-Phoenix) filed a complaint to the Senate Ethics committee, which has agreed to discuss the issue on Monday.

Bee’s unethical performance in those final hours of the legislative session is a topic that he wishes would just go away. He’s currently running for Congress in District 8 against Democratic incumbent Gabrielle Giffords.  In 2006, CD8 voted to defeat a proposed same-sex marraige ban 45.4% to 54.6%. That was a significantly wider margin than the statewide vote of 48.2% to 51.8%.

AZ Senate Panel To Hear Ethics Complaint

We reported last month about the egregious and blatant breach of Senate rules which led to the Arizona Senate’s vote to place an anti-marriage amendment on the ballot. On Monday, State Sen. Ken Cheuvront (D-Phoenix) filed an ethics complaint against Jack Harper (R-Surprise). While acting as Senate chairman, Harper ignored Senate rules to summarily stop a debate serving as a filibuster. Cheuvront’s complaint seeks an investigation and reprimand by the full Senate.

Today, the Ethics Committee’s chairman, Sen. Jay Tibshraeny (R-Chandler) declined to summarily dismiss the complaint, and will call on the full committee to decide whether to investigate the matter or drop it. The committee consists of two Democrats and two Republicans, in addition to Tibshraeny. A meeting was scheduled for Monday to decide whether to investigate or drop the complaint.

On June 27, Tibshraeny told fellow senators that he lamented a loss of decorum by the Senate. He has since said that his comments were generally directed and not specifically aimed at the controversy over Harper’s action as chairman.

California Changes Prop 8 Ballot Language

The original title was “Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment”. Now it’s been changed for the better (PDF: 2 pages):

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments.

Now when Californians go to the polls, they have to think about how their vote may actually take away something that already exists.

Bratton Endorses Marriage Equality

Former New York and current Los Angeles Chief of Police William Bratton has endorsed gay marriage and given a donation to the efforts to fight against Proposition 8.

“The Constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” Bratton said this week. “I see no reason why gays can’t pursue happiness through marriage.”

Update

It should be noted that Bratton ran for Mayor of New York as a Republican in 2000. Supporters of marriage equality can make a strong case that opposition to discrimination has bi-partisan support in California.

Laguna Beach Opposes Prop 8

Per the LA Times

The majority Republican City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to oppose Proposition 8, intended to define marriage in California as between a man and a woman.

“Laguna has a live-and-let-live attitude,” said Councilwoman Toni Iseman, who recommended the action with Mayor Jane Egly. “We don’t tolerate diversity, we embrace diversity.”

Laguna Beach was – until recently – home of the oldest continuously operating gay bar in the west. But rising housing and living costs coupled with better commuting ability with greater Orange County has severely diminished the gay population of the beachside resort town – or at least those of lesser means. So the Boom Boom Room, like other gay mainstays, is no more.

It is encouraging to hear that the city maintains its commitment to gay equality despite the change in demographics.

Proposition 8 Campaign Fibs About Poll

Confronted with the latest Field Poll showing that Proposition 8 is not favored by California voters, the supporters of the anti-gay marriage amendment are scrambling to find positive ways to spin the results. Unfortunately, they relying on false statements to do so.

In a news release, Yes on Proposition 8 stated

A new Field Poll released today shows Proposition 8 — the Marriage Protection ballot initiative — is gaining among likely voters, although the survey continues to significantly understate support for the initiative, officials with the Proposition 8 campaign said today. The poll also shows that advocates of same-sex marriage are losing ground, compared to the last Field Poll released on May 28.

This seems contrary to news stories on the poll. But in support of their rather bold claim they state

The latest Field Poll reports support for Proposition 8 is at 42% (up two points since May) and opposition at 51% (down from 54%).

However, that is not really what the May Field Poll reported. In May, pollsters broke their sample in two and asked two slightly differently worded questions about a proposed constitutional amendment.

5a “Do you favor or oppose changing the California State Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, thus barring marriage between gay and lesbian couples?”

Favor 40%
Oppose 54%
No Opinion 6%

5b “There may be a vote on this issue in the November election. Would you favor or oppose having the state constitution prohibit same-sex marriage, by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman?”

Favor 43%
Oppose 51%
No Opinion 6%

Although Field doesn’t tell us the combined average, it is likely to be similar to the answer to their primary question:

Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex and have regular marriage laws apply to them?

Disapprove 42%
Approve 51%
No Opinion 7%

In order to have something positive to say, the supporters of the proposition ignore the rest of the results and focus on one subset of one question so as to claim movement on the issue. But not only is this blatantly dishonest, the fluctuation was within the margin of error and no honest pollster would claim that this was an indication of “advances” or of “losing ground”.

However, their claim of understated support is probably valid. The Field Poll did not accurately predict the results of the yes vote on Proposition 22. But it did yield interesting information that we may wish to apply to the current poll.

On February 9, 2000, the Field Poll released results of their polling on Proposition 22, the “Limit on Marriage Initiative”. This was the proposition that rewrote civil code to ban gay marriage (the code found inconsistent with the Constitution by the California Supreme Court).

Proposition 22 provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. If the election were being held today, would you vote Yes or No on Proposition 22?

Yes 52%
No 39%
Undecided 9%

On election day, March 7, the initiative passed 61% to 39%. Clearly the Field Poll did not well predict the “Yes” votes.

But it did accurately predict the “No” votes. While undecided voters may have ultimately chosen to pull the “Yes” lever, those who polled as opposed to the ballot seemed – on average – to hold their conviction.

So lets look at the current Field Poll,

Proposition 8 is the “Limit on Marriage Constitutional Amendment.” It amends the California constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. If the election were being held today, would you vote Yes or No on Proposition 8, the Limit on Marriage Constitutional Amendment.

Yes 42%
No 51%
Undecided 7%

Assuming that the Field Poll underestimated the supporters but accurately predicted the “No” votes, then a vote on Proposition 8 today would fail 49% to 51%.

No matter how they slice it or which way they spin it, today was not a good day for the Yes on Proposition 8 people.

LA Times Article on Methodist Support

We told you earlier about the support that marriage equality is receiving from United Methodists in California. An anecdote shared by the Los Angeles Times may shed some light on at least one reason why these ministers are willing to face punishment from their national denomination in order to bring joy to the lives of gay couples.

The Rev. Sharon Rhodes-Wickett of Claremont United Methodist Church joined a retired deacon from her congregation to co-officiate at the July 5 wedding of two longtime members, Howard Yeager and Bill Charlton.

The wedding was held off site — at a Claremont complex for retired clergy and missionaries — to avoid violating the rule against such ceremonies in churches.

Rhodes-Wickett, who led the Lord’s Prayer and gave a homily, said she hoped to avoid discipline by stopping short of actually pronouncing the couple married. That action was performed by the retired deacon, who also signed the marriage license.

Rhodes-Wickett said she did not want Yeager and Charlton to leave her church to exchange vows.

“This is my flock,” she said, adding that the men have been together 40 years, 22 of them as members of her Claremont congregation. “It’s a matter of integrity and a matter of what it is to be a pastoral ministry.”

We as a community owe a debt of gratitude to Howard Yeager and Bill Charlton. As best I can tell neither man is an activist. But they have for at least the past 22 years been living activism with an impact that no form of marching or protest can achieve.

New Poll: Californians Saying No to CaMP Act

The first California statewide poll to directly measure public opinion about Proposition 8 -­ the so-called California Marriage Protection (CaMP) Act, a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban marriage equality -­ suggests the ballot measure is in serious trouble.

As reported at ProtectMarriageEquality.com, a Field Poll commissioned by Oakland’s KTVU-TV found that the marriage ban is supported by only 42% of Californians, while 51% oppose it. The poll numbers offer a double dose of hope for supporters of marriage equality. Not only do the data indicate that the ballot proposition is currently losing outright, they also suggest that its prospects for gaining support during the coming months may be dim.

It is common wisdom in California politics that controversial ballot measures typically lose support during the course of election campaigns. Thus, an initiative with less than majority support at this stage faces serious obstacles to passage.

Nevertheless, it would be a mistake for California marriage equality supporters to be become complacent in response to the poll results.

In my latest post at Beyond Homophobia, I discuss the poll data and their implications for the Proposition 8 campaign.

New Field Poll: Prop 8 Not Popular

In May , shortly after the State Supreme Court found in favor of marriage equality in California, the Field Poll reported that Californians did not favor amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage, by a margin of 51-43. A new Field Poll released Thursday shows no movement on the issue.

According to the Sacramento Bee,

Fifty-one percent of respondents said they oppose the proposed ban; 42 percent support it; and 7 percent are undecided.

Even the Anti-Gays want Randy Thomasson to Get Lost

As we’ve shown you before, Randy Thomasson and the Campaign for Children and Families are not likely to go down in history as great thinkers of our generation. I’d go so far as to say that they’re downright loony.

Now it seems that the backers of Proposition 8 want nothing to do with them as well.

Thomasson and CCF were not backers of the current proposition to ban marriage but instead supported an alternate proposition that banned civil unions as well. Their initiative did not get enough signatures, but while it lasted they said unkind things about what is now Proposition 8.

But now Thomasson and CCF want to jump on the band-wagon. And the backers of Proposition 8 are trying to force them out. Publicly.

Law.com reports on efforts to get CCF to shut up and go away.

In a short brief filed Thursday, Folsom, Calif., lawyer Andrew Pugno, counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, argued that rather than back Prop 8, the CCF actively campaigned against it for years in favor of another amendment that would have sharply curtailed all gay rights.

“Only now that the act has qualified for the ballot as Proposition 8 do proposed intervenors support it,” Pugno wrote. “Against this backdrop, there is significant concern that the presence of [the CCF] in this action will substantially interfere with real parties’ ability to effectively defend Proposition 8.”

In an interview Monday, Pugno referred to the CCF as “extremists” who want to go beyond the issue of marriage and “strip away gay rights” of any kind.

Well, Pugno certainly knows Thomasson and his goals. But I would say the differences between them are only a matter of degrees.

(hat tip Good-As-You)