Box Turtle Bulletin

Oct 15-16 SurveyUSA Poll Shows Not Much Change

CBS5 has a new SurveyUSA poll out today and it is not much different from the one released on October 6th.

The poll of 615 likely voters released Friday found that 48 percent favored Proposition 8, while 45 percent planned to vote against the measure. Seven percent said they were not yet certain.

The poll has a four percent margin of sampling error.

The last poll found that 47 percent in favor and 42 percent opposed. It is difficult to draw any conclusions from this new poll or to show any shift in the electorate.

As I said on the 6th, I don’t put much trust in the SurveyUSA polling methodology. And in reviewing the breakout, some things seem illogical. For example, voters age 50-64 are more likely to vote “no” than voters 18-34 or 35-49. This seems inconsistent with what socialogists have noted in trends of acceptance.

Additionally, this poll finds Asian-American voters opposing Prop 8 by 48% to 42%, while a recent survey of Asian-American voting intentions found opposition to be 57% to 32%.

However, this poll should inspire us to greater efforts.

Ellen Buys Airtime to Oppose Proposition 8

Ellen DeGeneres has been using her popular daytime talk show to get out the message that same-sex marriage is life-changing and beautiful. She has also recorded a 30 second message to spread the word, a message that was viewed 80,000 times.

Now the Sacramento Bee is reporting that she cares so much about getting out her message that she’s funding the airing of the ad.

Eddie Fernandez of the No on 8 campaign said DeGeneres is starting by purchasing $100,000 in air time for the ad.

This appeal, made and paid for by someone that listeners may feel that they know and love, may make this proposition personal for some viewers. I commend Ellen on her efforts and generosity.

Mohler Sees the Bigger Picture

In the world of anti-gay activism, there are those who will say or do anything to advance their anti-gay agenda. Integrity has long since been discarded and honesty always take a back seat to insinuation, innuendo, and sometimes blatant lies.

Take, for example, a recent outing by first graders to celebrate the marriage of their teacher to her wife. The bare facts, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, are these:

• The lesbian teacher had not requested that her students attend the ceremony.
• A parent decided that it would be good for the students to go congratulate their teacher and came up with the idea for the outing.
• The interim director approved the trip as a “teaching moment”.
• Parental permission was required and two families opted not to have their children attend. They remained at school with another class.
• The children went at noon, rode a public bus, and walked one block to the courthouse. The trip did not significantly diminish their scholastic endeavors.
• The children did not attend the wedding, but waited outside the courthouse and threw rose petals when the teacher came out. She was surprised and pleased.
• At least one child wore a “No on 8” button which reflected the political views of her parents.

This story has delighted the anti-gay industry. Writers have distorted the story and passed it on for others to take it even further from the truth.

OneNewNow falsely states:

For the school-sponsored trip, 18 first-graders — ages 5 and 6 — were taken to San Francisco City Hall to witness the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner.

Yes on 8’s Chip White told CNSNews:

“The other side claims that we’re lying (when we say) that same-sex marriage will be taught in schools. This field trip shows not only will same-sex marriage be taught in schools, but it already is being taught in schools,” he said.

Concerned Women for America’s Leslie Smith claimed

Conservative and liberal critics alike are decrying the use of taxpayer money to bus the students to the ceremony under the auspices of “education.”

CWA’s Wendy Wright went beyond getting the facts wrong and blatantly lied when she said

And it didn’t take long for activists to go straight to children to advance their agenda, as if other people’s children are merely pawns.

Consistent through out the repeating and retelling of this story is a need on the part of anti-gays to create a situation that did not occur. Their desire to win an election has vastly overpowered any instinct towards telling the truth.

But there are some individuals with whom I sharply disagree but who also try to keep their claims this side of fraudulent. They may take positions that I find contrary to both Christian principle and American philosophy, but their words are not generally dishonest – or at least not blatantly so.

One such person is Albert Mohler, the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

Mohler has also reviewed the story about the San Francisco children and found it disturbing. But Mohler’s distress is not based in bogus taxpayer bus expenses or in the pretense that the will of parents was disregarded. He does not rant about “exposed to the ceremony” or other misstatements of fact. Dr. Mohler has a broader concern.

Human society is a complex reality, but certain constants have framed that reality for human beings. One of those constants has been the institution of marriage. The respected status of the heterosexual pairing, set apart for exclusive rights and respected for its functions for the society, is among the most important of those constants. Even where deviations from this pattern occur, they are of interest merely for the fact that they are deviations from this norm.

The legalization and normalization of same-sex marriage undermine that constant. What had been a clear picture now becomes confusing. Marriage had been universally understood to be heterosexual. Now, it is something else. The picture is further confused by alienating the heterosexual breeding and parenting function from marriage. Not only does marriage appear now to be what it never was before, the essential functions of marriage are up for grabs.

The pictures in the mind change.

What Dr. Mohler rightly notes is that this battle is not truly over first grade field trips. It isn’t really over parental rights or churches being sued.

What the battle over the legal recognition of same-sex marriage is about is the cultural recognition of same-sex unions as part of the definition of marriage. It’s a reflection of a society that no longer views gay persons as objectionable or inferior and which no longer gives preference and privilege to the institution of heterosexuality.

Those of us who favor equality emphatically state that the State cannot treat citizens dissimilarity. And that marriage is a civil right which cannot be eliminated to meet the demands of some churches’ doctrines.

But although Mohler is talking about Proposition 8 and encouraging its passage, that isn’t really at the heart of his complaint. It isn’t so much that a state has allowed marriage as it is that a society has rejected his moral argument.

The battle over Proposition 8 is a struggle over some of the most fundamental principles of life, society, and meaning. In the eyes of same-sex marriage advocates the battle is for equality, dignity, and respect for homosexual relationships. In the eyes of same-sex marriage opponents, the battle is for the preservation of an institution essential for human happiness and thriving.

Both sides in this debate understand that issues right at the core of human dignity are at stake. Each side understands that the decision on this question will shape the future of our civilization.

And though Mohler writes his piece to rally the troops, I think he knows that even if he wins the battle that is this proposition, he has lost the war. Mohler knows that his church, and many others, have for years appealed to the people. They have preached sermons. They have staged rallies. They have knocked on doors and done good works and even reverted to cries of hellfire and damnation.

And society has listened to their “good news” and found it neither good nor news. Their appeal to tradition and a literal interpretation of Genesis, their insistence on sexual rules that seem to be based on nebulous morality rather than on pragmatic approaches to pregnancy, disease, and emotional health, their conflation of religion and partisan politics, and their efforts to control those around them have caused conservative evangelical Christians to become viewed with hostility and distrust.

If their brand of Christianity is to be relevant to the world around it, they need to find a message that most will find to be helpful and useful to their lives. Because today’s youth have access to more information and shared experiences than ever before, appeals to ignorance or baseless dogma will doom a church for future generations.

Insistence on anti-gay dogmatism in a culture that is coming to value and respect their gay neighbors may alienate an entire generation. And I find within Mohler’s writing a suggestion that he may on some level recognize that Southern Baptists run the risk that it may be too late.

As he noted:

It turns out that parents had the right to use an “opt out” provision to keep their children at the school, and not at the ceremony at City Hall. According to the paper, two families did just that. Two. Eighteen students participated in the field trip. This, you must understand, is the new normal.

Bilingual East-LA Newsgroup Encourages a “No” Vote on Proposition 8

Eastern Group Publications is a media outlet that is likely unfamiliar to most Californians. But this newsgroup prints ten local newspapers that reach a demographic that may not see itself represented by the Los Angeles Times or the Daily News. These bilingual weeklies targeted at a mostly Hispanic readership have a combined distribution of well over 100,000:

• Bell Gardens Sun
• City Terrace Comet
• Commerce Comet
• East Los Angeles Brooklyn-Belvedere Comet
• Eastside Sun (Boyle Heights, East LA)
• Mexican American Sun
• Montebello Comet
• Monterey Park Comet
• Northeast Sun (Highland Park, Cypress Park, Glassell Park, Eagle Rock, El Sereno, Lincoln Heights)
• Wyvernwood Chronicle

And while this may not be exactly the editorial I would have crafted, nonetheless I welcome EGP’s position:

Prop 8—Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Why is this Proposition on the ballot? Government cannot legislate morality. We believe marriage should mean a man and a woman becoming wedded, but if gays believe they are morally entitled to legally wed, we don’t believe there is anything that will change their minds. The courts have already affirmed this right, so should we.
Vote No

This pragmatic “Who Cares?” approach may well resonate with their readers.

Newspapers Opposing Proposition 8

SD Union-Tribune’s Second Prop 8 Editorial

The San Diego Union-Tribune is not pleased about the content of the Yes on 8 advertisements.

The “Yes on 8” forces have recently waged an offensive but terribly effective war on the airwaves to convince voters that, if they don’t draw the line at gay marriage, before they know it their children will learn about same-sex unions in public school.

How shameful. That is not what this debate is about. Parents have the right to be notified if such a thing is discussed in class, and to remove their children if necessary. The ads don’t mention that.
…
Enough with these petty political games. This is serious business. Let’s shelve the theatrics, and think about what would be best for all Californians. The answer begins with equal rights for everyone and a No vote on Proposition 8.

This is their second editorial opposing the proposition.

Bakersfield Californian says No to Prop 8

Bakersfield, though only a two hour drive from Los Angeles, is worlds apart when it comes to equality and support for members of gay community. In June, Kern Co. Clerk Ann K. Barnett cancelled the performance of all civil marriages rather than allow gay people to avail themselves of the services of the county.

So it is especially sweet that the Bakersfield Californian has come out in strong opposition to Proposition 8:

The bottom line is the California Constitution and ultimately the U.S. Constitution. Both guarantee all people equal protection and equal rights under the law. We must not support any constitutional amendment that would serve to take away fundamental rights. It’s as simple as that.

Californians need to move beyond the divisiveness that Prop. 8 has engendered and embrace tolerance and reconciliation. Live and let live.

We recommend a NO vote on Prop. 8.

Newspapers Opposing Prop 8

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You !!!

We reported to you on October 7 that the No on 8 campaign was worried because they were being outspent, and without our message being heard we were facing frightening poll results.

At that time the Yes on 8 supporters were out-contributing us by 3 to 2.

It seems that our supporters have heard the plea. And the fundraising deficit is beginning to diminish. The Mercury News reports:

After sounding the alarm last week about its $10 million fundraising deficit, Equality California, the lead organization for the No on 8 campaign, has raised more than $3 million within California since Oct. 6.

The No on 8 campaign has also received commitments for an additional $4 million in donations that have not been received, said Kate Kendell, a member of the campaign’s executive committee. “That has been extraordinary, and has certainly we think helped us close the gap on the $10 million they had out-raised us, but we are not the least bit sanguine about this.”

Recent significant pledges and contributions include (Advocate and CA Sec. of State):

• $1,000,000 – California Teachers Association (total $1,250,000)
• $500,000 – Steve Bing
• $120,000 – Tom Bombardier and John Fowler
• $100,000 – T.R. Knight
• $10,000 – Suze Orman
• $10,000 – Larry Basile and Jonathan Crutchley
• $5,000 – Eric McCormack (Will and Grace)
• $5,000 – Dana Delany (Desperate Housewives)

Other contributors have given generously with five and six figure contributions (including a $650,000 contribution that seems to have caught no press). As they have not been publicized, they may be seeking a low profile so I won’t draw attention to their names. But these contributions come from various walks of life, many are heterosexual, many are not extravagantly wealthy. Business have contributed, as have trade groups, political associations, and religious groups.

Thank you to all who have contributed.

All is appreciated and more is needed. Please continue to contribute what you can, not only to No on Proposition 8 but also to efforts to fight against Proposition 102 in Arizona and Amendment 2 in Florida.

In the same time period,

Since Oct. 6, large contributions to ProtectMarriage.com, the lead group supporting Proposition 8, have totaled just $405,969.

Pro-Prop 8 Chinese Ad Equates Same-Sex Marriage to Pedophilia

… and incest and polygamy.

These people running this campaign have no shame whatsoever.

Chico Enterprise-Record Says “No”

You may recall that the Yes on 8 campaign has the endorsement of a sole newspaper, the Paradise Post. And you may know that Paradise is a small neighbor of Chico.

Well, the Chico Enterprise-Record has released their voter recommendations and it seems that the attitude in Butte County is not universally in favor of discrimination.

Proposition 8 would overturn the right of same-sex couples to marry, getting around the pesky little constitutional requirement of equal treatment for all by amending the constitution.

We still fail to understand why this is the government’s business, and the proponents’ arguments just don’t catch much traction with us. How can preventing some people from marrying protect marriage? Wouldn’t banning divorce be better?

The arguments against same-sex marriages seem close to arguments against mixed-race marriages you’d hear back in the ’60s. Hopefully we’ll get beyond all that some day. Vote no on Proposition 8.

Newspapers Opposing Proposition 8

Asian Americans Plan to Vote No on Prop 8

A poll of Asian Americans reveals that they do not favor amending the constitution to enshrine discrimination against gays. (SJ Mercury-News)

The poll found that 57 percent of Asian-Americans likely to vote in the Nov. 4 election oppose Proposition 8, which would reverse last spring’s California Supreme Court ruling that gave gays and lesbians the right to marry. Only 32 percent planned to vote for the measure. Eleven percent were undecided.

The poll (pdf) found the proposed amendment to be out of favor with all subsets of this population.

Across all national origin groups in the survey, more opposed than favored the changing the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. An outright majority opposed the measure among Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans, and Vietnamese, and a near majority of Japanese Americans (46%) and Asian Indians (47%) did so as well.

Steve Bing Gives Half a Million

Steve Bing, a producer of such movies as Beowulf and Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World, has pledged $500,000 to the campaign to fight against Proposition 8.

Bing is what one might call “notoriously heterosexual”. Let’s hope his giving sets an example for those in the entertainment industry who are gay or who have benefited greatly from gay support.

An Open Letter to Madonna

Dear Madonna,

You are coming to Los Angeles next month as part of your Sticky and Sweet Tour. Several of my friends are going and they’ve asked me to get a ticket as well.

In fact, among some of my friends, being one of your fans is almost an expectation. More than one were teen-age members of your fan club (they’re in their 30’s now) and while only one actively collects memorabilia anymore, the idea of missing a concert of yours is unthinkable.

I’m sure you’ve figured by now that these friends are gay men. After all, Madonna, gay men make up a huge majority of your loyal fans, those who buy every album and keep your name and music relevant.

And I do enjoy your music. I own several CD’s and caught your last concert in Las Vegas. It was a great show and I hear the new one is as well.

But I will not be going.

You see, Madonna, when you make a career out of appealing to a gay audience, when you cultivate your Gay Icon status, and when you make hundreds of millions of dollars in the process, you owe something back. You owe the loyalty to the gay community that they have given you.

And you are not fulfilling that obligation. You have given NOTHING to the fight in California, Arizona, and Florida to protect the rights of the gay citizens of those states. I guess you think that you have better things to do with your money.

So if you are looking for me to drop down a couple hundred bucks to watch you lip-sync, it isn’t going to happen. I too have better things to do with my money. For one thing, I’ll need to pick up the new Fall Out Boy album.

Sincerely,

Timothy Kincaid

p.s. Feel free to pass this message on to Barbara Streisand, Bette Midler, and Cher, all of whom have also given nothing to the cause.

New Editorials Opposing Proposition 8

We have a few additional newspapers who’ve added their editorial voice in opposition to Proposition 8

The Los Angeles Daily News is LA’s smaller and slightly more conservative paper and bases its readership in The Valley and other suburban areas.

The supporters of the ban, which include several faith-based organizations and churches, see this as a movement toward societal acceptance of a group that they don’t think ought to exist. Under the U.S. Constitution, they have a right to think that. But it doesn’t allow them to deny equal rights to anyone.

The Santa Rosa Press-Democrat

It’s time to put this issue to rest.

The court ruled that the state constitution does not tolerate a distinction between unions of opposite-sex couples and those of same-sex couples. And we don’t believe that voters should, as a matter of equity, fairness and decency, go out of their way to rewrite the constitution to create such a distinction.

The Stockton Record

To approve Proposition 8 is to codify discrimination. Californians cannot let that happen.

Newspapers Opposing Proposition 8
Newspaper Endorsing Proposition 8

Conservative Press-Enterprise Opposes Prop 8

The Press-Enterprise is the leading newspaper for the Inland Empire, that section of Southern California which is East of the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego. This area is conservative and the Editorial page of the PE often reflects that political slant.

The PE has just released a recap of their voter recommendations and, not surprisingly, their endorsements for Congressional, Assembly, and State Senate seats consist of ten Republicans and one Democrat.

However, they also recommend a “No” vote on Proposition 8.

As the Press Enterprise editorial on September 27 stated,

The court ruling merely made marriage legally available to couples who until now did not have that option. The decision to marry is those couples’ business, and no one else’s. There is no compelling public policy reason to reverse that arrangement, and voters should say no to Prop. 8.

It’s nice to see the message get out that those who favor Republican representatives can also join in this principled stand against an unnecessary and discriminatory effort.

Newspapers

Pepperdine Statement on “Yes On 8” Television Ads

“George Pepperdine” — I don’t know if that’s his real name or if it’s a pseudonym in honor of Pepperdine University’s founder — left a statement from Pepperdine University in our comments section. This statement by Pepperdine University president Andrew K. Benton addresses the recent controversy over the “Yes on 8” television ads which prominently displays Pepperdine’s name.

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: University Faculty

FROM: Andrew K. Benton

RE: University Neutrality and Academic Freedom

DATE: October 14, 2008

I want to provide an update on an issue that weighs heavily on many of our minds: encouraging academic freedom while refraining from political endorsement by Pepperdine University. As most are aware, Yes on 8 ads airing on television and radio feature one of our professors. The Pepperdine name is prominently displayed in the current round of ads and many vocal supporters and opponents of Prop 8 see the opinions expressed as not only the professor’s, but Pepperdine’s as well.

Many of our professors write op-eds, books and give speeches; and they are appropriately identified with Pepperdine University. My first reaction to this series of television ads was that Pepperdine was too prominent. Many on the faculty disagreed, some agreed strongly. At the faculty conference I learned that a disclaimer would satisfy the professor and others who were involved. We offered language that was simple and clear, and while we knew the firestorm would continue in some quarters, we felt a straightforward disclaimer would allow the professor his right to speak and our right to remain outside any role of endorsement in the political fray. The next day, I learned that the professor and those promoting Proposition 8 preferred to withdraw Pepperdine’s name completely. We agreed. It was a change from a position announced just the day before, but it seemed a stronger measure and appropriate.

Just prior to running a second ad, the campaign announced to us that in their opinion it would be more effective if Pepperdine’s name was back in. They added a disclaimer, albeit so small and bare, that most do not see it. It was not the language which we had suggested. They did not ask us; they told us what they were going to do, and they did it.

Without any involvement in the campaign, Pepperdine has been lionized and vilified. We have been given credit where it is not due and blamed beyond anyone’s wildest imaginings. I, and perhaps many of you, continue to receive words of praise and condemnation from people who are either thanking us, or sharply criticizing us. Whether the writers are for or against Prop 8, I take no comfort from either position as it puts us where we don’t belong — in partisan politics.

This is a very challenging situation. We believe that the right to freedom of expression must be balanced with the fact that universities cannot endorse political candidates and propositions. We can host debates, we can educate, but we can’t endorse.

We regret when anyone supposes that we are inappropriately involved in a political issue when we are not. We will take whatever measures we deem appropriate to correct the misunderstanding. I will be writing to alumni and donors to explain the delicate nature of the balance we strike. We must not chill the right to free expression, but we must also avoid the appearance (intended or not) of political partisanship.

You can be of service to our institution by helping us clear up this confusion with those who may ask. I appreciate your understanding, your assistance and your patience.