Box Turtle Bulletin

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)

Proposition 8 Goes Forward

The California Supreme Court decided not to hear an appeal brought by civil rights groups to keep the anti-gay marriage ban off the ballot. Their argument was that

1. Those signing were told that the initiative would not change the law, just keep it the same. This is no longer true. California law now recognizes marriage.

2. The language of the proposition does not amend the constitution. Because it is not just a matter of changing marriage law but instead goes to the heart of equal protection and discrimination against a suspect class, it revises the nature of the Constitution, which is a much more complicated process than just an initiative.

Per the San Jose Mercury News

Without comment, the court unanimously refused to hear the legal challenge, filed last month by civil rights groups. The organizations argued that the ballot measure was legally flawed and should not be put before the voters.

The latest legal salvo most likely ensures that voters will consider the measure, which would amend the state Constitution to confine marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

California United Methodists Support Marriage

Highland Boulevard is a major street running through Hollywood. And due to a bend in the road between the Kodak Theater and the Hollywood Bowl, those drivers heading north have centered in their windshield the tower of the Hollywood United Methodist Church adorned with a twenty foot high red AIDS ribbon.

This symbol, now a landmark in Hollywood, went up when many others who claim Christianity as their private domain had rejected and demonized those who were afflicted by HIV and AIDS. Fifteen years later, it tells the many thousands of commuters who pass by that this Christian congregation in its beautiful traditional sactuary remains committed to the words that the denomination has adopted, “open hearts, open minds, open doors”.

And this body of believers, a Reconciling Congregation that marches in the Gay Pride parade, appears to be representative of the UMC churches in the state. While national church considers homosexuality to be “incompatible with Christian teaching” and rules prohibit the UMC churches or ministers from conducting same-sex marriages, the California Methodists are declaring their defiance of these rules and their support and welcome of gay couples.

A United Methodist News Service article, via the Dallas Morning News, reports

The church’s California-Pacific Annual Conference [Southern California], convening June 18-22 in Redlands, approved three measures that support same-gender couples entering into the marriage covenant. Each “encourages both congregations and pastors to welcome, embrace and provide spiritual nurture and pastoral care for these families,” according to a June 27 letter to the conference from Bishop Mary Ann Swenson and other conference leaders.

That same week in Sacramento, the California-Nevada Annual Conference [Northern California] approved two measures on the same issue, including one that lists 67 retired United Methodist clergy in northern California who have offered to conduct same-gender marriage ceremonies. The resolution commends the pastors’ work in offering continued ministry.

A Guardian article places the number of Northern California retired UMC Ministers offering to perform same-sex weddings at 82. By congregations declaring their support for the retired ministers, they can express their support for gay couples without the threat of having their active pastor defrocked.

The Southern California conference also voted to oppose Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage amendment.

The support of the state’s United Methodists is most welcome. As more houses of worship declare their opposition to exclusionary political efforts, this debate becomes less a battle between the Holy and the Profane and becomes better understood as an effort by a few to introduce discrimination into the state’s constitution.

Kern Co. Supervisors Reject Anti-Gay Ordinance

We told you in June about the lunatic idea that Randy Thomasson and the Campaign for Children and Families came up with to try and have Kern County Supervisors put an ordinance in place restricting marriage to the opposite sex.

Not surprisingly, the County’s counsel informed them that this was unquestionably unconstitutional. And the County Supervisors decided that inviting lawsuits that they were guaranteed to lose was not a wise decision.

In a WorldNetDaily article before today’s decision, Thomasson had these words to say:

“This will be as inspirational as the Alamo, without the guns, knives, blood or death,” he said.

The more I hear from Thomasson, the more I’m beginning to think he’s a simpleton. I truly hope that the anti-gays keep him as the voice of Proposition 8; he improves our chances of defeating the bigoted amendment.

In a bit of sad news, however, the Supervisors did not override Barnett and deputize Kern County employees to perform civil marriages. So indigent heterosexual Kern County couples will have to expend additional funds so that elected officials can spite gay residents.

See also:
Kern Co. Supervisors Reject Anti-Gay Ordinance
Calaveras County Joins Kern and Butte
Barnett Breaks Her Media Silence – Stupidly, of Course
Chad Vegas – Kern Co. School Board Trustee’s Double Standard
Ann Barnett Annoys Local Bakersfield Media
Two More California Counties Stop Officiating at Weddings
CA Anti-Gays Either Completely Idiotic or Shameless Liars
No Non-Religious Marriages in Kern County
A Voice of Reason in Kern Co.
Kern Co. (Bakersfield) Clerk Ann K. Barnett Cancels Straight Weddings
More Bakersfield Bigotry
Bakersfield – Not a Place to Plan Your Wedding

Weekly Standard Editor: McCain Needs To Bash Gays

Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard was on Fox News (where else?) yesterday with some advice for McCain:

BARNES: McCain has to run a center-right campaign. He’s paying a lot of attention to the center, and he also needs to pay attention to the right, because these are the people … (crosstalk).

BARNES: And here’s what he needs to do. He needs to touch on some of the social issues which energize the right. In particular, gays in the military for one. We know Barack Obama is for allowing gays in the military, and Bill Clinton tried to do, but backed off. This is not a popular issue. Gay marriage is another one. These are both issues that I think McCain’s going to have to use. You can’t ignore the right. If he does, he’ll lose.

McCain’s been hearing this advice a lot lately. He heard it two weeks ago when he met with several Ohio social conservatives including Mike Gonidakis, head of Ohio Right to Life, and Phil Burress, head of Cincinnati-based Citizens for Community Values. Burress also sits on the board of directors of Exodus International.

While meeting with Burress and others, McCain promised to be more outspoken in his opposition to same-sex marriage. Afterwards, McCain released a statement endorsing California’s proposed ban on same-sex marriages. This was just a few days after McCain reportedly met with members of the Log Cabin Republicans.

It looks like wedge politics may be roaring back. Surprised?

LDS Battle Plan for California Anti-Marriage Amendment

The message below, by public relations leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, a.k.a “the Mormons”), was sent to Orange County LDS Public Affairs personnel and other church leaders in California.

A brief introduction of some the names mentioned below is in order. Elders Russell M. Ballard, Quentin L. Cook, and Dallin H. Oaks are members of the church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the second highest presiding group under the direction of the First Presidency. Elder Lance B. Wickman is a member of that church’s First Quorum of the Seventy, a leadership group beneath the Quorum of the Twelve. L. Whitney Clayton is also a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy as well as the Presidency of the Seventy.

To: All OC Public Affairs Personnel
Cc: Other Interested Persons

By now many of you serving in Public Affairs may have been invited by your Stake Presidency to join other stake priesthood and auxiliary leaders in attending a special meeting. That was to discuss points that originated last Sunday, June 29, with a historic live interactive telecast emanating from SLC among Elders Ballard, Cook, Wickman and Clayton with CA Stake Presidents.

We have been asked to study out the above issue -– starting with the First Presidency letter that was read in Church last Sunday and the Proclamation on the Family. [That letter is available here (PDF: 1,08KB/2 pages) — ed.] You should all have copies of these items. As the year goes on, Public Affairs is apt to get ever more involved, under proper Priesthood direction. This will be especially true after Labor Day, when getting out the vote will be crucial. Meanwhile we are asked to use “our best efforts” and to do “all we can” to support this initiative with both our “means and time.”

To help you get prepared, here are some pertinent materials I have gathered on this issue, for your summer reading.

1. In Re Marriage Cases. See attached PDF summary of these consolidated cases, as issued by the Cal Sup. Ct. on 5-15-08. The majority decision is 121 pages long plus concurring and dissenting opinions. Essentially, the court has determined that any classification based on sexual orientation is a “suspect classification” that requires “strict scrutiny” under the “equal protection” clause of the CA Constitution. It also found that the CA Constitution has granted a “fundamental right to marry.” In 1948, that enabled the court invalidate statutory restrictions on interracial marriage. On these grounds, the court then proceeded to invalidate the existing statutory restrictions on same-gender marriages that were passed as Proposition 22 in 2000.

2. The Protectmarriage.com website. This is the key website of the central coalition of churches and other organizations that have been promoting what is now Prop. 8 for over a year. You will first see a list of member organizations and sponsoring individuals belonging to this coalition. Also see links on the left-hand side for “FAQS” and some good talking points under “Why it is needed.”

3. LDS.org Website. See this long but exceptionally important and well articulated 2007 interview by Public Affairs with Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman on “Same-Gender Attraction.” It is at: http://newsroom.lds.org/ ldsnewsroom/ eng/ public-issues/ same-gender-attraction

4. Meridian Magazine. “What difference will same-gender marriage make to you?” See this link: http://www.ldsmag.com/ familyleadernetwork/ 080627marriage.html Also see http://www.ldsmag.com/ familyleadernetwork/ 080619ignore.html These articles explore some of the possibly unintended consequences of this recent Cal. Supreme Court decision.

5. NB Stake Talking Points. See attached PDF with some key talking points created by my own Newport Beach Stake President Weatherford Clayton. More official talking points will are being prepared and will be provided through proper channels by LDS Church HQ in Salt Lake City.

6. Church News Article. From 2004 issue on the benefits of families raised within male-female marriages

HISPANICS AGAINST PROP 8. See first email attached above.
HISPANICS WHO SUPPORT IT. See email #3 attached above.

As the June 20th First Presidency letter said, more information will be made available to you from time to time through local priesthood channels.

You may also be aware that the new Managing Director of LDS Public Affairs in SLC will be Michael Otterson. He has been serving as assistant to Bruce Olsen and is originally from Australia. Brother Olsen will be the new San Diego Temple President.

Most sincerely,
Joseph I. Bentley, Director
Orange County Public Affairs
[Personal contact information redacted — ed.]

[Hat tip: Nick Literski]

McCain Supports CA Anti-Marriage Amendment

We’re still not sure what McCain might have told the Log Cabin Republicans during his still-unacknowledged meeting with them, the LCRs are sure to be disappointed by this news. “Protect Marriage,” the California group that is sponsoring the Californian anti-marriage amendment, has announced that John McCain is supporting their efforts to abolish more than 2,000 legal marriages in California. According to McCain’s statement:

“I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions.”

Actually, Arizona defeated an attempt to write a ban on same-sex marriage into the constitution in 2006. Nevertheless, same-sex marriage is explicitly banned in Arizona by state law, and that law has been consistently upheld by the courts.

A vote to put another proposed amendment on the ballot may come up for a vote in the Arizona Senate as early as today. It’s still not too late to contact your Senator. And thanks to Equality Arizona, it only takes about three minutes of your time.

Mormons Being Given Political Advice From the Pulpit

The First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) sent a letter on Friday to all Mormon churches in California with instructions to read the leader during Sunday services on June 29. This letter (PDF: 1,08KB/2 pages) offers the church’s full support to amend the constitution to forcibly divorce more than 2,000 married California couples, and asks its members to “do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time.”

Meanwhile, Focus On the Family reportedly has already donated $250,000 to try to break up these families in November.

Fun With Polls

In the wake of the California Supreme Court’s decision on marriage equality, there have been several polls attempting to measure the reaction of the state’s citizens. They have had conflicting results.

An LA Times poll reported May 23 tells us that Californians oppose gay marriage by 52% to 41%. A Field poll released five days later reported just the opposite, that Californians favor gay marriage by 51% to 42%.

If we believe a survey by the anti-gay activist group Capital Resource Institute, Californians support banning gay marriage by 56%. If we were to accept a USA Today / Gallup poll as it is being reported, we would believe that two thirds of Americans favor gay marriage.

Why are there so many contradictory conclusions? Part of the answer can be found in the way that questions are presented.

Take, for example, the USA Today poll. In this, the respondent was asked to determine if the decision to marry was “strictly a private decision between the two people” or whether “the government has the right to pass laws to prohibit or allow such marriages” for a series of hypothetical couples. Respondents were asked about mixed religion and mixed race marriages along with same sex couples.

The dichotomy between “private” and “government prohibition” along with the grouping of same-sex with mixed-marriage and mixed-faith couples is almost certain to yield results that have little or no reflection on how most Americans view gay marriage.

There are undoubtedly those who think that a union between two persons of the same-sex should be private but who also believe that it should not be recognized by the state. And without the leading questions about currently illegal marriage prohibitions, the respondants would not be coached into rejecting same-sex prohibitions.

These types of polls where a desired result is falsely constructed are called “push polls” and are favorites of political campaigns that seek to present their candidate or issue as a winner.

The claims of the anti-gay Capital Resource Institute can also be dismissed completely. CRI didn’t even pretend to use a credible polling agency, relying instead on an advertising agency that “ensure[s] that [their] political, public policy and service organization clients have their messages reach the households they have targeted, usually based on location or anticipated household demographics.”

But neither the LA Times nor the Field poll were constructed to yield a desired result. The Times asked:

Do you approve or disapprove of the California Supreme Court’s decision last week to allow same-sex marriage in California?

and allowed “strongly approve”, “somewhat approve”, “somewhat disapprove”, “strongly disapprove”, and “don’t know” as answers. The Field Poll allowed only “approve”, “disapprove” or “no opinion” and asked:

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

The questions about voting on the constitutional amendment were also similarly worded:

Times: A proposed amendment to the state’s Constitution that may appear on the November ballot would reverse the court’s decision and state that marriage is only between a man and a woman. If the election were held today, would you vote for or against the amendment.

Field: 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?

The Times found the amendment passing 51% to 36% and the Field Poll found it failing 51% to 43%.

So how do we decide which poll to believe? Are we to be encouraged or worried?

ABC New’s polling director, Gary Langer, provides some guidance:

Sample differences can matter (the Times poll was among all adult Californians, the Field Poll among registered voters only, and both noted big differences among areas of the state and demographic groups). Timing can matter, too (the Field Poll was done May 17-26, an unusually long 10-day field period; the Times poll, May 20-21, a short one). So can the order of questions, and these are worth a look.

Langer states that “Both polls are high-quality, with clear, balanced questions” and does not conclude as to which poll best reflects public sentiment.

So I guess the answer is that it’s just not possible to tell at this time.

For those who need extra encouragement, you can look to how well the Field Poll compared to California’s Proposition 22, an initiative that restricted marriage (on a stututory level) to opposite-sex couples. If we can guestimate from this graph, in 2000 about 40% of Californians supported gay marriage. About 39% of California voters opposed the proposition. This suggests that the Field Poll is not necessarily far off from the opinions of voters.

However, as the conflicting polls show, opinion on this issue is difficult to measure and may be subject to influence. It is of utmost importance that a carefully crafted campaign be designed and funded to appeal to the better nature of California voters.

CA Anti-Marriage Amendment Certified for Ballot

What we reported yesterday is now official. California’s Secretary of State Debra Bowen has annouunced that the proposed anti-marriage constitutional amendment has enough valid signatures to appear on the November ballot.

California Anti-Gay Marriage Initiative has Enough Signatures

The total number of signatures required to place the anti-gay marriage amendment to the California Constitution on the ballot is 694,354. The procedure is to have the county clerks test a sample of the signatures and if the extrapolated valid signatures exceed 110% of the signatures required, then it is assumed that enough signatures were received.

The total number of extrapolated signatures required is 763,790.

Currently, the Secretary of State is reporting that there are at least 732,860 valid signatures with several counties as yet unreported. The initiative supporters require another 30,930 valid signatures of the 175,124 signatures yet to be tested. I think we can say with certainty that adequate signatures were collected.

In the next few months, each of us should consider what we are willing to sacrifice to help in the effort to ensure that gay couples in California retain the right to be treated equally under the law. This issue is closely divided in the state and anything you can give to help appeal to the decency of everyday Californians will be needed.

Poll on California Marriage Not Encouraging

The LA Times took a poll on public response to the California Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate the ban on same-sex marriage. The response was:

29% – Strongly approve
12% – Somewhat approve
10% – Somewhat disapprove
42% – Strongly disapprove
7% – Don’t know

And as to whether they would support an amendment to reverse the decision (registered voters)

54% – For
35% – Against
10% – Don’t know
1% – Would not vote

The Times found this to be inconclusive

the poll suggests the outcome of the proposed amendment is far from certain. Overall, it was leading 54% to 35% among registered voters. But because ballot measures on controversial topics often lose support during the course of a campaign, strategists typically want to start out well above the 50% support level.

However, if we compare the polling to the vote on Proposition 22 – an anti-gay marriage legislative initiative on the Spring 2000 ballot – it is hard to maintain a rosy view of the future. Seven months before the election, polling showed support at 57%, opposition at 39% and uncertainty at 4%. The month before the election, 5% had moved from support to uncertain. But on election day, 61% of those who went to the polls voted to restrict the rights of their gay neighbors.

If the same pattern holds, in November this new anti-gay amendment will also pass by significant numbers.

But there is one card we hold that we did not have eight years ago. Unless the court issues a stay, Californians will not be asked to prohibit possible future marriages, they will be asked whether lives that have been joined should be put asunder. It ceases to be abstract and becomes personal.

So I ask this of you fellow gay Californians who are considering taking this step: Invite your friends and relatives. It may break your budget to double your guest list but do it anyway. Even if you have to limit yourself to cake and punch in the church’s rec hall. Even if you really don’t want to see Aunt Edna and hear her snide remarks on your special day, invite her anyway. Invite everyone and anyone that might be even slightly happy for you.

And be certain that your minister tells those present that “forever hold your peace” means that they have to support this union, in person and at the ballot box, and they are obligated to do what they can to keep it together, happy, and legal. Marriage is not just a commitment between two people. It is also a commitment between the couple and the community.

Aunt Edna may not like gay marriage. But make sure she is invested in your gay marriage. Make your marriage matter to your friends, your family, and your neighbors. Give them a reason to vote against this discriminatory amendment.

Schwarzenegger: CA has Bigger Fish to Fry than to Ban Gay Marriage

In an interview with the Sacramento Bee the CA Governor spoke against the anti-gay-marriage initiative that may be on the November ballot.

“I think we have bigger fish to fry than do people have a right, if they are gay, to get married or not,” Schwarzenegger said. “I think that we should think about fixing the budget system and think about fixing the health care system and rebuilding California.”

He didn’t commit to a campaign schedule against the initiative

The Republican governor told The Bee’s editorial board he would not commit to campaigning against the proposed initiative, though he said he will make it clear that he is against it in other ways. He called the initiative a “big mistake.”

As many of the Governor’s staff are gay and are in committed relationships, I suggest that one way that Schwarzenegger could make it clear might be to officiate at a wedding.

Governator Supports Gay Marriage

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement on the Supreme Court’s decision. From the San Jose Mercury News.

“I respect the court’s decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling,” Schwarzenegger said within minutes of the ruling. “Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”