Box Turtle Bulletin

Field Poll: Prop 8 Support Declining

A new Field Poll indicates that Proposition 8 is losing support among likely voters. (Press-Enterprise)

A Field Poll survey released today found that 38 percent of likely voters support Prop. 8. In July, 42 percent of those surveyed backed the measure.

Fifty-five percent of likely voters oppose Prop. 8, an increase from 51 percent who opposed it in July. The percentage of undecided voters remains at 7 percent.

This should not, however, cause us to lose concern or focus. The Yes on 8 campaign has a huge war-chest and will likely begin running advertisement at the end of this month. We need to fight every step of the way and sacrifice whatever we can to keep our hard-earned equality.

One-Third of “Yes for Prop 102” Contributions Come from Mesa, Arizona

That’s right. As an update to our earlier report, further analysis of the contributors of at least $10,000 to the “yes” campain for Arizona’s Prop 102 shows that 70 out of 190 — more than a third — come from Mesa, Arizona. This includes three of the four $100,000 individual contributions.

Mesa just happens to be the home of Arizona’s oldest LDS temple.

Mormons and California’s Prop 8

We noted that a significant percentage of the supporters of Arizona’s Prop 102 are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons).

Well, according to an article in the Salt Lake Tribune, that is also the case with California’s anti-marriage proposition.

The Web site, Mormonsfor8.com, tracks contributions to ProtectMarriage.com daily and tries to determine whether donors are LDS by scouring the Internet and asking visitors to the site to help identify any Mormon donors.

So far, the Web site has determined that about a third of ProtectMarriage.com’s donors are LDS, with their contributions totaling close to $5 million.

“If we could identify every Mormon, I think that probably 85 to 90 percent of the donors would be Mormon,” said Cedar City resident Nadine Hansen, creator of Mormonsfor8.com. A member of the church herself and a former Californian, she considers the site to be informational and neutral on the issue of Prop. 8.

Hansen may think that it is a selling point that Mormons are bankrolling Prop 8. But I believe that anti-Mormon sentiment in California is strong – especially among those inclined to support the amendment – and tying the campaign too closely to the church could result in a strong rejection of the proposition by the voters.

Brad Pitt Gives to Fight Proposition 8

Back in September 2006, Brad Pitt announced that he and Angelina Jolie would not marry because gay people could not marry:

Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able

Some might have thought that was just a convenient way of supporting a cause while avoiding pressures to marry. But now Pitt has put his money where his mouth is. The LA Times is reporting that he has given $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign.

Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn’t harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8

Mormons and Arizona’s Prop 102

A huge dust-up exploded on the front page of the Arizona Daily Star this morning. According to the Star, Kyrsten Sinema, campaign chair for Arizona Together, characterized Proposition 102 as a “mostly Mormon-backed attempt to rectify what it calls a ‘polygamy problem’ in the eyes of voters”:

The opponents’ argument against the ballot measure also rests on convincing voters that Mormons and other religious groups are seeking to “impose their views on people.”
…

Sinema said the ballot measure is a reflection of the Mormon church “working hard to convince the public that they are mainstream.” She said her background, being raised Mormon in Tucson, gives her the credibility to make the charge.

“I don’t think Arizonans are interested in having the Mormon religion dictate public policy to them,” Sinema said.

Sinema contends that at least three-quarters of the individual donors to the campaign are with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, based on her group having Googled donor names along with “LDS” or “Mormon.”

While that method of verifying the religion of donors may be questionable, Sinema points to top backers with ties to the Mormon church: $100,000 from philanthropists Rex and Ruth Maughan, and $40,000 from Kristen Cowley, an organizer of the LDS Easter pageant.

Last June, just as the Arizona Legislature voted to place Prop 102 on the ballot, the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) sent a letter to California churchesto be read during Sunday services which asked its members to “do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time.” I have it on good authority from Mormon colleagues that a similar campaign has been underway in Arizona since July.

Proponents of Prop 102 charge that questioning the LDS’s heavy involvement in the marriage battle in Arizona amounts to bigotry:

Michele Baer, spokeswoman for the campaign pushing the amendment, calls the focus on
Mormons a “political scare tactic from the opposition.”

But Baer — herself a Mormon singer — could not explain why voters would be scared of such involvement by Mormons.

“I don’t know,” she said. “I’m just saying that there is such broad-based support across all political, religious and ethnic backgrounds that support this proposition.”

And Baer wouldn’t comment on where the bulk of the funding is coming from, calling that “campaign strategy.”

“I can’t share,” she said. “They can look at public records.”

It certainly is a matter of public record. A look at the Arizona Secretary of State’s web site reveals that “Yes For Marriage” collected some 190 contributions of $10,000 or higher. Four individuals contributed $100,000, 6 contributed $50,000, and 25 contributed between $20,000 and $50,000. The site, of course, does not list religious affiliation, so it’s difficult to know how many of these contributors are LDS members.

Does anyone have time to google 191 names?

But there is this interesting fact: of the 190 contributions of $10,000 or higher, 70 came from Mesa Arizona — home to Arizona’s oldest LDS Temple and a very significant Mormon population. Mesa contributors include three of the four $100,000 contributors. In fact, the temple is located on a street named for the family of one of those $100,000 contributors — David and Nancy LeSueur.

I fully expect this line of questioning to be very controversial. My email inbox is already full about this. But I do think it is newsworthy that one religious denomination appears to be bankrolling a serious public policy initiative under the guise of a broad-based grass-roots organization. If that doesn’t send a chill down the spines of everyone who cherishes religious liberty, I don’t know what does.

The campaign to defeat Prop 102 is desparately outfunded. We’re struggling to afford radio ads, while the “Yes” side already has ads on television. Please give today, whatever you can.

[Updated at 7:20 PM PDT to include additional information about Mesa, Arizona contributors]

It Could Have Been Huckabee

So far this presidential campaign season has seen a markedly reduced emphasis on cultural issues. Unlike George Bush’s efforts to define his distinction from John Kerry by the extent to which he reviled gay couples and sought the restriction of their rights, Sen. John McCain has mostly avoided any reference to gay couples and has, at times, seemed almost apologetic for his views.

But it might not have been this way. Governor Huckabee was considered a credible candidate and could have been the Republican Party’s nominee. And Huckabee would have delighted in crafting his campaign around anti-gay activism – oh, pardon me, protection of marriage, family, and (I kid you not) the universe.

Huckabee was in Southern California this weekend to preach sermons about Proposition 8. The Ventura Star reports

The former Arkansas governor and Southern Baptist preacher spoke from the pulpit of Calvary Chapel Thousand Oaks in two services focused on Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He told about 1,000 people that marriage was created and defined by God, just as the Mona Lisa was created by Leonardo da Vinci.

“God doesn’t want me to take my brush and paint over his masterpiece,” he said.

Huckabee may appreciate Da Vinci’s work today. But somehow I find it easy to imagine that he would be among those who supported the 1476 prosecution of the artist on sodomy charges.

After all,

Huckabee said he wasn’t there to tell people how to vote on Proposition 8. But he told people that laws related to both life and marriage will determine the future of the universe.

And anything can be justified when you’re protecting the future of the universe.

DiFi Says “No” to 8

Moderate Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein has finally spoken on her opposition to Proposition 8.

The views of Californians on this issue have changed over time, and as a State, I believe we should uphold the ability of our friends, neighbors, and co-workers who are gay and lesbian to enter into the contract of marriage.

I urge Californians to oppose Proposition 8.

DiFi now joins Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer and Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in opposition to this discriminatory measure. And if there are any statewide elected officials that support Prop 8, they’ve been awfully quiet about it.

Episcopal Bishops Endorse Marriage and Oppose Prop 8

As expected, the top six Episcopal Bishops in California announced their opposition to Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage amendment.

The bishops argued that preserving the right of gays and lesbians to marry would enhance the “Christian values” of monogamy, love and commitment.

“We believe that continued access to civil marriage for all, regardless of sexual orientation, is consistent with the best principles of our constitutional rights,” said the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles.

Palm Springs Paper Opposes Prop 8

On Sunday the Palm Springs Desert Sun printed an editorial encouraging a “No” vote on anti-gay marriage amendment Proposition 8:

Same-sex marriage does not diminish marriage between a man and a woman. It’s a basic civil right that everyone – regardless of gender – should have. The time has come. Therefore, we oppose Proposition 8.

They join the LA Times and the San Jose Mercury News.

Prop 8’s Message to Youth: Blatant Lies and Transparent Bigotry

The supporters of Proposition 8 have set up a website geared towards youth at iProtectMarriage.com. And perhaps they think that adults are too well informed because they reserve their really crazy homophobic slurs and lies for the kiddies.

It’s horrible.

And not just their goal, but their message and their methods. It’s sad and pathetic and completely condescending. You have to wonder if the designer of the site has ever met a young adult.

There is a “Decide for Yourself video quiz” that you can take in which your response triggers either a “you’re right” message or a lecture from a pop-up talking head. It’s about as subtle as a freight train.

And it is astonishing the number of obvious and blatant lies that these “people of faith” are willing to spout in the name of their religion, including:

While death, divorce, and other circumstances may prevent it in many cases, the best environment for raising children is traditional marriage. More than ten thousand studies document significant advantages kids experience when raised by committed and loving moms and dads.

• Two parent families benefit children according to the APA, not just “traditional” marriage. These studies DID NOT compare heterosexual couples to gay couples; they compared heterosexual couples to heterosexual singles.

If same-sex marriage remains legal, what will happen if a church or religious institution refuses to perform a marriage ceremony for individuals that runs contrary to its belief system? If it refuses, it may be accused of discrimination and be subject to a lawsuit. That is not freedom of religion.

• What if the Catholic Church refuses to marry divorced couples or a Jewish Synogogue refuses to marry non-Jews or if a Mormon Church doesn’t recognize a marriage outside of a Temple … oh wait, they already do.

Prop. 8 isn’t against something, it’s for marriage, of one man, one woman, for life.

• For life? Really? I didn’t see the language that banned divorce. And not “against” something? HA!! I’m surprised that whoever wrote that didn’t immediately burst into flames.

If Prop. 8 does not pass, children as young as kindergarteners must be taught about same-sex marriage.

• A judge made them remove this lie from the voters manual.

Simply put, traditional marriage is better for us, mentally, physically and psychologically. We’re not making it up; public health statistics confirm this.

• They go on to spout comparison studies between single and married heterosexuals and pretend that they apply to gay couples.

What this means is that fewer of your tax dollars go to pay for social programs caused by unhealthy and unwise living.

• I thought this “wasn’t against something” and that “civil unions give them the same rights as marriage”. Nah, this is just an example of active homophobia.

Quick, name a major faith tradition that doesn’t support marriage between a man and a woman. Can’t? Neither can we.

• Really? Because if you mean exclusionary definitions, they are not supported in California by Episcopalians, United Methodists, Reform Jews, Quakers, United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalists, and many many many others of faith]

Removing the definition of marriage means it’s open to whatever anyone thinks it is, and that includes extreme stuff like polygamy, man-boy love, and multiple partners.

• No one is “removing the definition of marriage”. Oh, and by the way, if you really aren’t just a great vile puddle of bigotry, why the reference to “man-boy love”? You just couldn’t let that pass, could you?

Same-sex marriage separates marriage from parenthood. In Norway, where it has been accepted for a decade, marriage has nearly disappeared, and 70 percent of children are born out of wedlock.

• We debunked that myth earlier this year.

But by far the most dishonest and cynical thing on their site is this doozie:

Q: Isn’t banning gay marriage just like banning interracial marriage?

A: It’s completely unrelated. Blacks who endured prejudice can’t wake up in the morning and not be black. None of us can be counseled out of our race or ethnicity. But homosexual behavior is a choice, and countless gays and lesbians have left the alternative lifestyle.

Is there really anyone out there that honestly believes that gay people can “wake up in the morning and not be” gay? That isn’t even the message coming from Exodus and other reorientation ministries.

And it isn’t very effective. Today’s youth know full well that no one wakes up a different orientation and they know that this site is lying to them. And the true bias and bigotry displayed here wouldn’t fool a closely-protected, secluded, home-schooled teenager.

But I guess the Prop 8 folks are so cynical that they think that bigotry and bald-faced lies are the way to go. I truly hope that whoever is in charge of the Proposition 8 campaign stays in charge. This sort of lunacy will only help the cause of those who are speaking honestly and in favor of equality.

Episcopal Bishops to Oppose Proposition 8

The AP is reporting that the authority of the Episcopal Church in California will be announcing their opposition to Proposition 8 tomorrow.

The Right Rev. Marc Handley Andrus, Episcopal bishop of California, and the Right Rev. J. Jon Bruno, Episcopal bishop of Los Angeles, are scheduled to join other faith leaders and gay couples Wednesday in speaking out against Proposition 8.

Anti-gay Lifesite News expands:

All six bishops in the state will officially protest the traditional marriage amendment, according to the Sacramento Bee. The Right Rev. Marc Handley Andrus, Episcopal Bishop of California, will hold a press conference at San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral on Wednesday to represent the church’s position, “calling for compassion, love and equal protections” for homosexual couples.

The AP closed their article with a comment I found interesting:

Their work is designed to counter the huge organizational and financial push the amendment is receiving from leaders of the Roman Catholic and Mormon faiths.

It is my impression that Proposition 8 has taken on a peculiar image, one which its supporters would do well to avoid. There is a growing perception that the proposition is a joint endeavor by the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church and is opposed by other branches of Christianity. This may become even more pronounced as the public becomes aware of opposition by United Methodists and Episcopalians.

That percerption, I believe, will not be advantageous to the supporters of the proposition.

Blog Launched for Vote No on Prop 102

No on Prop 102, the grassroots group organized to defeat Arizona’s proposed anti-marriage amendment, has launched a blog, where you can keep up with the latest events, news and volunteer opportunities. Update your bookmarks and check in often.

Why Each State is Important

There are three anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment propositions on ballots in the upcoming election.

ARIZONA

Arizona has the distinct privilege of being the only state to date that has rejected efforts to instill anti-gay marriage discrimination into its constitution. Anti-gays have claimed that the only reason for their failure was because their last attempt in 2006 also sought to ban other forms of partner recognition and are now offering a “more benign” amendment that only bans same-sex marriage.

The Arizona battle is of tremendous importance.

If anti-gays win in Arizona, this will send a message that persistence pays off. And then future states (like Florida, if we win there) can expect that they will be back each election with an increasingly “nuanced” amendment until they win. But if Arizona rejects Proposition 102, the financial backers of anti-gay marriage amendments will be a bit more reluctant to throw their money into losing efforts.

This state has the unique opportunity to tell anti-gay organizers that “no” means “no” and not to come back for more.

CALIFORNIA

California is only one of two states which offer marriage certificates to same-sex couples. California is also by a significant margin the state with the largest population. And California is often considered a leader in social progress and a setter of trends.

Considering the sheer number of gay families impacted by Proposition 8, and the importance of the state as a leader, the California battle is of tremendous importance.

And this importance is not lost on anti-gays. As Donald Wildman, head of the American Family Association said,

If we lose California, if they defeat the marriage amendment, I’m afraid that the culture war is over and Christians have lost.

Hyperbole aside, this is the first time that voters have been voting specifically on marriage itself, rather than on the threat of possible marriage. If Californians vote to keep their same-sex marriages legal, it removes the claims by anti-gays that it is judicial activists and gerrymandered legislatures that are forcefully redefining marriage against the wishes of the populace.

According to the latest polls, voters seem to oppose the proposition and do not appear to be swayed by the efforts of the supporters. But the vote is very very close and no one can predict the outcome.

FLORIDA

The anti-marriage amendment in Florida appears – to me – to receive the least attention of the three, especially on this website. Part of that is because I live in California and Jim Burroway lives in Arizona and so these two states are the focus of our attentions.

Yet the Florida battle is of tremendous importance.

Of the three, only Florida’s amendment would ban civil unions and domestic partnerships. Florida’s Proposition 2 reads

In as much as a marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

Those who oppose this amendment have an advantage; a constitutional amendment in Florida requires a 60% majority of those voting. Further, because Florida has a large retirement community and because this amendment would impact heterosexual senior citizens who use local domestic partnership arrangements to establish protections without endangering social security benefits, the opposition to this amendment has broader appeal.

The most recent polling shows that the proposition is favored by more than half of the voters (55%), but not by enough to pass. Additionally, it appears to be trending towards those who oppose the amendment. But again, this is far too close for comfort.

Florida is a swing state in the presidential election and turnout could depend on the direction and extent to which the state trends in the next two months. And while it is unlikely that either Obama or McCain will seek to tie their campaign to the success or failure of this amendment, it’s difficult to predict the impact of the election. A surge in either black voters or newly-energized evangelicals could provide those who oppose our lives with additional votes.

The Importance

Collectively, we have the opportunity to send a very strong message this year. Should we win in all three states we will be able to state that those who experience same-sex marriages within their communities have found them to be no threat, that anti-marriage efforts will not win you election in a swing state, and that coming back to a state that has rejected discrimination is a waste of time and money.

So here is a question for our readers: is this issue as important to you as a new pair of shoes? Does it matter as much as that luxury you may be allowing yourself, whether it’s a new car or just dinner out at McDonalds?

Most of us do have some expendable income and even those of us who live very close to the edge can often make sacrifices if the cause is important enough.

This is the most you will ever see me act like a political or religious fundraiser. But I’m willing to sound like Pat Robertson if it will encourage you to take the next step.

Please link below to the state of your choosing and make a contribution today.

Arizona: No on Prop 102

California: No on Prop 8

Florida: No on Prop 2

Tucson Citizen Endores “No” on Prop 102

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Money Pouring In For AZ Marriage Ban

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

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

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

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

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

Please give TODAY, as generously as you can.