Box Turtle Bulletin

“A Personal Attack on Myself and My Family”

The San Diego Union-Tribune has received a copy of an e-mail exchange between Doug Manchester, a large contributor to anti-gay marriage Proposition 8, and Paul Wilkins, his chief financial officer. In it Wilkins expresses concern about the financial impact that a boycott could have on Manchester’s hotel properties and offered suggestions as to how to diminish the threat.

Manchester had an interesting response

“I appreciate your rightful concern,” Manchester wrote in a July 29 response, but he added: “I am now really angry and I consider this a personal attack on myself and my family.”

What a telling example of the mindset that the anti-gay Culture Warriors have created in our country. The existence of my family is considered a personal attack on theirs. Even suggesting that they not put funds towards harming my family is a threat to their family.

Mr. Manchester may be a charming person. And his hotels, I hear, are lovely. But for as long as Doug Manchester defines the health and vitality of his family by the destruction and dismissal of my own, I’ll not contribute a cent to his business ventures nor in any way enrich his him or his clan.

Further, those in the San Diego area may wish to contact Fred Karger with Californians Against Hate and set aside some time towards reminding Mr. Manchester that one isn’t entitled to become indignant when one’s attack on other families and their freedoms are questioned.

Analysis: California Voters Are Rejecting Prop. 8

Supporters of marriage equality got some good news last night when the results of the latest statewide poll by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California were released.

The telephone survey of 2,001 California adults, including 1,047 likely voters, reveals that Proposition 8 –­ the proposed constitutional amendment to bar same-sex couples from marrying — is losing badly. Among likely voters, only 40% plan to vote for the amendment, compared to 54% who say they will vote against it. The remaining 6% are undecided. (The margin of error is +/- 3 percent.)

Opposition to Prop. 8 doesn’t come exclusively from those who say they generally favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry. The sample was evenly split on that question -­ 47% of likely voters favoring marriage equality and 47% opposing it. Thus, consistent with other polls, some respondents who don’t personally support marriage equality nevertheless oppose enacting anti-equality legislation. Indeed, Prop. 8 is supported by only 69% of the likely voters who generally oppose allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Prop. 8 backers tried to find a ray of hope in the PPIC data, noting that amendment supporters were more likely to say the outcome of the vote is “very important” to them ­- 57% versus 44% of amendment opponents.

In my latest post at Beyond Homophobia, I explain why the math behind this claim is flawed. I also discuss the poll findings in depth and consider their implications for the Proposition 8 campaign.

Poll: No Movement on Proposition 8

The Public Policy Institute of California released a poll yesterday showing that Proposition 8 continues to have limited appeal.

Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to allow marriage only between a man and a woman, is trailing 40% to 54% among likely voters, according to the poll. In a separate question, pollsters asked respondents if they support or oppose allowing gay men and lesbians to marry. On that question, Californians were evenly split, 47% to 47%.

This is the fourth major poll and it confirms the results of previous polling and seems to illustrate that the LA Times poll was likely an anomaly:

May 20-21, LA Times

54% Yes
35% No

May 17-26, Field Poll (average of two questions)

42% Yes
53% No

July 8-14, Field Poll

42% Yes
51% No

August 12-19, PPIC

40% Yes
54% No

Other than the LA Times poll, these are all within the margin of error and seem to indicate that the opposition to the proposition is fairly solid.

I’ve not seen the response of Yes on Proposition 8, but I can project a couple likely claims.

The anti-marriage activists will likely point to the question about whether Californians favor allowing same-sex couples to marry and announce that less than half of Californians are in favor. They may also claim that this is a decrease (though the PPIC reports that this hasn’t changed since August 2005).

Additionally I suspect that they will point out that anti-marriage Californians are more passionate in their support for Proposition 8; and the PPIC report does support that claim. Of those intending to vote yes, 57% said the outcome is “very important” while only 44% of those opposing Proposition 8 placed the outcome in the highest level of importance. Those stating the results to be “somewhat important” were 29% and 31%, respectively.

However, even if only those who place the highest importance on the results of the vote showed up at the polls, opponents would still outnumber supporters. And if “somewhat important” voters are added in, the proposition would lose in a landslide.

AZ Ballot Will Describe Prop 102 With Legally Accurate Language

A headline like that should be a given, but — this being Arizona — one cannot always take such things for granted.

Thanks to a deal between Secretary of State Jan Brewer and Attorney General Terry Goddard, the November ballot describing Prop 102, Arizona’s latest anti-marriage amendment, will remind voters that Arizona law already bans same-sex marriage. This clarification is especially important this year with all the attention being given to California, where same-sex marriage is currently available. Not only is there intense national attention on California, but a large portion of Arizonans live in California media markets.

Similar language was placed on the ballot for a previous anti-marriage amendment in 2006. That amendment was defeated by nearly 3.6%, making Arizona the only state in the union to have turned back an attempt to further ban same-sex marriage in the constitution.

Prop 102 supporters have filed suit against Brewer and Goddard, demanding that any reference to state law be stripped from the ballot descriptions. The lawsuit, however, may be too late. The final go-ahead was given Tuesday night to start printing the publicity pamphlets, which will be sent to the home of every registered voter. The pamphlets, like the ballots themselves, will have the agreed-upon description.

Arizona has had a law banning same-sex marriage since 1996. That law also bans recognizing same-sex marriages conducted in other states. On October 8, 2003, a three-judge panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the Arizona Defense of Marriage law against a challenge brought by two men who were denied a marriage license by a court clerk. The Arizona Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal on May 25, 2004.

Supporters of Prop 102 have out-fundraised opponents by more than 150:1. Please support our campaign to defeat Prop 102 again.

Where Has Burroway Been?!?

You may have noticed that I haven’t been posting much lately. And the way things are shaping up, I won’t be posting much between now and the election.

Last week, I was selected to serve as co-chair of the Vote No on Prop 102 campaign. Vote No on Prop 102 is a broad based coalition of citizens working at the community level to conduct a grass-roots “retail” campaign to get out the vote and carry the message on Prop 102 to the different constituencies. We will be focusing our efforts on southern Arizona , but we are also interested in facilitating similar efforts elsewhere in the state.

The reason we’ve chosen to focus on Southern Arizona is threefold: 1) it’s where we are, 2) we haven’t been able to raise much money, and we need to make sure it is used effectively, and 3) Southern Arizona is where our greatest opportunity lies in defeating Prop 102. Let me explain.

In 2006, Arizona defeated a similar marriage amendment by 3.6 percentage points. Five counties voted to defeat the amendment, and the remaining ten voted to approve it. The largest margin of votes came from Pima County in Southern Arizona, which defeated the proposition by 42,806 votes, or 15.6%.  That margin was large enough that even if all the other four counties which defeated the amendment had merely tied, the proposition would have still gone down by 18,532 votes state wide — 1.2% — on the strength of Pima County’s vote alone. Pima County was the only county to provide a large enough margin to guarantee defeat in 2006, and it is imperative that the grass-roots effort which worked to ensure that margin is repeated again in 2008.

This is not to say that working in other counties to defeat the amendment is not important. We are working alongside Equality Arizona on similar grass-roots efforts throughout the state. But based on voter data from 2006 and the successful grass-roots campaign that was waged throughout Southern Arizona, we feel that the anchor to another victory is in southern Arizona.

Nevertheless, we are also interested in supporting and facilitating grass-roots campaigns in whatever way we can elsewhere in the state, particularly in Apache, Coconino, Maricopa and Santa Cruz counties — all of which contributed to victory in 2006. We are already engaged with local efforts in several communities in Cochise county, and we believe there are similar opportunities in Yavapai and elsewhere. Our financial health will determine the extent of the support and resources we can extend throughout the state, but as you know, our finances are very poor at the moment.

We are busy formulating a campaign plan, we’re lining up some exciting allies, and we will have more information to share as the outlines of the campaign takes shape. We don’t have much time, and more critically, we have very little money. Please do what you can to help and contribute generously.

Thank you.

Forgotten Arizona?

Remember when Arizona became the first and only state in the nation to defeat an anti-marriage amendment in 2006? I don’t know about you, but I’d that that this victory would be one worth preserving. But our national LGBT leaders, movers and shakers — and ordinary contributors — haven’t come through yet:

Funding for a proposal to constitutionally ban gay marriage has hit at least $1.3 million. The largest contributors to Proposition 102 are two Mesa couples, David and Nancy LeSueur and Wilford and Kathleen Andersen, Gary and Lori Wagner of Peoria, and the Pete King Corp. of Phoenix, each of who gave $100,000.

Opponents have so far accumulated less than $8,000.

This disparity is shocking. As of our filing deadline last Thursday, we had only been able to raise $8,000. Since then, we’ve had a great fundraising event at Congressman Raul Grijalva’s office on Friday, and we plan on having more events in the next few weeks. Meanwhile, please do what you can to preserve our 2006 victory and donate to Vote No on Prop 102.

S.J. Mercury-News Editorial Opposes Proposition 8

San Jose is the third largest city in California and the heart of the Silicon Valley. And the San Jose Mercury News has joined the Los Angeles Times in opposing the anti-gay marriage amendment, Proposition 8. Their editorial opens thusly:

Of all the reasons people give for banning gay marriage – the purpose of Proposition 8 on the November ballot – the most difficult for us to fathom is that a marriage between two people of the same sex somehow diminishes the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

Marriage is the most personal of commitments, and it already means different things to different couples. Some marry for love, others expediency. Some have children, others don’t, or couldn’t if they wanted to. There is no merit test; people marry despite histories of domestic violence, rape or child abuse. Why would couples determine the value of their own vows based on who else is allowed to take them?

A Smart Protest

Too often issue politics becomes partisan. The problem morphs from a protest against the objectionable views of some Republicans or Democrats into a protest against their party registration.

And far too often activists within our community have fallen victim to such a mindset.

I understand why. It’s far easier to apply a label and assign enmity than it is to listen, consider, and reason why someone may differ with you on some issues. Besides if we pick a side we get to view ourselves as heroes and the “others” as the evil enemy.

It’s the exact same motivation that drives anti-gays.

But it isn’t particularly effective in winning debates or effecting change. And when the outcome is important, we don’t have the luxury of making enemies. We have to build our arguments around shared values, compelling evidence, and an appeal to decency rather than messages of enmity and war.

Which is why I am so very pleased with the approach that Fred Karger and Californians Against Hate took towards a fundraiser organized by the San Diego Republican Party Central Committee for the anti-gay marriage amendment, Proposition 8.

Surely it must have been tempting to stage a protest that would villianize the evil Republicans. And most assuredly some gay activists when planning such a protest would come bearing signs that said ‘Republicans are Haters’ or with a big red circle and a line through the letters GOP.

But Fred recognized that many Republicans in California are open to a message of inclusion and decency and an appeal to vote “No” can be received positively… if they have not already been made the enemy. So he took another approach.

He and his protest team presented signs that spoke of the amendment and of marriage, but not of party affiliation. And he presented those attending the event with a list of quotes from notable individuals who have spoken out against bigotry – all Republicans: Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Barry Goldwater, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Congressman Clair Burgener, and San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders.

When Karger spoke to San Diego 6 he emphasized that the amendment is not something that should be supported by rank and file Republicans but that rejecting discrimination and bigotry is a value that Republicans can proudly share.

“This is truly the fringe element of the Republican Party,” said Californians Against Hate Founder Fred Karger. “These people are out of step with the Republican Party.”

“We hope to inform those attending about the rich history and philosophies of so many Republican leaders who fought for equality and against discrimination and hate,” said Karger

This is, I believe, a very smart approach. It may not change the opinions of any attendees but it does establish that opposition to this amendment is welcome from all voters of any party.

AZ Senate Ethics Complaint Dismissed

Dismissed, just like that.

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

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

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

Prop 8 Supporters Reveal their Animus

One would think that supporters of Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage amendment, would know that the editorial board of the LA Times would not be receptive to anti-gay posturing. And surely they could figure out that the Times had some methodology of letting others know just what they had to say.

But those who find their life motivated by animus seldom realize how hateful and extremist they can sound. Karin Klien, a times editorial writer, shares with us some choice tidbits from the Times’ meeting with marriage opponents.

At one point, the conversation turned to the “activist judges” whose May ruling opened the door to same-sex marriage, and how similar this case was to the 1948 case that declared bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional. According to one of the Prop. 8 reps, that 1948 ruling was OK because people are born to their race and thus are in need of constitutional protection, while gays and lesbians choose their homosexuality.

And

In any case, one Prop. 8 supporter said, gay rights are not as important as children’s rights, and it’s obvious that same-sex couples who married would “recruit” their children toward homosexuality because otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers. Even editorial writers can be left momentarily speechless, and this was one of those moments.

LDS Members to Phone and Walk For California’s Prop 8

The following letter will be read to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, a.k.a Mormons) in San Francisco this morning. We don’t know if it will be read in wards and stakes elsewhere in California.

DO NOT READ, COMMENT ON IN SACRAMENT MEETINGS, OR PRINT IN WEEKLY PROGRAMS:

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING POINTS IN RELIEF SOCIETY AND PRIESTHOOD OPENING EXERCISES THIS SUNDAY, AUGUST 10, ONLY.

1. The First Presidency’s letter dated June 20, 2008, to all Church members in California states, “we ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time…”

2. In connection with the Proposition 8 campaign’s grassroots efforts, the supporting coalition, of which the Church is a member, will hold three walk/phone days to help generate voter support on August 16, 23 and September 6. We invite everyone who can do so to please participate either by “walking” that is, visiting homes door to door in assigned neighborhoods, or by phoning neighbors in specific assigned neighborhoods, for three hours each of these three days.

3. Church members who have been asked to help with the campaign will be calling you at your homes to officially ask you to help and give you further information about where and what time to meet this Saturday

4. They will also ask you to bring a friend from another faith to assist.

We, as a Bishopric, ask you to please participate in this important endeavor. The First Presidency also stated that “our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.”

Family: It’s about time!

LA Times Editorial: Oppose Proposition 8

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

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

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

Prop 8 Description Upheld in Court

When the proponents of Proposition 8 distributed petitions to change the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, the title and summary prepared by the Secretary of State rightly noted that such an initiative would impose a limit on marriage to exclude same-sex couples from being added to the classes recognized.

Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment.

Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state.

However, in May the California Supreme Court ruled that the state cannot restrict its recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and offer a separate and lesser recognition to same-sex couples. By doing so, they changed the fact pattern.

It is no longer true that “there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state.” It is no longer true that this proposed amendment would place a limit on which classes can have their marriage added to recognition status but rather it removes recognition from a class already recognized.

So the Attorney General rewrote the description to reflect the current situation:

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

Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only 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 on state and local governments.

Gays and anti-gays both recognized that this change of description worked in the favor of those who oppose the initiative. The public is much less likely to remove a right from a class of citizens than it is to deny extending such a right in the first place.

Proponents of the amendment sued to have the language changed. They argue that “eliminates” is a “negative verb” and thus should not be used. They wanted language that did not discuss married same-sex couples at all or make any reference to the change in circumstances that would occur to such couples.

They did not succeed. Today Judge Timothy Frawley ruled that the language can stay (SF Chronicle):

“The attorney general did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the chief purpose and effect of the initiative is to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry,” Fralwey right. “The attorney general’s title is an accurate statement.”

The judge also restricted the language of arguments that Prop 8 supporters wish to place in the election pamphlets, though not as far as opponents sought. Supporters wished to state

“In health education classes, state law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage … If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

“We should not accept a court decision that results in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay,”

According to the Bay Area Reporter

In his ruling, Frawley said, “As petitioners have established, current state law does not require school districts to teach anything about marriage or same-sex marriage at any grade level. Moreover, for those school districts that choose to include instruction about marriage as part of a health education curriculum, Education Code [section] 51240 requires that they allow parents to excuse their children from any such instruction conflicting with the parents’ religious or moral convictions.”

But the judge allowed the Proposition 8 supporters to claim that such conditions “could” or “may” occur. He also required other minor language changes.

Anti-gays have indicated that they will appeal the judge’s decisions.

UPDATE: (SF Chron)

The state’s official description of Proposition 8 on the November ballot will remain as is, a statement that the measure would eliminate same-sex couples’ right to marry in California.

Sponsors of the measure argued that the title and summary drafted by Attorney General Jerry Brown were argumentative and designed to encourage voters to oppose Prop. 8. But after two defeats in court last week, the Yes on 8 campaign said today it would not appeal to the state Supreme Court.

An 8 Reminder

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

Who Is Behind Arizona’s Marriage Amendment?

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

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

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

[Hat tip: Tucson Observer]