Box Turtle Bulletin

Anti-Gay School Board Endorses Proposition 8

James Hartline, an anti-gay activist in San Diego, is a peculiar individual. He is an ex-gay who is convinced that God spoke to him out of a television set and that he will be divinely healed of HIV which will result in a world wide spiritual revival based on Hartline’s prophesies.

He also believes that God instructed him to run for city counsel. Hartline came in last on the ballot (behind a man arrested for masturbating in public while campaigning) which he believes indicates that the Christians of San Diego have failed the test God set before them.

James has become increasingly bitter over the response of San Diegans to him. He now regularly denounces the Mayor and City Counsel members, the local Republican party, and other elected officials whom he believes have betrayed him and his exacting homophobic dogma. There are very few people who live up to James’ anti-gay expectations.

But one elected official has escaped Hartline’s wrath, Grossmont Union High School District boardmember Priscilla Schreiber. In fact, Hartline and Schreiber are such allies that Schreiber blogged as a representative for Hartline during his election.

Schreiber was elected to the board in a battle over whether the district would have a non-discrimination policy that included sexual orientation. Schreiber opposed any programs that discouraged anti-gay bigotry, a position that sat well with the local constituency.

Schreiber has since used her position as a cudgel against any safe space or sense of worth for gay students and other gay persons. She has described GLSEN as “a radical homosexual advocacy group that seeks to promote homosexual acceptance to young students in public schools” and declared, “Parents send their students to school to receive the best education from the best teachers, not so they can be indoctrinated into homosexuality, lesbianism or transsexualism.”

In 2002, the school board edited a film on tolerance to exclude a message of inclusion. The mother of a boy assualted for his orientation objected.

School trustee Priscilla Schreiber “said the portrayal of a gay authority figure,” (a police officer Chuck Limbert of the San Francisco Police Department, whom I have met) “sends a message that homosexuality is normal and acceptable, which she said does not belong in the classroom.”

In fact, Schreiber and her co-boardmembers so favor anti-gay activism that they sued to overturn state law prohibiting public schools from discriminating because of sexual orientation or identity. And last year she attacked the San Diego City Counsel for their declaration of support for Gay Pride Month.

Priscilla Schreiber, President of Grossmont Unified High School District, told the council, “How can you betray this city’s Christian heritage by voting every year for an event that destroys our youth?”

So it should be no surprise that the San Diego Union-Tribune is reporting the following:

The Grossmont Union High School District went on record yesterday supporting a November initiative that would ban same-sex marriage in California.

AdvertisementThe board voted 4-0 to pass a resolution endorsing Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to recognize marriage only between a man and a woman.

Schreiber and her fellow anti-gay activists are living up to their expectations. I’m sure Hartline approves.

Sci-Fi Writer Advocates Overthrow of Government If Prop 8 Fails

Do you think shootings in Knoxville are a one-time thing? Science fiction author Orson Scott Card wants to take it up several notches if California’s Proposition 8 fails.

In an astonishingly paranoid and incoherent op-ed appearing in the July 24 Mormon Times, Card zig-zags from one point to the next, somehow drawing in property rights, the color of grey and the properties of asphalt before he’s finally is able to get around to his point, which apparently is this:

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

Card is a very well-regarded science fiction writer. His novel Ender’s Game and its sequel Speaker for the Dead both won the Hugo Award and the Nebula Award, making Card the first author to win both of science fiction’s top prizes in two consecutive years. This makes this rambling screed all the more remarkable. It’s not only abysmally constructed logic, but it’s horribly written.

But at least he’s consistent. His manifesto from 2004 was much longer and even more rambling. And that one is a mere reflection of what he wrote in 1990:

Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

Since I’m not much of a science fiction fan, I’ve never read his books. I don’t know what kind of world he conjures in his works of fiction. All I know is that what he’s trying to conjure in the real world is far darker than anything I’ve seen in quite a while.

[Hat tips: Nick Literski and Jody Wheeler]

Frothing Lunacy, Part 2

Perhaps Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, found Bam Bam Barber to be an inspiration. Because Garlow has come up with some projections about Proposition 8 that rival Barber’s carnival of nutjobbery.

Garlow has organized a teleconference with pastors and lay leaders to explain to them just how important it is for Prop. 8 to pass. “[If] we lose, we go to jail. How soon I don’t know. But the fact is this is the kind of case where political correctness is bearing down,” the pastor contends. “If a pastor refuses to perform a homosexual wedding, if we lose on this, he will be or she will be so incredibly vulnerable at that time.”

He is organizing training for California pastors and lay leaders to get out the Christian vote in November — and he has a message to pastors who are reluctant. “If you don’t care about this campaign, don’t want to get involved, you can go to jail and start a wonderful prison ministry,” Garlow adds. “But if you want religious freedom, we’re going to have to win this thing.”

The sad thing is that Garlow is not just some anti-gay whacktivist ranting whatever he thinks will get him attention.

Garlow is the pastor of an influential church with regular attendance of several thousand. And he’s making these bizzare claims as though he believes them to be true.

Public Utility Opposes Prop 8

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), the largest public utility company in Northern California, has announced that they oppose Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage amendment. (LA Times)

Giving a financial and public relations boost to gay marriage proponents, PG&E announced today that it is giving $250,000 to the No on Proposition 8 campaign. *

The utility also said it will spearhead the formation of a business advisory council that will seek to get other businesses around California to to defeat the ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

AT&T and Wells Fargo have also contributed to efforts to opposite this discriminatory amendment.

I wonder if those Northern California anti-gays who are boycotting McDonalds are willing to stand on principle. Will they be willing to go without water and power, or does their passion only extend to changing burger brands?

UPDATE

* Wells Fargo and AT&T have given to Equality California. Their contributions have not been earmarked for opposition to Proposition 8.

Will Arizona Be Abandoned?

This is a question I am asked nearly everyday from folks in Arizona and from folks around the country. They ask questions like how much support came from outside Arizona in 2006? Will anyone outside of Arizona give money this time to defeat Prop 102? Will anyone inside Arizona give money? How do you feel about so much money going to California? What about Florida? Can Arizona win this one too? Do you feel abandoned by those supporting California especially but also Florida since Arizona is the only state in the nation to defeat an anti-marriage amendment?

There is no easy answer to any of those questions. Frankly, I’m not sure there is value in even trying to come up with an answer. I do believe however, the real value lies in the fact that we are even having this discussion. Internal and external to Arizona.

In an odd way it shows people care. They care enough about Arizona’s contribution to the movement to worry whether we might be slighted financially in this campaign season. They care enough about our statewide LGBT infrastructure to be concerned we are not damaged in the process – at least hopeful that we might escape long term or irreparable damage.

Instead of answering those questions with only the “what’s in front of us” view, I prefer to answer from a 30,000 foot perspective. That means we have to look at our work as a marathon and not a sprint. It means we cannot be angry or feel slighted by donors who, from their own perspective, believe their need and desire to participate in the movement, to make a difference, is best served by giving to a campaign that in their opinion would provide the greatest impact to achieving equality – to meeting their personal political goals. Because we all come from different backgrounds, different economies, different cultural experiences, no one has any right to pass judgment on another for the decisions we make in political giving. Sometimes those decisions are very personal, sometimes they are just hard core strategic moves and sometimes they are the simplicity of altruism.

The higher ground at 30,000 feet allows us to let wash beneath our feet the hardness created by politics – in a way it is cleansing. Don’t think for a minute though that coming down from the high ground to do the work is easy. But we have to have a place to land. Something you can touch, hear and believe in. For me that place is community – it is the work. It is the very place where we interact with one another on a very human and hopefully humanitarian level. It is that place that sometimes stinks, sometimes is so loud with opposing voices you can’t hear yourself think and on occasion calls into question our belief in that very humanity we seek to be a part of.

Over the past several weeks in particular we have been fighting a battle that stems from the worst display of disintegration of democracy I have ever witnessed. We are fighting with every tool at our disposal to call out those who would seek to limit the fullness of our lives in order to advance their own.

Amidst our ongoing Senate debacle we have organized and are executing our 2008 elections strategy; we have organized a Statewide Coordinated Campaign to defeat Prop 102; and we continue to build the capacity of Equality Arizona – design and deliver programs that change hearts and minds while also managing a hard-hitting public affairs agenda to change public policy.

We need a win in California. We need a win in Florida. We need a win in Arizona. That very trifecta has the potential to change the face of American politics. Just for clarification, “trifecta” as a slang term is used to describe any successful or favorable phenomenon or characteristic that comes in threes (according to Wikipedia). That’s what our national agenda should be about.

There is often much angst about coastal states dictating what happens to the rest of the country but today, we need to support our coasts! And yes, tucked into the Southwest – in a place in mid-August where you’re sure you’re already doing time in purgatory – we WILL continue to do our part to advance equality – to contribute to the greater good of our great state and our nation.

Do we want and need your contributions? Yes! Not at the exclusion of California or Florida but in addition too. Just do it. Don’t hesitate, don’t even blink. Just write the checks…address one to California, one to Florida and one to Arizona and sign them simply…from one who cares.

Barbara McCullough-Jones is the Executive Director of Equality Arizona. You can support Arizona’s efforts at the Vote No On Prop 102 website.

AZ Senate To Investigate Ethics Complaint

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AZ GOP Tries To “Fix” Ethics Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Ducky

Life has a way of circling back on you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Changes Prop 8 Ballot Language

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

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

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

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

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

Laguna Beach Opposes Prop 8

Per the LA Times

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

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

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

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

Proposition 8 Campaign Fibs About Poll

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

In a news release, Yes on Proposition 8 stated

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

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

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

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

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

Favor 40%
Oppose 54%
No Opinion 6%

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

Favor 43%
Oppose 51%
No Opinion 6%

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

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

Disapprove 42%
Approve 51%
No Opinion 7%

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

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

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

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

Yes 52%
No 39%
Undecided 9%

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

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

So lets look at the current Field Poll,

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

Yes 42%
No 51%
Undecided 7%

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

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

LA Times Article on Methodist Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Poll: Californians Saying No to CaMP Act

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

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

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

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

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