Box Turtle Bulletin

Kolbe and Bee

“Tim Bee has demonstrated his toughness and his compassion, his ability to lead while at the same time listening to others. These are skills few people in public life have. We need Tim Bee working for us in Congress.” — Jim Kolbe (left), the gay former U.S. Congressman for the district Tim Bee is running in and the campaign’s “Honorary Chairman.”

Tim Bee was the sixteenth vote in the Arizona Senate’s shameless vote to put the anti-marriage amendment on the ballot yet again. Bee is running for the congressional seat that Kolbe once held. Kolbe voted for DOMA in 1996, a vote that led to his outing. I have heard him speak passionately against Prop 107 in 2006.

So what does Kolbe have to say about this? Is he ducking back into the closet again?

[Hat tip: Tucson Observer]

Arizona Senate Passes Anti-Marriage Amendment

We just received word that late this evening that the Arizona Senate was able to scare up the sixteen votes needed to put a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage onto the ballot.

Tucson’s District 30 Senator and Senate President Tim Bee was the sixteenth vote. He will be running against incumbent Gabrielle Giffords in November for the Congressional District 8 house seat. Voters in CD8 voted against the 2006 Arizona amendment, with 52.5%54.6% voting against Prop 107 and only 47.5%45.4% voting for it. That was a wider margin than the state-wide result of 51.8% against and 48.2% in favor.

Update: I had my figures crossed. I originally posted the results for Sen. Bee’s Senate district, not the Congressional district he is currently running for. As you can see, voters in the Congressional district defeated Prop 107 by a wider margin still. I apologize for the error.

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.

Arizona Anti-Marriage Amendment Re-Vote Likely for Friday

Yesterday’s vote by the Arizona Senate to advance an anti-marriage amendment to the voters fell short. But amendment supporters today vow to bring the measure back for another vote on Friday.

The thirty-member chamber voted 14-11 to place a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage onto the ballot. But since the Arizona constitution requires that a majority of the members elected must approve the measure, sixteen votes are needed for passage.

When supporters of the ban realized that they didn’t have enough votes — Sen. Karen Johnson (R-Mesa) had gone on vacation — Sen. Linda Gray (R-Phoenix) switched her vote in a procedural move to allow her to bring the measure back again for another vote. Another vote will likely be called on Friday when Johnson is expected to interrupt her vacation to support the measure.

Which means that come Friday, we may see an anti-marriage amendment placed on the ballot. Arizona residents are encouraged to contact their Senator and voice their opinions. Equality Arizona makes this easy. Just enter your zip code, and their web page will automatically provide you with contact information and talking points. It takes all of three minutes.

BREAKING: Arizona Senate Rejects Anti-Marriage Amendment

This just in:

The Arizona Senate has rejected a proposal that would have asked voters to amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. The 14-11 vote fell two votes shy of what was required to send the proposal to the November ballot. Senators later voted to reconsider the measure at another unspecified date.

The Arizona legislature is just about to end its legislative session. And since this proposal has been rejected, I don’t know what’s meant by the line saying that they voted to reconsider the measure “at another unspecified date.” When I know, you’ll know. But for now, it looks like it might be dead for 2008.

Update: What that last line means is that they can still bring the amendment up for a vote at any time between now and the official end (“sine die”) of the session. In a just-released statement, Equality Arizona characterized the move as a “desparete maneuver” by Senate Republicans to force a vote. Sixteen votes (a simple majority of the Senate) was needed to pass the resolution. Five Senators did note vote.

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.

Anti-Marriage Politics: A Losing Proposition

More GOP strategists see divisive marriage politics as a losing proposition this year:

“At best, it doesn’t move voters, and at worst for Republicans, it moves them against them,” said Matthew Dowd, President Bush’s 2004 chief strategist. “Why are we having a discussion on this issue when we should be talking about things that matter, like the economy, health care, or the war?”

Arizona Lawmakers At A Crossroads

On Monday, the Arizona House of Representatives voted 33-25 to approve SCR1042, a proposed anti-marriage constitutional amendment, sending it on to the Senate for its approval to place the measure on the November ballot.

Half a continent away on Tuesday, voters in northern Mississippi’s first congressional district chose Travis Childers (D) over Greg Davis (R) by a margin of 54% to 46% in a special election to fill a vacant seat. Just to give you a sense of how bit this was, this was a district which President Bush carried by 59% in 2000 and 62% in 2004. Roger Wicker (R), the previous incumbent whose appointment to Trent Lott’s Senate seat created the vacancy, had won every election since 1994 by at least 63% of the vote.

One certainly has to wonder what was going through Rep. Marian McClure’s (R-Tucson) mind as she picked up Wednesday morning’s paper. She was among those who voted to put SCR1042 on the ballot in November.

That wasn’t always her position though. Just last April, Rep. McClure had been one of four Republicans who joined a procedural maneuver to kill an earlier identical anti-marriage amendment. In doing so, she followed not only her conscience, but the will of the voters in her district who sent her to the state house. In 2006, those voters soundly rejected Proposition 107 (that year’s anti-marriage amendment) with 52.5% voting against it and only 47.5% voting in favor. That margin was even wider than the statewide result. The statewide tally had 51.8% voting “no” and 48.2% “yes” (PDF: 220KB/18 pages).

But since that April House vote, the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), Focus On the Family’s official state policy council for Arizona, has been pulling out all the stops. They’ve exerted extraordinary pressure on state lawmakers to bring the measure back for another vote. That pressure included both threats and promises, and for some lawmakers it seemed to have worked. Rep. McClure was among those who caved to CAP’s pressure and switched her vote on Monday. Instead of following the voice of her constituents, she chose to dance to CAP’s tune instead.

So now she can count on CAP’s support in the general elections in November. And with yesterday’s California Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality, CAP’s political pressure has grown even stronger to get the bill scheduled for a vote in the Senate.

But does CAP really have the clout that they claim they have, when voters across the country have made it known that they’ tired of the same old politics that CAP represents?

Let’s go back to that vote in Mississippi on Tuesday. The national Republican Party had poured millions of dollars into that race. They even enlisted Vice President Dick Cheney to make an appearance. And yet Childers’ convincing win in what was supposed to be a solidly safe Republican seat sent shockwaves throughout the GOP. This loss follows earlier humiliating defeats in special elections to fill Rep. Dennis Hastert’s Illinois seat and Rep. Richard Baker’s Louisiana seat. These were also considered to be “safe” GOP seats.

A recent poll shows that 81% of Americans believe the US is on the wrong track. The divisive politics of the past have become an anathema. U.S. Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) describes this year’s political atmosphere as “the worst since Watergate and far more toxic than the fall of 2006.”

So all of this makes reviving a failed amendment from 2006 an odd choice for Arizona lawmakers. It certainly doesn’t represent the kind of change that voters say they’re looking for. It looks instead like the same old style of politics that voters in Mississippi, Illinois and Louisiana have rejected. And if the massive resources of the GOP financial and political machine couldn’t pull out a win in a solid-red district in Mississippi, what can CAP possibly offer to Arizona legislators like Rep. McClure?

Arizona voters have already indicated that they have rejected the kind of politics that CAP stands for. This rebellion first took shape in 2006 when Arizona voters said no to CAP and defeated Prop 107. That was also when voters sent Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) to Congress to represent Rep. Jim Kolbe’s (R) district. Jim Kolbe, you may remember, was the openly gay Republican Congressman who voters returned to Washington five times since his coming out in 1996.

Why do I bring this up? Well many of those voters who sent Rep. Giffords to Congress — and who re-elected Kolbe five times until he retired in 2006 — these are the same voters who will be asked to vote for Rep. McClure in November. Rep. McClure’s state district lies almost entirely inside Rep. Gifford’s Congressional district. (Gifford’s district, but the way, voted down Prop 107 by an even larger margin: 54.6% to 45.4%.)

CAP may be able to mobilize emails and phone calls to state legislators, but they can’t mobilize voters to turn out and support their causes in November. If anything, there’s a backlash building.

What must Rep. McClure be thinking right now?

It used to be a rare thing to see a politician stand up to powerful special interest groups. Those groups are looking much more like paper tigers these days. Our congratulations go to two state GOP lawmakers who were wise enough to see through CAP’s lobbying efforts and vote with their constituents. They are Reps. Pete Hershberger and Jennifer Burns. You might want to drop them a line and thank them for their support. After the pressure they’ve endured from CAP, they could probably use it right now.

Update: More GOP strategists see divisive marriage politics as a losing proposition this year:

“At best, it doesn’t move voters, and at worst for Republicans, it moves them against them,” said Matthew Dowd, President Bush’s 2004 chief strategist. “Why are we having a discussion on this issue when we should be talking about things that matter, like the economy, health care, or the war?”

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.”

It’s A Win! California Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Same Sex Marriage!

Marriage equality has arrived in California (PDF: 469KB/172 pages):

…[W]e conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.

A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

…

Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.

Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court. Further, as the prevailing parties, plaintiffs are entitled to their costs.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the matter is remanded to that court for further action consistent with this opinion.

Update: The court’s decision was a 4-3 split. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has released the following statement:

I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its 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.