Box Turtle Bulletin

The No on 8 Campaign is Worried

Internal polling prepared for the No on 8 campaign shows that this proposition is neck and neck, perhaps even ahead. The anti-gay advertising is flooding the airwaves and their lies are working.

“We have the messages, our advertising is compelling, but polling tells us that it is not being seen or heard as much as the Yes side, and that needs to change,” Lake says in the memo.

Geoff Kors concluded: “The proponents will continue to mislead the public, and we can’t let their lies stick. And if we can’t get the resources into this campaign – both in dollars and volunteer hours – we will lose. Right now the fundraising gap is $6million. That’s the challenge, but I believe once the community understands how tight this race is, they will dig deep and give to our efforts. I’m comfortable that our best fundraising weeks are those ahead of us. We need everyone to pitch in right now.”

I believe that the Box Turtle Bulletin reader is not complacent. I believe that you are neither selfish nor lazy. I believe that you care enough to pull out your wallet, volunteer your time (if Californian), and make a difference.

New Poll on Prop 8 is Troubling

A new SurveyUSA poll has a troubling finding:

According to the poll, likely California voters overall now favor passage of Proposition 8 by a five-point margin, 47 percent to 42 percent. Ironically, a CBS 5 poll eleven days prior found a five-point margin in favor of the measure’s opponents.

The only demographic group to significantly change their views during this period were younger voters — considered the hardest to poll and the most unpredictable voters — who now support the measure after previously opposing it.

I’m not sure what to make of this poll. I don’t put much trust in SurveyUSA. And the idea that younger voters would support a marriage ban seems to run contrary to every report, poll, survey or casual observation for the past several years.

But I do know that No on 8 is concerned and needs every dollar it can get along with every single spare minute that you may be able to contribute.

OC Register Opposes Proposition 8

Orange County is perceived as the most conservative of California’s counties. It is the home to the large churches and “family values” organizations and hasn’t voted for a Democrat for President since 1936.

In 2000, the voters in Orange County supported Proposition 22, a change to the civil code that banned gay marriage (since overturned by the state Supreme Court), by 69%, significantly more than the state’s average. And the region’s newspaper, the Orange County Register, had this to say:

The ultimate question in Prop. 22 is whether the definition of what constitutes a marriage should remain as it always has been, or whether the door can be opened to same-sex marriages – and by extension to any other sort of arrangements that people might devise.

Their advice was not to risk such a thing and instead to vote “Yes” on Proposition 22.

But time has passed and attitudes have evolved. And California’s conservative paper has changed its position. The OC Register opposes Proposition 8.

As our understanding of equal protection has evolved and expanded and as an increasing number of same-sex couples have expressed a desire to make lifelong commitments to one another – incidentally, promoting societal stability and reducing promiscuity – it has become clear that equal protection should be extended to same-sex couples.

In an ideal world, the state would have little or no role in defining or regulating so intimate a relationship as marriage. However, the state has inserted itself into all too many aspects of our private lives. Given that it has done so, it is only fair that it afford equal protection to all who choose to make loving lifelong commitments to one another. We recommend a “no” vote on Prop. 8.

Also opposing Proposition 8:

• The Los Angeles Times
• The San Diego Union-Tribune
• The San Jose Mercury News
• The San Francisco Chronicle
• The New York Times
• The Desert Sun
• The Napa Valley Register
• The Tracy Press
• The Contra Costa Times
• The Santa Cruz Sentinel
• The Press-Enterprise

(hat tip to reader Tara)

CA Kindergarteners to be Taught How to Shoot Up Heroin!!!

Schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners.

Or so say the supporters of Proposition 8 on their official website, Protectmarriage.com. It’s right there in the education code, they tell you.

This is one of Yes on 8’s three central themes (along with individuals being sued and churches losing tax preferences for not celebrating homosexuality) and is included in all their outreach. It is referenced in their television ad and repeated in letters to the editor. Consider this press release quoting Dr. Jim Garlow, senior pastor of Skyline Church in La Mesa

Our California Education Code (#51890) will permit children as young as kindergartners to be indoctrinated about homosexuality.

Or this bold claim repeated twice on their youth oriented website iProtectMarriage

If Prop. 8 loses, children as young as kindergarteners must be taught same-sex marriage.

They even sought to include this in their ballot initiative argument in the state’s voter pamphlet until a judge threw it out as being untruthful.

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.

But amidst all the fear and terror about kindergarten children, there’s one thing they carefully do not provide: the education code which they claim forces “indoctrination into homosexuality” and moral claims to kindergardeners about same-sex marriage. That code section (51890 and the accompanying 50891) is simply never provided for review by those who want to see for theirselves.

But Box Turtle Bulletin isn’t afraid of the education code. We took a look and, by golly, there IS a provision for teaching about marriage:

…kindergarten…Pupils will receive instruction …in matters of… marriage…

Well right there it says it. See?

Unless, of course, you read the rest of the words. We’ve included the entire code section below the break. And as it turns out, there are a few other things here which “kindergarteners must be taught”.

• Mental and emotional health and development.
• Drug use and misuse, including the misuse of tobacco and alcohol.
• Diseases and disorders, including sickle cell anemia and related genetic diseases and disorders.
• Environmental health and safety.

Who knew that the curriculum in the California kindergarten classroom included the use of Paxil or how to shoot up heroin? Who knew that genetic disease and toxic waste shared the floor with “A is for apple” and “the sky is blue”?

Well it doesn’t and they don’t. These (and marriage) are not mandates for the education of “children as young as kindergarteners”. They are part of “all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive” and reflect a goal of providing health information over a child’s entire school experience.

Do those in the Yes on 8 campaign really believe that Kindergardeners will be taugh the mechanics of gay sex or that same-sex marriages have equivalent moral weight with heterosexual marriages? I very much doubt it.

But it’s such a convenient scare tactic that they can’t resist making the claim.

There will be, at an age-appropriate time, a discussion about “Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood”. And that discussion will, no doubt, include the fact that same-sex couples can legally marry.

But the decision as to when and how this will be taught is not to be feared. The “planning, implementation, and evaluation of comprehensive health education” must include active participation by parents and, in California, any parent can remove their child from such discussions.

Don’t you wish that the supporters of Proposition 8 were more honest? Wouldn’t it be nice if those who are so concerned about my morality cared more about their own?

(code section after the break)
Read the rest of this entry »

Long Beach Press-Telegram Says No to Prop 8

No matter how you feel about the issue, it is easy to understand the court’s logic. Religious groups, or individuals for that matter, can treat marriage as holy or a sacrament, and each can follow its own beliefs in deciding who is eligible for marriage rites or ceremonies. But when the state gives out legal privileges or penalties, it must give them to everyone, just as the Constitution says.

The Long Beach Press-Telegram joins the long and growing list of newspapers that encourage a “No” vote on Proposition 8:

• The Los Angeles Times
• The San Diego Union-Tribune
• The San Jose Mercury News
• The San Francisco Chronicle
• The New York Times
• The Desert Sun
• The Napa Valley Register
• The Tracy Press
• The Contra Costa Times
• The Santa Cruz Sentinel
• The Press-Enterprise

AZ Politicians Run Away from Prop 102

It’s amazing. Last June, 49 state legislators in Phoenix decided that making same-sex marriage even more illegaler in this state was more important than solving the budget deficit or problems with education, immigration, health care or energy policy (Arizona has more sunshine than any other state in the union — helloooo!). They even thought it was so important that they were willing to break their own rules in the process.

But now, ask any of those same legislators if they support Prop 102 and just watch how they duck and weave on what ought to be a simple yes or no question — you know, the yes or no question that they actually put on the ballot.

The Arizona Daily Star sent a questionnaire to state legislative candidates, and of the responses they got back, twelve candidates said they opposed Prop 102 and only three said they supported it. Ten more couldn’t give it a straight answer. See if you can figure out where these candidates stand:

“My wife and I have been married for 17 years,” wrote Republican Frank Antenori, a candidate for the House in District 30. “I believe that marriage is an important institution that strengthens society and I support it.” What’s “it”? Marriage or the amendment?

In the primary, Antenori was a bit more direct, answering “yes” but adding: “If you want to get married, fine; that’s between you, your spouse and your God, not the government.” So, isn’t that a “no”?

Republican Jonathan Paton, running for the Senate in the same district, was even more indirect: “I supported the effort to let my constituents vote for it.” OK. But that wasn’t the question.

Democrat Olivia Cajero Bedford, running for re-election in District 27, did not give a direct answer, instead saying she would support the move if it “had clearly stated that (marriage) cannot be one man, one woman and three girlfriends.”

And Democrat Barbara McGuire, an incumbent in District 23, said, “My personal opinion is that definition of marriage would apply to a man and woman, however, in the case of amending the constitution, it is up to the voters.”

Rep. Paton not only voted to place Prop 102 on the ballot, he was also a co-sponsor of the bill.

Rep. Cajero Bedford (one of two house representatives for my district) voted against putting Prop 102 on the ballot — which makes her indirect answer against prop 102 somewhat puzzling.

Rep. McGuire didn’t cast a vote when the measure came up in the House, and because placing an amendment proposal on the ballot requires a majority of all house members and not just of those present, her non-vote had the same effect as a “no” vote. It just didn’t go on the record.

And of course, we already saw State Sen. Tim Bee, one of the amendment’s early co-sponsors, wish the question would just disappear barely two weeks after he voted for it.

Santa Cruz Sentinel Joins Opposition to Proposition 8

In a move unlikely to surprise anyone, the Santa Cruz Sentinel has issued an editorial encouraging a “No” vote on Proposition 8.

Even people with reservations about same-sex marriage should consider the import of voting against a legal right.

We support the right under California law for gays and lesbians to marry. Vote no on Proposition 8.

Also opposing the initiative:

• The Los Angeles Times
• The San Diego Union-Tribune
• The San Jose Mercury News
• The San Francisco Chronicle
• The New York Times
• The Desert Sun
• The Napa Valley Register
• The Tracy Press
• The Contra Costa Times
• The Press-Enterprise

Pepperdine Divorces Proposition 8

Pepperdine professor Richard M. Peterson is probably a very nice man. He’s an advocate for persons with disabilities and special education needs and seeks to help adolescents in the areas of anger management and conflict resolution. He seems to be a caring individual.

But when it comes to Proposition 8, Professor Peterson let his strong religious convictions overrule his compassion and even his integrity. Peterson is the voice of authority in the anti-marriage ad put out by the Yes on 8 campaign wherein he sternly warns Californians that unless Proposition 8 passes people could be sued for their personal beliefs, churches opposed to same-sex marriage could be threatened with losing their tax-exempt status, and children in public schools would be taught about same-sex marriage.

It is difficult to imagine that such a smart fellow is not aware that the claims he is spouting are nothing more than scare tactics.

As the San Francisco Chronicle noted

It’s all overwrought. No one’s personal views would be threatened, and churches could continue to choose which couples they marry. Public schools certainly would teach that same-sex marriage is legal, and the history behind it. But the value judgments surrounding matters of marriage and family would remain in the domain of home and church as they are today.

And surely he must know that the news sources that flash behind his head on the ad have nothing whatsoever to do with marriage and deal with situations that are not impacted by Proposition 8, should it pass or fail. Even should Prop 8 pass with an overwhelming majority, doctors still will not be able to deny services to Californians based solely on their orientation.

For a law profess to not know the inaccuracy of his claims would be startlingly irresponsible. To know but yet continue is startlingly dishonest.

In addition to playing fast and loose with his personal integrity, Professor Peterson has also placed the reputation of Pepperdine on the line.

Pepperdine University is a well respected learning institution with a beautiful campus and a very conservative Christian ideology. Its law school is considered “a bastion of conservatism” and includes such faculty as Ken Starr.

However, even Pepperdine did not want its name linked with the nonsense put out by the supporters of Proposition 8. LAist has a letter issued by the school’s public relations department indicating that they had demanded an end to the association.

The professor in the ad was not advocating a Pepperdine position, but his own personal position.

We have received confirmation that our request to have the reference to Pepperdine University deleted from the ad will be honored. We have been assured that the ad will be revised, perhaps by today.

It may be that the university recognizes that youth, even conservative youth, have little tolerance for hateful deception.

Arizona Needs Your Help

Remember the state that became the first in the nation to defeat a so-called “marriage amendment” in 2006? Arizona desperately needs your help today in 2008:

Supporters of a measure that would change Arizona’s constitution to ban gay marriage have raised $6.9 million, 17 times more than opponents have raised, according to figures released Thursday.

Arizona became the first state in the nation to defeat the so-called marriage amendment in 2006. Today, our opponents are furious that they lost, and they are pouring millions of dollars into the state to upset the will of the voters. They threatened and coerced the legislature to put this on the ballot because they didn’t want to spend the money to mount a petition campaign. In other words, there has not been a single Arizona voter who signed on to have this put on the ballot. The legislatures actions amounted to a several hundred thousand dollar gift to put this on the ballot for free.

On the positive side, I firmly believe that Arizona is about to lose its distinction of being the only state to turn back one of these amendments — because this year California and Florida will have their own victories to add to the tally. And that will be reason for a huge celebration next month.

However, if things don’t change soon, then Arizona will lose something else: our historic 2006 victory. And if that happens, then the victories in Florida and California won’t be secure. If Arizona loses in 2008 what we won in 2006, our opponents will learn a very important lesson. If they don’t like the answer they got this year, all they have to do is come back again in a couple of years, spend millions of more dollars, and wear us down until they finally get what they want.

I am optimistic that we can defeat this proposed amendment in Arizona. Our internal polling shows that we don’t have to match our opponents dollar-for-dollar in funding. We don’t even have to come close. They’ve spend millions of dollars in the past two weeks, but the polling numbers haven’t budged by a single percentage point since we fielded our own poll last June. They’ve spent millions, the votes for their side haven’t budged one iota. Which means that so far, they’ve been wasting their millions.

Our internal polling also shows that there are huge numbers of “yes” voters who don’t believe that this proposed amendment is important. Our polling also shows that our message can not only sway large numbers of undecided voters, but “yes” voters as well. We know we can do this.

But we cannot actually change the vote until we get our message out to the voters. And television and radio ads cost a lot of money.

So we need your help. Please give as generously as you can. Because this has implications not just for Arizona, but for California and Florida as well. If we really want to secure our victories, it is imperative that we tell them that no really means no.

Otherwise, they’ll just come back again in a few more years in California and Florida.

Update: Just $102 to the No on Prop 102 campaign can place two radio ads on the air during drive time, and $375 to Arizona Together can get one television spot on the air. Please give generously today.

And please forward this to everyone you know.

Chronicle Says “No on 8”

Well knock me down with a feather. The San Francisco Chronicle has – oh gasp, surprise – issued a recommendation to vote no on the anti-marriage amendment Proposition 8.

Proponents of Proposition 8 like to cast their campaign as “restoring marriage and protecting California children.” As we have said before, there is nothing more calming or traditional to American society than giving two people who love each other the opportunity to build a life together – raising children, sharing dreams, balancing careers, building communities.

Californians should reject Proposition 8.

Though not too shocking, the Chronicle recommendation is ever so welcome.

Also out yesterday is the rejection of the proposition by The Contra Costa Times.

They both join:

• The Los Angeles Times
• The San Diego Union-Tribune
• The San Jose Mercury News
• The New York Times
• The Desert Sun
• The Napa Valley Register
• The Tracy Press
• The Press-Enterprise

As for those newpapers in favor of Proposition 8? I hear they have the Death Valley Evangelical Weekly Handout… or they will as soon as the mimeograph machine is up and running again.

Slavic Students in Sacramento Community College Counsel Endorse Prop 8

Community colleges are not where one would expect to find endorsment of anti-gay discrimination. But at the American River College, a large community college in Sacramento, Russian immigrant have a large representation on the student counsel, five members.

We have commented before on how the Slavic Immigrant community in Sacramento has become incorporated into an international anti-gay effort, one which has resulted in violence and death. Now in this college student government, the Russians, motivated by their religious ideals, pushed through an endorsement of the anti-gay amendement.

By an 8-3 vote with three abstentions, the council endorsed Proposition 8, the Marriage Protection Amendment that would overturn the state Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex unions if passed Nov. 4.

All five Russians voted for the resolution and the Sacramento Bee is reporting the story with its ethnic overtones.

Councilman Vladimir Musorivschi, 25, of Moldova said the resolution spoke for ARC’s large Russian-speaking population, “mostly all of whom are Christian.”

But even “Christianity” took a back seat to blatant homophobia.

Choban was cursed and shouted down by some of the 200 students in the audience when he told his fellow council members, “don’t be intimidated. The homosexuals are masters of presenting themselves as a civil rights issue. It’s not a civil rights issue; it’s personal choice.”

“They’re the aggressors. They won’t tolerate my opinions,” Choban said.

However, this decision may be one which will result in an immediate termination of their representation of their fellow students. Only 300 students voted in the last student election and “students who support gay marriage said they’ve already collected 450 signatures – enough to force a recall election of the eight council members who voted for the resolution.”

It is disturbing that there does not appear to be a voice of tolerance speaking from within the immigrant Russian community. It would be most welcome.

1st Corinthians Against Prop 8

Stage director Dave Barton was raised a fundamentalist Christian before coming out as gay. He’s well versed in Scripture, especially St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Using Chapter 13 as the script of the video “Love Poem,” Barton has produced an incredible statement against California’s Prop 8:

Jonathan Lewis Offers $500,000 Match to Hollywood

Variety magazine is reporting that Jonathan Lewis, son of Progressive Insurance Chairman and billionaire Peter Lewis, is offering to match contributions made by Hollywood leaders up to half a million dollars.

“With Election Day six weeks away, we are concerned that the entertainment industry hasn’t stepped up to the plate to fight this unnecessary initiative. We are pleased to see the leadership of Brad Pitt and Kate Capshaw and Steven Spielberg. Now it’s time for the entertainment industry as a whole to take the lead,” Lewis said in a statement. “My family and I are issuing a $500,000 challenge to the entertainment industry. We will match the next half-million dollars that entertainment industry leaders contribute. This is an urgent time in the campaign, and we have to act now.”

Protest Against DeVos

Today the season ticket holders at Amway Arena in Orlando were met with protestors. Not against basketball, but because Rich DeVos, the owner of the Orlando Magic, had contributed $100,000 to efforts to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships in Florida.

DeVos is best known as the co-founder of Amway.

We Found ‘Em: Jews for Prop 8

There are, no doubt, many Orthodox Jews who devoutly believe that their faith requires that they oppose same-sex marriage, yet do so with decency, compassion, and empathy. Rabbi Yehuda Levin isn’t one of them.

In response to the Southern California Board of Rabbis’ decision to oppose Proposition 8, Levin has released a statement – on the Christian News Wire. Here are a few observations:

Levin chooses not to recognize gay persons as distinctly existing:

We have opposed the homosexual agenda from ‘day-one,’ when they attempted to craft a separate class based on their bedroom misbehavior.

He denies the ability of others to disagree with him and call themselves an Orthodox Jew and accuses the vast majority of Jews in this country of being “anti-Torah”:

Additionally, no one can claim to be an Orthodox Jew while denying the very commandments of the Almighty Himself. Thus, we condemn the misrepresentation on the part of any “fringe Orthodox” Jew associated with the Southern California Board Of Rabbis, or any other anti-Torah group, who seeks to pervert Divine Law to ‘conform’ to Human depravity.

Then, having insulted his fellow Jews, he demands their vote.

Finally, he calls for “militant opposition” to “propagators of cultural contamination”. Now I’m not entirely sure I know what this means, but it sounds an awful lot like “let’s go beat some gay people” to me.

Sure there are lots of decent supporters of Proposition 8. And I hope they are embarassed to be associated with someone like Levin.