Box Turtle Bulletin

More on ARC Student Recall

We told you about the efforts to recall the coalition of Russian immigrants and Mormons in student government at American River College who endorsed Proposition 8. Kel Munger at the Sacramento News and Review has been tracking the story.

He reports student protests and electioneering, a huge turnout, and blatant homophobia printed in Russian. Check out the site for the latest on this fascinating story.

CA State Board of Education: Prop 8 Ads are “Misleading”

Sick of hearing lies about how Proposition 8 would protect children in schools, and knowing that the ads were deceiving the public, California’s top educators finally had to speak out.

California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell and his predecessor Delaine Eastin spoke out against the campaign today, along with California State Board of Education president Ted Mitchell, saying the proposition is not tied to public schools.

Nor were they mild in their reaction.

Mitchell said he is “disgusted” by the “Yes on 8” campaign, “in particular this misleading set of advertisements about the impact of Prop. 8 on education. This is political campaigning at its worst,” he said.

O’Connell, in a prepared statement, called the ads “alarming” and “irresponsible.”

“Our public schools are not required to teach about marriage,” he said. “And, in fact, curriculum involving health issues is chosen by local school governing boards.”

Yes on 8’s response? Denial and more lies.

White said the claim that California law allows parents to opt their children out of lessons involving same-sex marriage is a lie.

“The bottom line is that parents don’t have an absolute right to remove their children from a lesson they don’t agree with,” White said.

It doesn’t matter how many legal scholars and education specialists and conservative newspapers debunk their statements, the Yes on 8 Campaign is going to make them anyway. And the sad fact is that those who are inclined to search for a reason to justify their desire to discriminate against gay people will choose to believe that the political spokesman knows more about the education code than the Superintendent of Public Instruction or the State Board of Education.

But those in the campaign must know that what they are claiming isn’t true. They have to be aware that they are relying on lies and fears and a colletion of what-ifs and worst-cases and against-all-evidence claims. Their decision to carry on with this campaign of lies is intentional.

Which makes me wonder.

Does the Mormon Church heirarchy care?

Their endorsement, organization, and pronouncements have led to their members contributing three-fourths of the financing for the airing of these lies. The strength of this campaign is due to their efforts and it would be naive to believe that they have no influence – if not complete control – in the message of the ads.

So I ask: do they believe that they have a moral obligation to speak only the truth? Or does the Mormon Church encourage, support, and endorse blatant dishonesty?

Burkle Fundraiser – $3.9 Million

Towleroad, Andy Towle’s site, has a report from the fundraiser hosted by Ron Burkle.

‘No on Prop 8’ raised at least $3.9 million from last night’s event! Ron Burkle underwrote the entire evening so that every dollar donated went to the No on Prop 8 campaign. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom donated $100,000. David Hyde Pierce donated $50,000. They also announced that in the past two weeks, ‘No on 8’ had taken in $10 million to the ‘Yes on Proposition 8’ campaign’s $2 million.

There is also a report of some of the campaign’s efforts.

Patrick Guerriero stated that ‘No on Prop 8’ had just completed a Spanish language radio ad that was ready to air. He also announced that ‘No on Prop 8’ would soon be running recently completed ads specifically to address and counter the false claims made in the advertisements run by the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.

UPDATE

From Variety

Among those at a pre-event dinner were Gavin Newsom, John Garamendi, Antonio Villaraigosa and Jerry Brown — all of whom are declared or possible gubernatorial hopefuls in 2010 — as well as Barbra Streisand and James Brolin, Rob and Michele Reiner, Bruce Cohen and Gabriel Catone, Chad Griffin, David Hyde Pierce, Alan Hergott and David Bohnett.

At the concert, quite a few attendees were anxious to meet Father Geoffrey Farrow, the Fresno priest who was suspended from his parish (and salary and health benefits) after announcing his opposition to Proposition 8 from the pulpit.

Californians Against Hate: LDS Bankrolling CA, AZ Marriage Amendments

Californians Against Hate released figures yesterday that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS, aka the Mormons) have contributed $17.67 million (77%) to support passage of Proposition 8 in California. Additionally, the group reports that Mormons have contributed almost all of the $6.9 million to pass Proposition 102 in Arizona. The group did not give an exact figure for Arizona.

According to the Advocate:

[Fred] Karger said Californians Against Hate came up with the figures by cross-referencing donor information from the California secretary of state with Brigham Young University alumni lists, church memberships, and other personal documentation that could identify Mormon Church members. He said the surge in support has been an attempt to boost the church’s social standing among the greater religious community.

“For whatever reason, they’re trying to get some respect from other religions,” he told The Advocate Tuesday. “They’ve always been looked down upon by the Christians, the Catholics, and evangelicals.”

Success with the marriage amendment would give the church credibility, Karger said.

We are in a very tough fight against a formidable opponent. Please give as generously as you can today.

Your Effort Matters

Sometimes in the middle of a big campaign we feel like our efforts really won’t make a change. And if we don’t have the time or ability to go to some preordained place and do some authorized activity then we may think that our help isn’t appreciated or even necessary.

But sometimes one person doing their own thing can inspire others and make a difference.

The North County Times has the story of Jennifer Schumaker

Since Schumaker began standing at the corner of Valley Parkway and Escondido Boulevard on Oct. 13, a growing number of local high school and college students have steadily joined her.

By Tuesday afternoon, more than 20 people were waving signs together. When an occasional driver honks in support, the entire group cheers quite loudly.

“The goal is to reach out to a community that people see as really, really conservative and anti-gay,” said Schumaker, referring to Escondido. “As a mom who’s extremely involved, I thought being out here was the best way to make a statement that my rights are as valid as the next person’s.”

Schumaker’s sign reads: “Hi, I’m your neighbor. Protect my right to marriage. Please vote no on Prop. 8.”

Thank you, Jennifer. You are changing votes.

Catholic Group Releases Completely Bogus “Poll”

A press release from the Knights of Columbus, makes the following dramatic claim.

A new poll of California voters shows Proposition 8, a proposed constitutional amendment that would reserve marriage for opposite-sex couples, has a 9 percentage point lead among likely voters, 52% to 43%. The poll was conducted for the Knights of Columbus by the Marist College Institute of Public Opinion between September 28 and October 5, 2008.

That would certainly be of concern… if it were even remotely true.

There are two types of polls, those that seek to obtain information about the views and attitudes of those surveyed, and those that seek to provide a false sense of authority to a questionable claim.

If I were seeking to know whether Joe’s Ice Cream or Suzy’s Ice Cream was a preferred brand, I might do a poll that asked participants a straight-forward question that revealed brand preference. “Which Ice Cream brand do you prefer, Joe’s or Suzy’s?”

But if I trying to get people to buy Joe’s Ice Cream, I might run a poll asking, “If you knew that Suzy’s Ice Cream was made in filthy and unsanitary conditions and that the profits go to support terrorism, which brand would you buy, Joe’s or Suzy’s”.

To understand this new “poll” from the Knights (PDF), you have to know a bit about the players

The Knights of Columbus are a Catholic fraternal order. Some of what they do benefits various charities and other efforts seek to impose their Catholic faith on the laws that impact their non-Catholic neighbors. The Knights of Columbus have given over $1,285,000 to the Yes on 8 Campaign.

The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion is a survey research center at Marist College, “a non-sectarian college that privileges its Catholic heritage in all areas of university life.” Marist is a conservative college.

I have found no indication that the Marist Poll is generally fraudulent of disreputable. But even the most casual of observers can see pretty quickly that this effort for the Knights of Columbus is nothing more that a smoke screen created to give substance to a blatantly untruthful press release.

The first indication that there may be shenanigans is in the chief question on the poll. Reputable polls will ask questions that are likely to elicit a response that will correlate to what will happen when the voter enters the booth. Not in this case.

California voters will be asked to vote yes or no on the following:

8. ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and 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.

One would expect, then, for a poll seeking voter intentions to ask a question that reasonable approximates the ballot question. It should reference same-sex couples and discuss eliminating rights. Marist asked the following:

Proposition 8 is the “Limit on Marriage Constitutional Amendment.” It amends the California constitution to say 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?

That’s not the same question. The name given by Marist may fit well with their religious agenda, but it isn’t on the ballot. And no where in Marist’s question was any indication that same-sex couples would have their rights eliminated.

Thereafter the poll gets more interesting. Their other questions fall under what is called “push polling“. It’s where a “pollster” is phrasing their statement in the form of a question but the objective is to sway the voter, not obtain their unbiased opinion.

The language in Proposition 8 defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman was approved by more than 61% of California voters in 2000. Earlier this year, four judges in San Francisco overturned this vote and declared that gay people have a constitutional right to be married. Do you think the judges were correct in their decision, or not?

And then there is a string of completely dishonest claims

Please tell me whether each of the following makes you more or less likely to support Proposition 8. What if you learned that:

• If Proposition 8 passes, gay or lesbian couples will still be able to form civil unions and have the same rights as married heterosexual couples
• If Proposition 8 fails, heterosexual couples who want to be legally married in a church that won’t perform same-sex marriage would then have to be married outside their church
• If Proposition 8 fails, priests, ministers, and other clergy who won’t perform same-sex marriages because of their religious beliefs will face lawsuits and may lose their right to perform heterosexual marriages
• If Proposition 8 fails, children in public schools will be taught that marriage is a relationship between any two adults rather than a man and a woman
• If Proposition 8 fails, religious schools that provide housing for married students may lose their tax-exempt status if they don’t do so for gay or lesbian couples
• If Proposition 8 fails, religious adoption agencies that place children only in homes with a mother and a father will not be able to place children in foster homes

And my favorite

Please listen to the following views about same-sex marriage.

(A) Same sex marriage should NOT be law if priests, ministers, and other clergy who believe the Bible allows for marriage only between a man and a woman will not be able to legally marry these couples in their place of worship without risk of lawsuits or loss of their tax-exempt status.

(B) Same sex marriage SHOULD become law, so gay and lesbian couples may have the same rights as other couples through marriage.

Do you believe same sex marriage should not be law or should be law?

Wow. Those are my two choices?

And so on they go.

But even with the ridiculousness of the “poll”s questions, I still have questions about the polling methods. It is not clear in which order these questions were asked. If the Push Polling came before the question about voting intention, then 52% saying that they support Proposition 8 is the result of the Push Poll rather than a reflection of the voters’ intentions when they picked up the phone.

This does seem to be likely. The results of the question about “four judges in San Francisco” overruling “61% of California voters” also resulted in 52% to 43%, an unlikely coincidence.

Also, considering the dishonesty stinking up the rest of the “poll”, I would have to question the methods by which the samples were selected. Choosing to call only on land lines, selection of calling time, and many other variables can all result in skewed results. And what of sample selection, is it representative of the diversity of the voting population?

Based on the questions they asked, I can’t be blamed for my suspicion that Marist cut whatever corners would result in the desired press release. Clearly, the desired conclusion was far more important than an honest assessment of the current status of voter opinion.

And so the anti-gay Knights of Columbus have released their bogus “poll” saying what they wanted it to say. And they only had to give up their very last shred of integrity to do so.

Caught: Teacher Indoctrinating Students About Gay Marriage

It’s true that teachers are trying to indoctrinate children with their own views about same-sex marriage without consulting with parents or even giving them the option to not have their kids subjected to the teacher’s political beliefs.

The Californian reports

A Salinas High School teacher who distributed “Yes on Proposition 8” literature to her students last week has been asked to refrain from doing so by administrators.

School children were being exposed to issues about multiple-partner sex and other sexual practices and arrangements without even a parent being informed of content in the material provided.

The literature that was passed out to students says it is important to protect marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.

The one-page statement also says it is critical to vote yes on Proposition 8, saying its failure would eventually force the state to approve “polygamy, polymory, incest, group and other ‘creative’ arrangements for marriage.”

Oh the tragedy. The shock and horror. I should prepare an advertisement claiming that Yes on 8 is teaching school children about “King and Queen and Queen and Niece“.

Fresno Bee Opposes Prop 8

The Fresno Bee opposes Proposition 8

All loving, committed couples should have the right to marry, with all the benefits and obligations that relationship incurs. That’s the law now in California, and it should remain the law. The state constitution shouldn’t be used to turn some people into second-class citizens. Vote “no” on Proposition 8.

And even more importanty:

The claim that schools will be forced by the state to teach “gay marriage,” featured in TV ads flooding the airwaves, is a flat lie. Local school districts control such curriculum, and state law permits parents to withdraw their children from lessons they find objectionable.

Which makes it official.

Every major newspaper in every significant geographic area in the state has now officially taken a position in opposition to Proposition 8.

Westboro Baptist To Debate Amendment 2

Florida International University is hosting a debate on Amendment 2, Florida’s so-called “marriage amendment.” Guess who they got to show up to support Amendment 2?

Westboro Baptist. I kid you not.

It turns out that Westboro Baptist was invited by the Stonewall Legal Alliance, an LGBT advocacy group at the FIU College of Law.

This should be fun. Not enlightening, but fun. Some on the right are not amused. I’m not a fan myself of giving this group legitimacy. What do you think?

Why We Blog

Do you want to know why all of us at Box Turtle Bulletin put so much time and effort challenging anti-gay activists? We do it to make the world a better place for guys like this:

[Hat tip: Becky]

Joe Biden: “If I Lived In California, I’d Clearly Vote Against Prop 8”

Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee appeared on Elen DeGeneres’s program where he spoke of his opposition to Prop 8.

Biden: First of all, congratulations.

DeGeneres: Thank you, thank you.

Biden: Number two, if I lived in California, I’d clearly vote against Prop 8.

DeGeneres: Fantastic!

Biden: You know, by the way, Barack and I both opposed a similar attempt nationally, that was an attempt to talk about a constitutional amendment which I think, I think it’s regressive, I think it’s unfair, and so I vote no.

Degeneres: No on Prop 8. Fantastic. That’s what I wanted to know…

See also:
CBN: Sarah Palin Supports Federal Marriage Amendment

Mr. Blackwell’s Critiquing the Angels

Richard Blackwell has passed at the age of 86. Known for his “worst dressed list”, Mr. Blackwell maintained an annual moment of celebrity for nearly half a century.

He’s survived by Robert Spencer, his partner of 60 years.

Instead of flowers, donations can be made to The ROAR Foundation at shambala.org, The Actors Fund at actorsfund.org or noonprop8.com

Though I only met him once, he seemed a charming man. Rest in peace, Mr. Blackwell.

To the Woman Who Lives Across the Street and Watched Me Grow Up

I grew up across the street from a soft-hearted Mormon woman (and her late husband) in Ventura, CA. Back during the Prop 22 election she confessed to my mother her guilt and conflict because she felt a “yes” vote was a vote against a gay man down the street she knew personally.

Today I received a text message from my mom (she’s so hip) alerting me to a “yes on prop 8” sign that had appeared on the soft-hearted Mormon’s lawn.

I’ve never formally come out to her but I think the time has come to mail her a hand-written card:

With the upcoming vote on prop 8 I’m sending letters to people in my life who may not be aware people that I, and other people they care about are gay or lesbian. Under prop 8, I would no longer be treated as a full and equal citizen in the place I call home.

Mohler Misstates Christian Support for Same-Sex Couples

In second part of his series about same-sex marriage, Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary seeks to make two points.

The first is a rather bold assertion that only a small minority of Christians see room within Scripture to allow for a cultural recognition of same-sex unions. The second is that only a small portion of the world’s nations offer such recognition. He presents each as evidence of the other.

Dr. Mohler relies on a premise that is troublesome to those who recall the history of Christian faith. He implies that majority interpretation equals correct interpretation. This approach to faith is not one that I would like to apply to the history of Christianity or theological positions ranging from indulgences, papal infallability, slavery, the divine right to rule, or the civil routing of heresy, all of which held strong support within Christendom at various points.

But, perhaps more difficult for Dr. Mohler’s argument, is that it is based on false assumptions.

Same-sex marriage is, for now, legal in three of fifty states in the United States. Beyond our borders, it is legal in the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, South Africa, Canada and Norway. This represents a very small percentage of the world’s population. Same-sex marriage is, by any measure, the exception rather than the rule. Even when legalized civil unions and domestic partnerships are thrown into the mix, the countries that consider same-sex unions and heterosexual marriages to be equal before the law represent a small percentage of the world’s nations.

Mohler’s discussion is centered around Christianity and cultural effect.

And, considering such, we should only apply his reasoning to Christian nations and those strongly impacted by Christian thought. Surely, the cultural decisions of Quatar or Thailand have no reflection on whether Christianity as a whole accepts or rejects same-sex unions.

So then, the question is whether Christian nations have accepted or rejected same sex couple recognition. And in that question, Mohler is overly optimistic, both currently and with all reasonable projections.

Eliminating nations in which Christianity is not the dominant cultural force – Asia, North Africa, the middle east – we have the following geographic areas to consider (generally, though with some exceptions): Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, and the Americas.

In Europe, nearly all of the nations in Western Europe offer either marriage or other recognition of same-sex partners. Ireland and Austria are in the process, and only Italy is a hold-out. Eastern Europe and the Baltic States are less gay-friendly, but they are also significantly less influential in world affairs or in the establishment of theological trends. There may well be a seminary in Moldova that will direct Christian thought for the next millenium, but I rather doubt it.

Sub-Saharan Africa is indeed hostile to its gay citizens. With one notable exception. South Africa is by far the dominating influence in Southern Africa. Its economic productivity towers overs its far poorer neighbors and its neighbors are impacted by its weath and culture. And in South Africa, marriage is recognized between same-sex couples.

Australia is in the process of instating a national registry to recognize same-sex couples. New Zealand has such a registry in place.

South America is a predominantly Catholic continent. Yet it is surprisingly becoming a welcoming place for same-sex couples. The nations of Ecuador and Uruguay both offer civil unions recognition, as do states in Argentina and Brazil. If trends continue, it is likely that much of South America will provide civil protections to same-sex couples within the next decade.

North America is comprised of three large nations, several small Carribean island nations, and a sting of nations connecting the large North American landmass with South America. And it is this continent that draws much of Mohler’s attention – and ours as well. Canada recognizes marriage. One of the states in Mexico offers civil unions, as does Mexico City. In the United States, three States offer marriage and seven others provide civil unions, domestic partnerships, or reciprocal benefits. And additional three recognize out-of-state marriages. Currently 92 million Americans, or 30%, live in a state in which they can obtain recognition for their same-sex relationships.

So if we look collectively at Christendom, we do not see a picture of rejection of same-sex couples. We see, instead, that the more affluent and industrialized a Christian nation becomes, the more likely it is to value its gay citizens. We see trends indicating that soon most of Europe, Australia, and the Americas will offer some form of recognition to same-sex couples. One might even argue that the more “Christian” a nation is (as opposed to Muslim or other religions), the more accomodating it is to gay couples.

Dr. Mohler may wish to warn the nation that recognition of gay citizens places it among a minority in the World. But he fails to mention that others in that minority are Canada, Great Britain, Australia, France and Spain while his “vast majority” of nations includes those that are not Christian – such as Iran, China, and Libya – or are, shall we say, less influential nations such as Latvia, Jamaica, and Nigeria.

If the States continue to refuse recognition of same-sex couples, they will soon be nearly alone among their close friends to do so.

Florida and Arizona Anti-Gay Activists Use Same Media Company

Remember those nearly identical television commercials running in Arizona and Florida in support of those states’ proposed “marriage amendments”? The Miami Herald has noticed them as well:

Bloggers have pointed out that new ad uses many of the same images and the same format as an ad running in Arizona. Arizona and California are also deciding whether to pass a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman in November. Both the backers of Florida’s Amendment 2 and Arizona’s Proposition 102 hired the same media company, Stemberger said, but he said the fact that the ads were similar is “irrelevant.”

We posted both of those “irrelevant” ads alongside each other so you, too, can marval at the coincidences.