by Krystal Bick
Oct 31, 2008
Penny Whalen remembers a time when a black person could not marry a white person because it was in violation of state interracial marriage laws. And now she feels it is happening again.
Whalen, a Sparks resident opposed to California’s Proposition 8, which would eliminate same-sex marriages, said that this proposition is no different from the racial intolerance of over 50 years ago.
“We’ve just carried that over to gays and lesbians,” Whalen said. “I believe sincerely in my heart that gay and lesbian marriage is a civil right and it’s a matter of an equal rights law.”
Deciding to take action, Whalen, along with her congregation at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Northern Nevada, is participating in and hosting an organized phone bank, contacting California voters and encouraging them to vote against Proposition 8 on Tuesday.
The phone bank, put on by the Vote No on Prop. 8 group, is available to all interested volunteers. A calling system based off of an online database allows volunteers to either go the UUFN church located at 780 Del Monte Lane in Reno from 3 to 9 p.m. on Sunday or stay at home and use a key code for access to the online database, said UUFNN minister Neal Andersen.
“We are a welcoming congregation,” Andersen said, explaining that he has several same-sex couples who went over to California to get married. “We make a special effort to support gay and lesbian people who traditionally have not been readily accepted into many church communities.”
In May, California’s Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and woman, was declared by California Supreme Court to be in violation of California’s Constitution and the equal rights protection clause, thereby legalizing same-sex marriages.
Being the third state, following Massachusetts and Connecticut, to allow for same-sex marriages, California is considered by many to set the tone for the rest of the nation, Andersen said.
“I think we find that because of it’s large, significant population, California sets a trend that can have an impact on the rest of the United States,” Andersen said, citing California’s Clean Cars program as an example of increasing fuel efficiency awareness. “So eventually we hope that all same-sex couples will have the opportunity for equality in marriage.”
Proposition 8 has received heated debate from both sides in California, with each camp raising about $27 million to promote its cause, according to a report from the University of Southern California. Most of the money raised is from private donations with an apparently more than usual amount from other states.
According to the California Voter Guide, those opposed to Proposition 8 cite equal rights protection for all citizens, detailing that same-sex couples should receive equal property rights, hospital visitation rights and insurance benefits as do heterosexual married couples.
Those in favor of Proposition 8 cite that it is not an attack on the gay lifestyle and will simply redefine the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman to protect what children are taught in public schools about marriage.
“As Unitarian Universalists, we are called to work toward equality of all people,” Andersen said. “This calls us to work for justice.”
There appears to be no Reno/Sparks organized effort for those in favor of Proposition 8 at the time this article went to print.
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Institute of Religion director Michael Bolingbroke said on behalf of his church that he is in favor of the passage of Proposition 8 and encourages voters to vote yes.
“We encourage this and encourage voters to vote their conscience,” Bolingbroke said, explaining “We as a church want this to pass to protect the family.”
For more information about Proposition 8, visit the California Voter Guide at http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
To volunteer for the UUFNN phone bank, contact Jeff Carlton for information or an access code at carlton_jeff@hotmail.com.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
CA Prop 8 Reeks from the Stench of Hate and Bigotry!
Fran Drescher
Posted November 1, 2008 | 03:12 PM (EST)
When did it become okay to discriminate? What country are we all living in anyway? I thought this was America, am I wrong?
Wake up folks before it's too late! This country was founded on the premise of separation of church & state. And why do you suppose that was? Because back in the day of our forefathers, (ya know, the dudes who fought and died for our freedoms) life under an oppressive British empire was more than they could take.
Living in a "my way or the highway" nation sucked! Dictation, Denial and Discrimination was the name of the game until our founding fathers decided that they'd had it!
"Let freedom ring!", they shouted. And a HUGE part of that freedom was of course separation of church and state. If you are truly an American, (and not some closeted fascist) you are part of the privileged few on the planet who get to live in a country that supports tolerance of diversity. Heck we celebrate it! We can be who we want to be, pray to whomever we choose to pray and live as equals regardless of gender, race, creed or sexual orientation.
To think that in this upcoming election there is actually a proposition to add an amendment to the California Constitution to legalize discrimination! Shame on us! This proposition is not about gay marriage; it's about hate, discrimination and intolerance of diversity. It is wholesale, unadulterated hate-mongering and it MUST be snuffed out in a dramatic fashion at once to illustrate to those behind it that in America we embrace the neighbor who might be different from us and are proud of it!
So to all you TRUE Americans, get out there and vote on November 4th, and let's reject hate.
Get all your friends, co-workers and relatives to vote too and make sure you vote NO on proposition 8.
Freedom Fighter,
Fran Drescher
Posted November 1, 2008 | 03:12 PM (EST)
When did it become okay to discriminate? What country are we all living in anyway? I thought this was America, am I wrong?
Wake up folks before it's too late! This country was founded on the premise of separation of church & state. And why do you suppose that was? Because back in the day of our forefathers, (ya know, the dudes who fought and died for our freedoms) life under an oppressive British empire was more than they could take.
Living in a "my way or the highway" nation sucked! Dictation, Denial and Discrimination was the name of the game until our founding fathers decided that they'd had it!
"Let freedom ring!", they shouted. And a HUGE part of that freedom was of course separation of church and state. If you are truly an American, (and not some closeted fascist) you are part of the privileged few on the planet who get to live in a country that supports tolerance of diversity. Heck we celebrate it! We can be who we want to be, pray to whomever we choose to pray and live as equals regardless of gender, race, creed or sexual orientation.
To think that in this upcoming election there is actually a proposition to add an amendment to the California Constitution to legalize discrimination! Shame on us! This proposition is not about gay marriage; it's about hate, discrimination and intolerance of diversity. It is wholesale, unadulterated hate-mongering and it MUST be snuffed out in a dramatic fashion at once to illustrate to those behind it that in America we embrace the neighbor who might be different from us and are proud of it!
So to all you TRUE Americans, get out there and vote on November 4th, and let's reject hate.
Get all your friends, co-workers and relatives to vote too and make sure you vote NO on proposition 8.
Freedom Fighter,
Fran Drescher
Our Response to Lies about Obama
Dear Suzette,
As we already told you this morning, proponents of Prop 8 have sent a deceptive and cynical mailer that falsely claims that Senator Obama supports Prop 8.
This distortion was sent to millions of voters, including our core supporters, who are now confused about Obama's position and which way to vote.
In response, we have been up all night crafting two strategies to set the record straight:
1) A new TV and radio ad highlighting Senator Obama's firm opposition to Prop 8. It also echoes the chorus of opposition from California's leaders -- Governor Schwarzenegger, the California Teachers Association, Senator Feinstein and more.
2) Targeted automated calls to millions of voters from NBA legend Earvin "Magic" Johnson asking them to join him and Barack Obama in opposing Prop 8.
Please make an urgent donation now so we can respond to their attack.
We are running out of time and we need to make sure that the voters know the overwhelming and broad opposition to Prop 8.
In solidarity,
Geoff Kors
Executive Committee Member
No On 8
As we already told you this morning, proponents of Prop 8 have sent a deceptive and cynical mailer that falsely claims that Senator Obama supports Prop 8.
This distortion was sent to millions of voters, including our core supporters, who are now confused about Obama's position and which way to vote.
In response, we have been up all night crafting two strategies to set the record straight:
1) A new TV and radio ad highlighting Senator Obama's firm opposition to Prop 8. It also echoes the chorus of opposition from California's leaders -- Governor Schwarzenegger, the California Teachers Association, Senator Feinstein and more.
2) Targeted automated calls to millions of voters from NBA legend Earvin "Magic" Johnson asking them to join him and Barack Obama in opposing Prop 8.
Please make an urgent donation now so we can respond to their attack.
We are running out of time and we need to make sure that the voters know the overwhelming and broad opposition to Prop 8.
In solidarity,
Geoff Kors
Executive Committee Member
No On 8
Message from the Executive Director of The Center Long Beach about Prop. 8
I know not everyone in our community agrees with the concept of marriage, but I believe that most of us would agree that we don’t want to be discriminated against. If Proposition 8 passes with a yes vote (which we don’t want), it will be the first time in American history that a right will be taken away that was once already conferred. On the Federal level, those that are allowed to marry already receive over 1100 more rights than those who don’t. While we have made progress in California through domestic partnership, it is not enough to protect us and is no different than being relegated to the back of the bus.
Many volunteers from the opposition have been trying to confuse our community. They say they are from the Center and to remember to vote yes. They go door to door and ask if people are for marriage equality, and if they say yes they are, they remind them to vote yes on Nov. 4. These misleading tactics can swing as much as 10% of the vote, and if you have been following the polls, that would be detrimental. Millions of dollars have come from out of state right wing religious groups to fuel their campaign ads. In fact, they refer to this proposition as Armageddon…a fight between light and darkness. Whatever you can do today to make sure that this does not happen, please do so. Write a check. Take part of the day off on Nov. 4 and volunteer. Come and phone bank. Tell all your friends. One person can make a difference, and in this case, an historical difference.
Many volunteers from the opposition have been trying to confuse our community. They say they are from the Center and to remember to vote yes. They go door to door and ask if people are for marriage equality, and if they say yes they are, they remind them to vote yes on Nov. 4. These misleading tactics can swing as much as 10% of the vote, and if you have been following the polls, that would be detrimental. Millions of dollars have come from out of state right wing religious groups to fuel their campaign ads. In fact, they refer to this proposition as Armageddon…a fight between light and darkness. Whatever you can do today to make sure that this does not happen, please do so. Write a check. Take part of the day off on Nov. 4 and volunteer. Come and phone bank. Tell all your friends. One person can make a difference, and in this case, an historical difference.
Harsh attacks characterize the Prop. 8 debate
John Wildermuth, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, November 1, 2008
(10-31) 17:53 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- "Extremists." "Indoctrination." "Liars." "Destroy America." "Blackmail."
Fiery words and harsh attacks are punctuating the campaigns surrounding Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage in California.
In Bakersfield, supporters and opponents of Prop. 8 scuffle on a street corner. In the Los Angeles suburb of Torrance, a 23-year-old is charged with a felony hate crime for attacking a gay man with a "Yes on Prop. 8" lawn sign. On the Internet, terms like "homophobe" and "religious zealot" are fired back and forth on blogs and Web sites.
"I've been doing campaigns for years, but I wasn't prepared for the level of vitriol and hatred I've seen," said Frank Schubert, political consultant for the "Yes on Prop. 8" campaign. "In general, 'No on 8' supporters have just been vicious toward people who, with a good heart, disagree with them."
Harsh characterizations show up everywhere. In a fund-raising message sent out last week, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom fired up supporters by suggesting that donors to Prop. 8 were "right-wing extremists" who were pouring millions into California to ban same-sex marriage.
Vitriol from both camps
But the attacks haven't been limited to one side.
At a "Yes on 8" rally on the steps of the state Capitol this week, Rev. Phillip Goudeaux, pastor at Calvary Christian Center in Sacramento, said that Christians should not let same-sex marriage supporters "take California from us. We're not going to let them destroy America."
At the same rally, Brad Dacus of the conservative Pacific Justice Institute likened the fight for Prop. 8 to the battle against Hitler and urged the crowd not to stand quietly and accept what happened as the Germans did.
More than $65 million total raised by both sides makes Prop. 8 the most expensive social issue campaign in the nation's history. And with almost all those dollars coming from committed individuals rather than faceless corporations, there's plenty of intensity to go around.
"There's real passion in the campaign on both sides," said Steve Smith, campaign consultant for the "No on Prop. 8" effort. " The fundamentalists feel strongly and the gay community feels strongly.
"We've had to tell people that some of the things being done aren't helpful. We don't want eggs thrown at people who still may be sitting on the fence in this election."
Not every Prop. 8 opponent has gotten the message - or paid attention to it.
Schubert complained that thousands of "Yes on 8" signs across the state have been defaced or stolen and at least one supporter of the measure, a Modesto man, was assaulted while putting out signs.
A San Diego group, Californians Against Hate, has called for a boycott of groups donating money to the "Yes on Prop. 8" effort, and the progressive Courage Campaign has begun a full-scale attack against the Mormon church, which has urged its members to contribute to the fight to ban same-sex marriage.
Letter to Mormons
In a letter signed by nearly 17,000 people, Courage Campaign called on Mormon leaders to end all support for Prop. 8 and to stop imposing their religious beliefs on the rest of society. The letter acknowledges the right of religious freedom, but it said, "Your freedoms do not include the ability to take away rights from anyone."
"This is something we thought about pretty carefully," said Rick Jacobs, founder of Courage Campaign. "But when religions involve themselves in politics, it's problematic."
Organizers of the campaign for Prop. 8 also have tried to keep supporters on message, making an early political decision that attacks on gay rights and civil unions would not help their cause.
"The Prop. 8 campaign has been clear that this is not an attack on anyone and not an attack on the gay lifestyle," said Chip White, a campaign spokesman. "Our ads are about the definition of marriage and the importance of traditional marriage."
But to many of its supporters, the campaign remains more than that. Many of them are longtime opponents of gay rights. Some Prop. 8 backers originally supported plans for a harsher state initiative that not only would have banned same-sex marriage, but also would have eliminated domestic partner and civil union rights that currently exist in California.
Leaders of the Tupelo, Miss.-based American Family Association, which has given $500,000 to support Prop. 8, talk ominously about "the homosexual agenda" and have organized boycotts against Disney, McDonalds, Ford and others for actively seeking gay business or for advertising in publications focusing on a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender readership.
Another anti-gay activist, Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families, called for a boycott of Google after the company and its co-founders came out in opposition to Prop. 8.
The question of same-sex marriage "is an emotional issue; people feel strongly," said White, the "Yes on Prop. 8" spokesman. "People feel strongly about not having their children exposed to gay marriage in elementary school."
With both sides saying the Prop. 8 race is tight and getting tighter, the contest isn't likely to calm down in the final days before Nov. 4. Still, the campaigns want to keep things from getting out of hand.
"Our latest ads feature (state Superintendent of Public Instruction) Jack O'Connell and (Sen.) Dianne Feinstein," said Smith, head of the "No on Prop. 8" effort. "They're not real fire breathers."
A look at truth behind attacks in Prop. 8 debate
With charges flying on both sides of the Proposition 8 debate, here's a look at the truth behind some of the claims, attacks and political statements in some of the television spots.
Charge Why it's right Why it's wrong
"Our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage."
John O'Connell, state superintendent of public instruction, in a "No on Prop. 8" TV ad.
Well, yes, California schools aren't exactly required to teach about marriage.
About 96 percent of state schools elect to teach comprehensive sex education. If they do, then the state requires them to teach "respect for marriage and committed relationships." And marriage in California would include same-sex marriage if Prop. 8 doesn't pass.
If Prop. 8 fails, "churches could lose their tax exemption."
TV ad for "Yes on Prop. 8."
Anyone with money for the filing fee can sue for anything, so someone could ostensibly sue a church that refuses to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony.
The Roman Catholic Church isn't going to lose its tax exemption because priests won't perform same-sex marriages at St. Mary's Cathedral. The lone case cited by Prop. 8 supporters involved a New Jersey Methodist group that lost a part of its property tax exemption when it refused to allow a lesbian couple's civil commitment ceremony on a piece of oceanfront property - not a church - it had long opened for public use.
Prop. 8 "is pushed by out-of-state special interests."
California Nurses Association in a "No on Prop. 8" TV ad. Prop. 8 has received millions of dollars from out-of-state groups and contributors.
Prop. 8 supporters say that about 95 percent of their better than 76,000 donors and 80 percent of their $31 million in contributions come from California. About 12 percent of the "Yes on Prop. 8" contributions of $25,000 or more come from out of state, compared with about 17 percent of similar high-dollar contributions made to the "No on Prop. 8" side.
"A leading Prop. 8 opponent has warned that parents cannot remove children from (same-sex marriage) instruction."
TV ad for "Yes on Prop. 8." The National Center for Lesbian Rights did produce a legal issues guide saying that schools are not legally required to allow parents to pull their children from instruction on "gender, sexual orientation or family life."
According to a spokeswoman for the state Department of Education, the state education code gives parents a virtually unlimited right to pull their children from any class they object to, whether it's sex education or spelling.
E-mail John Wildermuth at jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Saturday, November 1, 2008
(10-31) 17:53 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- "Extremists." "Indoctrination." "Liars." "Destroy America." "Blackmail."
Fiery words and harsh attacks are punctuating the campaigns surrounding Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage in California.
In Bakersfield, supporters and opponents of Prop. 8 scuffle on a street corner. In the Los Angeles suburb of Torrance, a 23-year-old is charged with a felony hate crime for attacking a gay man with a "Yes on Prop. 8" lawn sign. On the Internet, terms like "homophobe" and "religious zealot" are fired back and forth on blogs and Web sites.
"I've been doing campaigns for years, but I wasn't prepared for the level of vitriol and hatred I've seen," said Frank Schubert, political consultant for the "Yes on Prop. 8" campaign. "In general, 'No on 8' supporters have just been vicious toward people who, with a good heart, disagree with them."
Harsh characterizations show up everywhere. In a fund-raising message sent out last week, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom fired up supporters by suggesting that donors to Prop. 8 were "right-wing extremists" who were pouring millions into California to ban same-sex marriage.
Vitriol from both camps
But the attacks haven't been limited to one side.
At a "Yes on 8" rally on the steps of the state Capitol this week, Rev. Phillip Goudeaux, pastor at Calvary Christian Center in Sacramento, said that Christians should not let same-sex marriage supporters "take California from us. We're not going to let them destroy America."
At the same rally, Brad Dacus of the conservative Pacific Justice Institute likened the fight for Prop. 8 to the battle against Hitler and urged the crowd not to stand quietly and accept what happened as the Germans did.
More than $65 million total raised by both sides makes Prop. 8 the most expensive social issue campaign in the nation's history. And with almost all those dollars coming from committed individuals rather than faceless corporations, there's plenty of intensity to go around.
"There's real passion in the campaign on both sides," said Steve Smith, campaign consultant for the "No on Prop. 8" effort. " The fundamentalists feel strongly and the gay community feels strongly.
"We've had to tell people that some of the things being done aren't helpful. We don't want eggs thrown at people who still may be sitting on the fence in this election."
Not every Prop. 8 opponent has gotten the message - or paid attention to it.
Schubert complained that thousands of "Yes on 8" signs across the state have been defaced or stolen and at least one supporter of the measure, a Modesto man, was assaulted while putting out signs.
A San Diego group, Californians Against Hate, has called for a boycott of groups donating money to the "Yes on Prop. 8" effort, and the progressive Courage Campaign has begun a full-scale attack against the Mormon church, which has urged its members to contribute to the fight to ban same-sex marriage.
Letter to Mormons
In a letter signed by nearly 17,000 people, Courage Campaign called on Mormon leaders to end all support for Prop. 8 and to stop imposing their religious beliefs on the rest of society. The letter acknowledges the right of religious freedom, but it said, "Your freedoms do not include the ability to take away rights from anyone."
"This is something we thought about pretty carefully," said Rick Jacobs, founder of Courage Campaign. "But when religions involve themselves in politics, it's problematic."
Organizers of the campaign for Prop. 8 also have tried to keep supporters on message, making an early political decision that attacks on gay rights and civil unions would not help their cause.
"The Prop. 8 campaign has been clear that this is not an attack on anyone and not an attack on the gay lifestyle," said Chip White, a campaign spokesman. "Our ads are about the definition of marriage and the importance of traditional marriage."
But to many of its supporters, the campaign remains more than that. Many of them are longtime opponents of gay rights. Some Prop. 8 backers originally supported plans for a harsher state initiative that not only would have banned same-sex marriage, but also would have eliminated domestic partner and civil union rights that currently exist in California.
Leaders of the Tupelo, Miss.-based American Family Association, which has given $500,000 to support Prop. 8, talk ominously about "the homosexual agenda" and have organized boycotts against Disney, McDonalds, Ford and others for actively seeking gay business or for advertising in publications focusing on a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender readership.
Another anti-gay activist, Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families, called for a boycott of Google after the company and its co-founders came out in opposition to Prop. 8.
The question of same-sex marriage "is an emotional issue; people feel strongly," said White, the "Yes on Prop. 8" spokesman. "People feel strongly about not having their children exposed to gay marriage in elementary school."
With both sides saying the Prop. 8 race is tight and getting tighter, the contest isn't likely to calm down in the final days before Nov. 4. Still, the campaigns want to keep things from getting out of hand.
"Our latest ads feature (state Superintendent of Public Instruction) Jack O'Connell and (Sen.) Dianne Feinstein," said Smith, head of the "No on Prop. 8" effort. "They're not real fire breathers."
A look at truth behind attacks in Prop. 8 debate
With charges flying on both sides of the Proposition 8 debate, here's a look at the truth behind some of the claims, attacks and political statements in some of the television spots.
Charge Why it's right Why it's wrong
"Our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage."
John O'Connell, state superintendent of public instruction, in a "No on Prop. 8" TV ad.
Well, yes, California schools aren't exactly required to teach about marriage.
About 96 percent of state schools elect to teach comprehensive sex education. If they do, then the state requires them to teach "respect for marriage and committed relationships." And marriage in California would include same-sex marriage if Prop. 8 doesn't pass.
If Prop. 8 fails, "churches could lose their tax exemption."
TV ad for "Yes on Prop. 8."
Anyone with money for the filing fee can sue for anything, so someone could ostensibly sue a church that refuses to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony.
The Roman Catholic Church isn't going to lose its tax exemption because priests won't perform same-sex marriages at St. Mary's Cathedral. The lone case cited by Prop. 8 supporters involved a New Jersey Methodist group that lost a part of its property tax exemption when it refused to allow a lesbian couple's civil commitment ceremony on a piece of oceanfront property - not a church - it had long opened for public use.
Prop. 8 "is pushed by out-of-state special interests."
California Nurses Association in a "No on Prop. 8" TV ad. Prop. 8 has received millions of dollars from out-of-state groups and contributors.
Prop. 8 supporters say that about 95 percent of their better than 76,000 donors and 80 percent of their $31 million in contributions come from California. About 12 percent of the "Yes on Prop. 8" contributions of $25,000 or more come from out of state, compared with about 17 percent of similar high-dollar contributions made to the "No on Prop. 8" side.
"A leading Prop. 8 opponent has warned that parents cannot remove children from (same-sex marriage) instruction."
TV ad for "Yes on Prop. 8." The National Center for Lesbian Rights did produce a legal issues guide saying that schools are not legally required to allow parents to pull their children from instruction on "gender, sexual orientation or family life."
According to a spokeswoman for the state Department of Education, the state education code gives parents a virtually unlimited right to pull their children from any class they object to, whether it's sex education or spelling.
E-mail John Wildermuth at jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Prop. 8 database: more than you want to know?
C.W. Nevius Archive | E-mail |
Prop. 8 database: more than you want to know?
C.W. Nevius
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Last week, supporters of the proposition to outlaw same-sex marriage in California issued an ominous threat. Via certified letter, members of ProtectMarriage.com warned some businesses to withdraw financial support for the No on Proposition 8 forces or they would be publicly identified as among those who are "in opposition to traditional marriage."
It turns out that wasn't much of a threat. Information about financial donors is not only public, it is readily available to everyone right now.
The Chronicle is among news organizations - the Los Angeles Times is another - that has made available a searchable database of donors on both sides of the Prop. 8 campaign. Anyone can type in the name of their neighbor, friend or co-worker and see if they contributed. The site not only allows you to search residents of California, but other states, too.
Placed on SFGate.com late Tuesday afternoon, the site has been wildly popular. By Friday afternoon, it had already recorded about 500,000 hits.
But there is a downside. Everybody knows that good old Bob in your office is a bit of a curmudgeon, but you've always managed to get along with him as long as you avoid discussing politics and religion. Now that you've looked him up, and see that he's donated a large sum of money to a cause you adamantly oppose, it may be hard to go in Monday morning and chat about the Raiders game.
At least that was my experience. Against my better judgment, I checked some of my neighbors. I had a feeling they disagreed with me on Prop. 8, but seeing their names and surprisingly large donations gave me a little chill. It will be hard to forget that.
"I'm worried about getting information I don't really want to have," Chronicle reader Julie King said in an e-mail. "To find out that someone I know, like or respect (or even someone I hate) went past supporting the measure with their vote, to actually giving money to that cause? As shocking as it may sound, I can't imagine how that could NOT be a deal breaker."
Needless to say, in liberal San Francisco, the majority of voters are expected to support the No on 8 cause. But this is also a city of commuters, and it is not unlikely that your co-workers might be quietly supporting "traditional marriage."
Gino VanGundy, a gay man who is an analyst at UCSF, offers a cautionary tale about a rift with an "old friend ... who is Mormon and devout at that." The Prop. 8 argument and VanGundy's marriage to his partner drove such a wedge between them that VanGundy thinks the damage is irreparable.
"I finally realized that it really was, at the end of the day, about her fundamental belief," VanGundy said. "You may think that the information won't change your relationships or opinions of the people in question, but ... I assure you that it WILL."
That's not true in every case, of course. Elizabeth Murray has been practicing acceptance since she learned her friend, who has strong religious convictions, is supporting Prop. 8.
"It really rattled me for a few days," she said. "But then I starting thinking more about religious tolerance and realized that if I want him to respect me, I have to respect his religious convictions."
It all sounds very Zen-like until she adds, "Of course, it will be a lot easier to respect him if Prop. 8 loses. "
Isn't that true of us all? In our hearts we know that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but let's face it, when the votes are counted next week, one of the two sides on Prop. 8 is going to be extremely disappointed, if not bitter.
That's why someone like Jay Wiener wonders if you really want to find out the truth. His suggestion is: Don't ask, don't tell and don't search the database.
"It was once considered less than comme il faut (proper) to ask someone's age or how he or she voted," Wiener wrote. "Contemporary life has me believing that greater propriety and restraint would be commendable."
There's also the chance of getting something wrong. Paul Page wrote that once he started searching the Prop. 8 donors, he quickly went from acquaintances to local celebrities. He checked supervisors Bevan Dufty and Tom Ammiano - who donated $500 and $1,000, respectively, to the opposition campaign - but could find no entry for Mayor Gavin Newsom.
"Does this mean the mayor is not interested in civil rights for all?" Page asked. "Of course not. Gavin put his political neck in a noose for LGBT marriage." (His gubernatorial committee also donated $15,000.)
Still, there's another example of how checking the donors could spread ill will. In theory, nearly everyone seemed to say, it is a better idea not to check on your friends, neighbors and co-workers.
That's the theory. But in reality?
Ask reader King if she will check the database.
"Yes," she said. "And feel ugly while doing it."
C.W. Nevius' column runs Tuesday, Thursday and Saturdays. E-mail him at cwnevius@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page B - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Prop. 8 database: more than you want to know?
C.W. Nevius
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Last week, supporters of the proposition to outlaw same-sex marriage in California issued an ominous threat. Via certified letter, members of ProtectMarriage.com warned some businesses to withdraw financial support for the No on Proposition 8 forces or they would be publicly identified as among those who are "in opposition to traditional marriage."
It turns out that wasn't much of a threat. Information about financial donors is not only public, it is readily available to everyone right now.
The Chronicle is among news organizations - the Los Angeles Times is another - that has made available a searchable database of donors on both sides of the Prop. 8 campaign. Anyone can type in the name of their neighbor, friend or co-worker and see if they contributed. The site not only allows you to search residents of California, but other states, too.
Placed on SFGate.com late Tuesday afternoon, the site has been wildly popular. By Friday afternoon, it had already recorded about 500,000 hits.
But there is a downside. Everybody knows that good old Bob in your office is a bit of a curmudgeon, but you've always managed to get along with him as long as you avoid discussing politics and religion. Now that you've looked him up, and see that he's donated a large sum of money to a cause you adamantly oppose, it may be hard to go in Monday morning and chat about the Raiders game.
At least that was my experience. Against my better judgment, I checked some of my neighbors. I had a feeling they disagreed with me on Prop. 8, but seeing their names and surprisingly large donations gave me a little chill. It will be hard to forget that.
"I'm worried about getting information I don't really want to have," Chronicle reader Julie King said in an e-mail. "To find out that someone I know, like or respect (or even someone I hate) went past supporting the measure with their vote, to actually giving money to that cause? As shocking as it may sound, I can't imagine how that could NOT be a deal breaker."
Needless to say, in liberal San Francisco, the majority of voters are expected to support the No on 8 cause. But this is also a city of commuters, and it is not unlikely that your co-workers might be quietly supporting "traditional marriage."
Gino VanGundy, a gay man who is an analyst at UCSF, offers a cautionary tale about a rift with an "old friend ... who is Mormon and devout at that." The Prop. 8 argument and VanGundy's marriage to his partner drove such a wedge between them that VanGundy thinks the damage is irreparable.
"I finally realized that it really was, at the end of the day, about her fundamental belief," VanGundy said. "You may think that the information won't change your relationships or opinions of the people in question, but ... I assure you that it WILL."
That's not true in every case, of course. Elizabeth Murray has been practicing acceptance since she learned her friend, who has strong religious convictions, is supporting Prop. 8.
"It really rattled me for a few days," she said. "But then I starting thinking more about religious tolerance and realized that if I want him to respect me, I have to respect his religious convictions."
It all sounds very Zen-like until she adds, "Of course, it will be a lot easier to respect him if Prop. 8 loses. "
Isn't that true of us all? In our hearts we know that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but let's face it, when the votes are counted next week, one of the two sides on Prop. 8 is going to be extremely disappointed, if not bitter.
That's why someone like Jay Wiener wonders if you really want to find out the truth. His suggestion is: Don't ask, don't tell and don't search the database.
"It was once considered less than comme il faut (proper) to ask someone's age or how he or she voted," Wiener wrote. "Contemporary life has me believing that greater propriety and restraint would be commendable."
There's also the chance of getting something wrong. Paul Page wrote that once he started searching the Prop. 8 donors, he quickly went from acquaintances to local celebrities. He checked supervisors Bevan Dufty and Tom Ammiano - who donated $500 and $1,000, respectively, to the opposition campaign - but could find no entry for Mayor Gavin Newsom.
"Does this mean the mayor is not interested in civil rights for all?" Page asked. "Of course not. Gavin put his political neck in a noose for LGBT marriage." (His gubernatorial committee also donated $15,000.)
Still, there's another example of how checking the donors could spread ill will. In theory, nearly everyone seemed to say, it is a better idea not to check on your friends, neighbors and co-workers.
That's the theory. But in reality?
Ask reader King if she will check the database.
"Yes," she said. "And feel ugly while doing it."
C.W. Nevius' column runs Tuesday, Thursday and Saturdays. E-mail him at cwnevius@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page B - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
If Prop. 8 passes, what about those who wed?
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, November 1, 2008
(10-31) 17:52 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- When Californians vote on Proposition 8, they'll decide whether same-sex partners' right to marry will still exist as of 12:01 a.m. Wednesday. What's less clear is the impact on as many as 16,000 gay and lesbian couples who have wed since June.
Some legal commentators say Prop. 8, if passed Tuesday, would retroactively invalidate all same-sex marriages performed in the state since a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing such weddings took effect. Others say the court established rights that can't be taken away, even if the law changes.
The answer could come from the same court that overturned California's previous law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Or it could come from a higher-ranking tribunal in Washington, D.C.
Craig Wetherbee and John Melena of Modesto weren't thinking that far ahead when they arrived at San Francisco City Hall last week for a wedding they had originally planned for next March, the seventh anniversary of their relationship.
"We'd rather do it now, when we can," Melena, 26, said as other like-minded couples lined up at the city clerk's office for marriage licenses.
Important piece of paper
Domestic partners for five years, they considered themselves married long before the state made it legal, said Wetherbee, 31. Even if Prop. 8 passes, he said, "I'll have my piece of paper on the wall."
If California voters approve Prop. 8, the legal weight of that piece of paper, and of thousands of others, will be up to the courts to decide.
About 16,000 same-sex couples will have married since mid-June, according to the UCLA law school's Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy. Nearly a third of the weddings will have taken place in the past two months.
In San Francisco, the clerk's office says 971 same-sex couples made appointments to get licenses in the two weeks before the election. That's about twice the rate during any period since the last two weeks of June, when 1,071 couples applied.
The initiative that could undo those weddings is a proposed state constitutional amendment declaring that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Prop. 8 does not explicitly state that it would be applied retroactively to overturn existing same-sex marriages. But its language - saying only opposite-sex marriage can be recognized in California - indicates that it was meant to deny recognition to all same-sex marriages, including those that were legal before the election.
That interpretation gains support from the Yes on 8 ballot arguments, which say the measure would allow the state to recognize only male-female marriages, "regardless of when or where performed."
Still, many legal observers have predicted that pre-Prop. 8 marriages would be upheld by the same state Supreme Court justices who authorized those marriages. That view is shared by Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office would represent the state in any lawsuit over the ballot measure.
"I would think that the court, in looking at the underlying equities, would most probably conclude that upholding the marriages performed in that interval (before the election) would be a just result," Brown said in August.
Stanford law Professor Jane Schacter said the issue isn't clear-cut, but she thinks the court would be reluctant to revoke the right to marry after the fact. The main reason, she said, is that newlywed couples often rely on their marital status to take actions they might otherwise put off - adopting or having children, borrowing money, buying a home.
"We want to say to couples that when you marry, you can rely on being married," she said.
UC Berkeley law Professor Jesse Choper said the court might well conclude that retroactively nullifying a marriage would violate a couple's right to due process of law or violate the constitutional ban on interference with contracts.
Even the chief lawyer for the Yes on 8 campaign declined to predict that the court would overturn existing marriages.
"I don't think the law is clear on that," said attorney Andrew Pugno of Sacramento. He said Brown's position and the state court's evident sympathy toward same-sex marriage might sway the outcome.
Court blamed for confusion
Campaign spokesman Chip White declined to say whether sponsors of the measure would ask the courts to invalidate marriages. However, he said that any confusion about the status of existing marriages is the state Supreme Court's fault for refusing to delay the effect of its ruling until after the election, and "the courts will have to grapple with it."
One law professor who strongly supports same-sex marriages believes Prop. 8 would invalidate all such marriages in California.
"There is a disturbing degree of complacency that many (gay and lesbian) people seem to have about the security of their marriages," said Kenji Yoshino, who teaches constitutional law at New York University. Although it would be unjust to nullify the weddings of couples who have waited years for the chance to marry, he said, "just because something seems deeply unfair doesn't mean it's unconstitutional."
Yoshino said federal courts have ruled that the constitutional prohibition against government interference with contracts doesn't apply to marriage. He also said the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1994 that in a noncriminal case, a state needed little justification to retroactively repeal individual rights that were in effect for a relatively brief period.
And although the California Supreme Court might be inclined to uphold the marriages, Yoshino said, any such ruling would probably be based on the U.S. Constitution, on which the nation's high court has the last word.
Prepared for either outcome
At City Hall, Wetherbee, filling out his license application, said he hopes the state's voters leave his marriage intact. But at least as far as his relationship with Melena is concerned, he said, it doesn't really matter if Prop. 8 passes and rewrites the law retroactively.
Down the hallway, Karen Peper and Sue Gerrity, who flew in from Farmington Hills, Mich., to gain California's legal blessing for their 17-year relationship, said they were prepared for whatever verdict the voters and the courts render.
In Michigan, which recognizes neither domestic partnership nor marriage for same-sex couples, "people ask me if I'm married," said Peper, a 52-year-old psychologist. "I'll say yes, regardless of Prop. 8."
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Saturday, November 1, 2008
(10-31) 17:52 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- When Californians vote on Proposition 8, they'll decide whether same-sex partners' right to marry will still exist as of 12:01 a.m. Wednesday. What's less clear is the impact on as many as 16,000 gay and lesbian couples who have wed since June.
Some legal commentators say Prop. 8, if passed Tuesday, would retroactively invalidate all same-sex marriages performed in the state since a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing such weddings took effect. Others say the court established rights that can't be taken away, even if the law changes.
The answer could come from the same court that overturned California's previous law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Or it could come from a higher-ranking tribunal in Washington, D.C.
Craig Wetherbee and John Melena of Modesto weren't thinking that far ahead when they arrived at San Francisco City Hall last week for a wedding they had originally planned for next March, the seventh anniversary of their relationship.
"We'd rather do it now, when we can," Melena, 26, said as other like-minded couples lined up at the city clerk's office for marriage licenses.
Important piece of paper
Domestic partners for five years, they considered themselves married long before the state made it legal, said Wetherbee, 31. Even if Prop. 8 passes, he said, "I'll have my piece of paper on the wall."
If California voters approve Prop. 8, the legal weight of that piece of paper, and of thousands of others, will be up to the courts to decide.
About 16,000 same-sex couples will have married since mid-June, according to the UCLA law school's Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy. Nearly a third of the weddings will have taken place in the past two months.
In San Francisco, the clerk's office says 971 same-sex couples made appointments to get licenses in the two weeks before the election. That's about twice the rate during any period since the last two weeks of June, when 1,071 couples applied.
The initiative that could undo those weddings is a proposed state constitutional amendment declaring that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Prop. 8 does not explicitly state that it would be applied retroactively to overturn existing same-sex marriages. But its language - saying only opposite-sex marriage can be recognized in California - indicates that it was meant to deny recognition to all same-sex marriages, including those that were legal before the election.
That interpretation gains support from the Yes on 8 ballot arguments, which say the measure would allow the state to recognize only male-female marriages, "regardless of when or where performed."
Still, many legal observers have predicted that pre-Prop. 8 marriages would be upheld by the same state Supreme Court justices who authorized those marriages. That view is shared by Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office would represent the state in any lawsuit over the ballot measure.
"I would think that the court, in looking at the underlying equities, would most probably conclude that upholding the marriages performed in that interval (before the election) would be a just result," Brown said in August.
Stanford law Professor Jane Schacter said the issue isn't clear-cut, but she thinks the court would be reluctant to revoke the right to marry after the fact. The main reason, she said, is that newlywed couples often rely on their marital status to take actions they might otherwise put off - adopting or having children, borrowing money, buying a home.
"We want to say to couples that when you marry, you can rely on being married," she said.
UC Berkeley law Professor Jesse Choper said the court might well conclude that retroactively nullifying a marriage would violate a couple's right to due process of law or violate the constitutional ban on interference with contracts.
Even the chief lawyer for the Yes on 8 campaign declined to predict that the court would overturn existing marriages.
"I don't think the law is clear on that," said attorney Andrew Pugno of Sacramento. He said Brown's position and the state court's evident sympathy toward same-sex marriage might sway the outcome.
Court blamed for confusion
Campaign spokesman Chip White declined to say whether sponsors of the measure would ask the courts to invalidate marriages. However, he said that any confusion about the status of existing marriages is the state Supreme Court's fault for refusing to delay the effect of its ruling until after the election, and "the courts will have to grapple with it."
One law professor who strongly supports same-sex marriages believes Prop. 8 would invalidate all such marriages in California.
"There is a disturbing degree of complacency that many (gay and lesbian) people seem to have about the security of their marriages," said Kenji Yoshino, who teaches constitutional law at New York University. Although it would be unjust to nullify the weddings of couples who have waited years for the chance to marry, he said, "just because something seems deeply unfair doesn't mean it's unconstitutional."
Yoshino said federal courts have ruled that the constitutional prohibition against government interference with contracts doesn't apply to marriage. He also said the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1994 that in a noncriminal case, a state needed little justification to retroactively repeal individual rights that were in effect for a relatively brief period.
And although the California Supreme Court might be inclined to uphold the marriages, Yoshino said, any such ruling would probably be based on the U.S. Constitution, on which the nation's high court has the last word.
Prepared for either outcome
At City Hall, Wetherbee, filling out his license application, said he hopes the state's voters leave his marriage intact. But at least as far as his relationship with Melena is concerned, he said, it doesn't really matter if Prop. 8 passes and rewrites the law retroactively.
Down the hallway, Karen Peper and Sue Gerrity, who flew in from Farmington Hills, Mich., to gain California's legal blessing for their 17-year relationship, said they were prepared for whatever verdict the voters and the courts render.
In Michigan, which recognizes neither domestic partnership nor marriage for same-sex couples, "people ask me if I'm married," said Peper, a 52-year-old psychologist. "I'll say yes, regardless of Prop. 8."
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Steve Young sidesteps political football over Prop. 8
By the Mercury News
Article Last Updated: 11/01/2008 08:38:06 AM PDT
Click photo to enlargeSteve Young's wife issued a statement early today, saying the... (Jim Gensheimer / Mercury News)«1234»
ELECTION 2008: Endorsements | Voter guide | Contra Costa County | Alameda County | More Steve Young's wife issued a statement early today, saying the Hall of Fame quarterback is not involved in the campaign against Proposition 8.
Television and newspaper reports Friday linked the former 49er to the ballot measure because of yard signs in front of their Palo Alto home urging citizens to vote no on the proposition that would ban same-sex marriage in California. Barbara Young also has donated nearly $50,000 to defeat the measure.
Steve Young is a prominent Mormon, and the Mormon Church has donated money to the "Yes on 8" campaign and urged the state's Mormons to support the proposition.
"I am very passionate about this issue and Steve is completely supportive of me and my work for eqaulity," Barbara Young said in a statement to the Mercury News after midnight. "We both love our Church and are grateful that our Church encourages us to vote our conscience. Steve prefers not to get involved politically on any issue no matter what the cause and therefore makes no endorsement."
Steve Young declined to comment when approached by KPIX-TV, which reported the story.
Barbara Young had sent a statement earlier Friday through the gay-rights group Equality California, saying: "We believe all families matter, and we do not believe in discrimination, therefore, our family will vote against Prop. 8."
Article Last Updated: 11/01/2008 08:38:06 AM PDT
Click photo to enlargeSteve Young's wife issued a statement early today, saying the... (Jim Gensheimer / Mercury News)«1234»
ELECTION 2008: Endorsements | Voter guide | Contra Costa County | Alameda County | More Steve Young's wife issued a statement early today, saying the Hall of Fame quarterback is not involved in the campaign against Proposition 8.
Television and newspaper reports Friday linked the former 49er to the ballot measure because of yard signs in front of their Palo Alto home urging citizens to vote no on the proposition that would ban same-sex marriage in California. Barbara Young also has donated nearly $50,000 to defeat the measure.
Steve Young is a prominent Mormon, and the Mormon Church has donated money to the "Yes on 8" campaign and urged the state's Mormons to support the proposition.
"I am very passionate about this issue and Steve is completely supportive of me and my work for eqaulity," Barbara Young said in a statement to the Mercury News after midnight. "We both love our Church and are grateful that our Church encourages us to vote our conscience. Steve prefers not to get involved politically on any issue no matter what the cause and therefore makes no endorsement."
Steve Young declined to comment when approached by KPIX-TV, which reported the story.
Barbara Young had sent a statement earlier Friday through the gay-rights group Equality California, saying: "We believe all families matter, and we do not believe in discrimination, therefore, our family will vote against Prop. 8."
The record needs to be set straight on Prop. 8
Steve Bolerjack • Special to The Desert Sun • November 1, 2008
Two recent columns supporting Proposition 8 must be rebutted. The first (“Backing equal rights not identical rights,” George Ousley, Oct. 28) offers a bizarre, unsubstantiated theory that acceptance of same-sex marriage is somehow the fault of Planned Parenthood, “free love,” Bill Clinton's misbehavior and the “New Paradigm” (whatever that is - it's never explained). The writer claims to support equal rights for all but doesn't want them completely equal to his, hence his headline.
I remind Ousley that the U.S. Supreme Court retired this way of thinking in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education. It was called “separate but equal,” i.e. segregation.
The second (“Voters, not courts should define marriage,” Jack Adams, Oct. 30) repeats bogus, exaggerated claims that legalized same-sex marriage will force gay mandates in schools and churches. The writer cites a Massachusetts case that dismissed parents' objections to a book mentioning same-sex couples in public school. Like conservatives and churches running ads on this case, Adams grossly misrepresents it. The federal judge ruled that individual parents cannot dictate curricula to a publicly elected school board. The parents have remedies: they may choose another school or work to elect a new board. The point is that a value judgment on homosexuality was not dispositive here; the issue was attempting to dictate what the school district teaches. Chief Judge Mark Wolf noted, “Parents have chosen to send their children to public schools with its current curriculum. The constitution does not permit them to prescribe what those children will be taught.”
Similarly, Adams misleads about the United Methodist Church and a New Jersey lesbian couple. Their wedding was to be not in a church but a “beach pavilion” owned by the Methodists. The church received tax exemptions on the property with the understanding it was for public use and open to all. In removing the tax benefits, state environmental commissioner Lisa Jackson said, “It is clear that the pavilion is not open to all persons on an equal basis. When the public subsidizes tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not to be parsed out, whether by activity or any particular beliefs.” Again, this is not a ruling on same-sex marriage; it's a decision against a church that reneged on an agreement that gave it a tax break. The California Supreme Court's decision affirming rights of same-sex couples to marry will have none of these alleged effects upon religion or public education.
So here's the truth:
First, same-sex marriage cannot affect your marriage. We don't have that power and we don't want it. If you're insecure about your marriage, get counseling, but don't blame us. We don't want to redefine marriage, we simply want to participate in rights inherent to it.
Second, we want civil marriage, not religious rituals. Marriage originated as a civil contract, not a religious ceremony. Keep your big church productions. No religion will ever be forced to perform a gay wedding (and why some gay people still go to church is beyond me).
Third, Proposition 8 has nothing to do with education. Fifty-nine law professors, who know these issues better than Baptist ministers, have so stated (see the Desert Sun, page B1, Oct. 30). Fourth, what do straight people fear? Are you so insecure about the integrity of marriage that you're ready to promulgate discrimination into the California Constitution?
No one, including the aforementioned writers, has truthfully demonstrated a valid need for Proposition 8. Finally, you know gay people, whether you realize it or not. Now try again to explain to them why they don't deserve the same rights that you have.
Steve Bolerjack is a writer and editor and member of the Palm Springs Human Rights Commission. He can be reached at stevebolerjack@gmail.com
Two recent columns supporting Proposition 8 must be rebutted. The first (“Backing equal rights not identical rights,” George Ousley, Oct. 28) offers a bizarre, unsubstantiated theory that acceptance of same-sex marriage is somehow the fault of Planned Parenthood, “free love,” Bill Clinton's misbehavior and the “New Paradigm” (whatever that is - it's never explained). The writer claims to support equal rights for all but doesn't want them completely equal to his, hence his headline.
I remind Ousley that the U.S. Supreme Court retired this way of thinking in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education. It was called “separate but equal,” i.e. segregation.
The second (“Voters, not courts should define marriage,” Jack Adams, Oct. 30) repeats bogus, exaggerated claims that legalized same-sex marriage will force gay mandates in schools and churches. The writer cites a Massachusetts case that dismissed parents' objections to a book mentioning same-sex couples in public school. Like conservatives and churches running ads on this case, Adams grossly misrepresents it. The federal judge ruled that individual parents cannot dictate curricula to a publicly elected school board. The parents have remedies: they may choose another school or work to elect a new board. The point is that a value judgment on homosexuality was not dispositive here; the issue was attempting to dictate what the school district teaches. Chief Judge Mark Wolf noted, “Parents have chosen to send their children to public schools with its current curriculum. The constitution does not permit them to prescribe what those children will be taught.”
Similarly, Adams misleads about the United Methodist Church and a New Jersey lesbian couple. Their wedding was to be not in a church but a “beach pavilion” owned by the Methodists. The church received tax exemptions on the property with the understanding it was for public use and open to all. In removing the tax benefits, state environmental commissioner Lisa Jackson said, “It is clear that the pavilion is not open to all persons on an equal basis. When the public subsidizes tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not to be parsed out, whether by activity or any particular beliefs.” Again, this is not a ruling on same-sex marriage; it's a decision against a church that reneged on an agreement that gave it a tax break. The California Supreme Court's decision affirming rights of same-sex couples to marry will have none of these alleged effects upon religion or public education.
So here's the truth:
First, same-sex marriage cannot affect your marriage. We don't have that power and we don't want it. If you're insecure about your marriage, get counseling, but don't blame us. We don't want to redefine marriage, we simply want to participate in rights inherent to it.
Second, we want civil marriage, not religious rituals. Marriage originated as a civil contract, not a religious ceremony. Keep your big church productions. No religion will ever be forced to perform a gay wedding (and why some gay people still go to church is beyond me).
Third, Proposition 8 has nothing to do with education. Fifty-nine law professors, who know these issues better than Baptist ministers, have so stated (see the Desert Sun, page B1, Oct. 30). Fourth, what do straight people fear? Are you so insecure about the integrity of marriage that you're ready to promulgate discrimination into the California Constitution?
No one, including the aforementioned writers, has truthfully demonstrated a valid need for Proposition 8. Finally, you know gay people, whether you realize it or not. Now try again to explain to them why they don't deserve the same rights that you have.
Steve Bolerjack is a writer and editor and member of the Palm Springs Human Rights Commission. He can be reached at stevebolerjack@gmail.com
NO on Prop 8 Campaign Slams Dishonest Mailer Targeting African-American Voters
Friday October 31, 10:12 pm ET
Mailer Misrepresents Sen. Obama Who is Opposed to Proposition 8; Misleading African-American Voters is Clearly the Goal of Deceptive Prop 8 Campaign
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Oct. 31 /PRNewswire/ -- The NO on Prop 8 campaign today condemned an official Proposition 8 mailer clearly targeted to African-American voters that completely misrepresents and lies about Sen. Barack Obama's position on Proposition 8. In fact, the Obama campaign felt compelled to release a new statement tonight making it absolutely clear that he and Joe Biden oppose Prop 8 in the strongest terms.
The mailer, from the Proposition 8 campaign, twists Sen. Obama's comments about marriage to suggest support for the unfair initiative -- when just the opposite is true. In a June 29 letter to the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club, Sen. Obama wrote that he opposes the "divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution."
The mailer drew a strong reaction from San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris.
"It is despicable that the Yes on 8 campaign would send out a last minute mailer to the African-American community in a clear attempt to mislead voters about Senator Barack Obama's position on Proposition 8," said District Attorney Harris. "The leadership of this campaign should issue an immediate retraction and apology for this transparent attempt to deceive the public."
The Obama letter reads in part:
"As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law...And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states. For too long, issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans."
Tonight, in response to the mailer, the Obama campaign released the following statement:
"Senators Obama and Biden have made clear their commitment to fighting for equal rights for all Americans whether it's by granting LGBT Americans all the civil rights and benefits available to heterosexual couples, or repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" said a statement issued by campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt. "Senator Obama has already announced that the Obama-Biden ticket opposes Proposition 8 and similar discriminatory constitutional amendments that could roll back the civil rights he and Senator Biden strongly believe should be afforded to all Americans."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NO on Prop 8
Mailer Misrepresents Sen. Obama Who is Opposed to Proposition 8; Misleading African-American Voters is Clearly the Goal of Deceptive Prop 8 Campaign
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Oct. 31 /PRNewswire/ -- The NO on Prop 8 campaign today condemned an official Proposition 8 mailer clearly targeted to African-American voters that completely misrepresents and lies about Sen. Barack Obama's position on Proposition 8. In fact, the Obama campaign felt compelled to release a new statement tonight making it absolutely clear that he and Joe Biden oppose Prop 8 in the strongest terms.
The mailer, from the Proposition 8 campaign, twists Sen. Obama's comments about marriage to suggest support for the unfair initiative -- when just the opposite is true. In a June 29 letter to the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club, Sen. Obama wrote that he opposes the "divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution."
The mailer drew a strong reaction from San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris.
"It is despicable that the Yes on 8 campaign would send out a last minute mailer to the African-American community in a clear attempt to mislead voters about Senator Barack Obama's position on Proposition 8," said District Attorney Harris. "The leadership of this campaign should issue an immediate retraction and apology for this transparent attempt to deceive the public."
The Obama letter reads in part:
"As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law...And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states. For too long, issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans."
Tonight, in response to the mailer, the Obama campaign released the following statement:
"Senators Obama and Biden have made clear their commitment to fighting for equal rights for all Americans whether it's by granting LGBT Americans all the civil rights and benefits available to heterosexual couples, or repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" said a statement issued by campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt. "Senator Obama has already announced that the Obama-Biden ticket opposes Proposition 8 and similar discriminatory constitutional amendments that could roll back the civil rights he and Senator Biden strongly believe should be afforded to all Americans."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NO on Prop 8
No on 8 Statement on Field Poll
“The Field Poll shows that Prop 8's deceptive campaign has failed to move their numbers much at all. Prop 8 is trying to run a campaign to get to a Yes vote, yet they have remained in this and other polls well below the 50 percent margin necessary for success. We are running a No campaign, and we are successfully keeping our opponents below 50 percent.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
10/30/08
Contact: Ali Bay
Phone: 916.284.9187
Julia Spiess
Phone: 916.601.8282
No on 8 Statement on Field Poll
“The Field Poll shows that Prop 8's deceptive campaign has failed to move their numbers much at all. Prop 8 is trying to run a campaign to get to a Yes vote, yet they have remained in this and other polls well below the 50 percent margin necessary for success. We are running a No campaign, and we are successfully keeping our opponents below 50 percent.
“We are highly energized across the state and we believe this will be a close election. We reject any suggestion that there will be a last minute surge for Prop 8 in a year where California is expected to go overwhelmingly for Sen. Barack Obama.
“In fact, today Prop 8 Campaign Manager Frank Schubert released a blog statement fretting that the presidential election would be called early on the East Coast, thereby depressing conservative voting in California.
“Finally, we note that the Field Poll has a stellar record on initiatives and has been accurate 94 percent of the time.”
- Steve Smith, Senior Campaign Advisor
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
10/30/08
Contact: Ali Bay
Phone: 916.284.9187
Julia Spiess
Phone: 916.601.8282
No on 8 Statement on Field Poll
“The Field Poll shows that Prop 8's deceptive campaign has failed to move their numbers much at all. Prop 8 is trying to run a campaign to get to a Yes vote, yet they have remained in this and other polls well below the 50 percent margin necessary for success. We are running a No campaign, and we are successfully keeping our opponents below 50 percent.
“We are highly energized across the state and we believe this will be a close election. We reject any suggestion that there will be a last minute surge for Prop 8 in a year where California is expected to go overwhelmingly for Sen. Barack Obama.
“In fact, today Prop 8 Campaign Manager Frank Schubert released a blog statement fretting that the presidential election would be called early on the East Coast, thereby depressing conservative voting in California.
“Finally, we note that the Field Poll has a stellar record on initiatives and has been accurate 94 percent of the time.”
- Steve Smith, Senior Campaign Advisor
Friday, October 31, 2008
The Presidential Factor
Pollsters and political pundits are predicting that the presidential race will not be closely contested in California. This means we can’t depend on the presidential campaigns to get out the vote.
So it is up to us.
Here is what you can do:
Vote before Election Day.
http://www. sos. ca. gov/elections/elections_d. htm
The earlier you cast your vote, the better. If key Eastern and Midwestern swing states are decided early, there is a real possibility that the presidential race will not drive Californians to the polls later in the day in the numbers we so desperately need to defeat Prop 8. And as in the past, high voter turnout may result in long lines, not enough ballots, and contested votes. We need your vote to count.
Record numbers have turned out to vote early already. Be part of that movement. Find out where you can vote early in your county.
Make sure your friends and family vote and vote NO on Prop 8.
http://www. NOonProp8. com/messages
Spread the word. Tell them personally why Prop 8 is wrong and unfair. Offer to drive them to the polls if they need help.
And remind them that a vote for equality is a NO vote on Prop 8!
Take the day off to volunteer.
http://www. noonprop8. com/action/gotv
Or whatever time you can give. We need your help to raise visibility this weekend through Election Day for the largest grassroots visibility effort this state has ever seen—5,000 volunteers on Election Day alone! This is crucial because sometimes the last message a voter sees is what will make all the difference.
And last, but certainly not least, there are a number of important candidate races this year. Download the Equality California PAC Voter Guide (pdf) and use it when you fill out your ballot.
http://www. eqcapac. org/atf/cf/%7B32d19188-8caa-4286-ab11-73d8f6125488%7D/EQCAPAC%20VOTER%20GUIDE%202008. PDF. PDF
Victory is within sight. Now, we must band together, dig deep, and make it happen.
To the end,
Kate Kendell
Executive Committee Member
No On Prop 8
P.S. As Election Day draws nearer, the importance of staying non-violent and respectful in our interactions with the opposition is ever greater. To help in our efforts to defeat Prop 8, we must maintain civility and courage in heated moments. We don't want to make the other side look good.
So it is up to us.
Here is what you can do:
Vote before Election Day.
http://www. sos. ca. gov/elections/elections_d. htm
The earlier you cast your vote, the better. If key Eastern and Midwestern swing states are decided early, there is a real possibility that the presidential race will not drive Californians to the polls later in the day in the numbers we so desperately need to defeat Prop 8. And as in the past, high voter turnout may result in long lines, not enough ballots, and contested votes. We need your vote to count.
Record numbers have turned out to vote early already. Be part of that movement. Find out where you can vote early in your county.
Make sure your friends and family vote and vote NO on Prop 8.
http://www. NOonProp8. com/messages
Spread the word. Tell them personally why Prop 8 is wrong and unfair. Offer to drive them to the polls if they need help.
And remind them that a vote for equality is a NO vote on Prop 8!
Take the day off to volunteer.
http://www. noonprop8. com/action/gotv
Or whatever time you can give. We need your help to raise visibility this weekend through Election Day for the largest grassroots visibility effort this state has ever seen—5,000 volunteers on Election Day alone! This is crucial because sometimes the last message a voter sees is what will make all the difference.
And last, but certainly not least, there are a number of important candidate races this year. Download the Equality California PAC Voter Guide (pdf) and use it when you fill out your ballot.
http://www. eqcapac. org/atf/cf/%7B32d19188-8caa-4286-ab11-73d8f6125488%7D/EQCAPAC%20VOTER%20GUIDE%202008. PDF. PDF
Victory is within sight. Now, we must band together, dig deep, and make it happen.
To the end,
Kate Kendell
Executive Committee Member
No On Prop 8
P.S. As Election Day draws nearer, the importance of staying non-violent and respectful in our interactions with the opposition is ever greater. To help in our efforts to defeat Prop 8, we must maintain civility and courage in heated moments. We don't want to make the other side look good.
Urgent challenge match -- Keep our new ad on TV
This morning's Field Poll carries news that Prop 8 is narrowly losing, 44 to 49%.
This initiative battle is razor thin. We know that 7 to 10% of voters are still up for grabs.
And Tim Gill and Scott Miller will match your donation up to $100,000 if you respond NOW.
https://secure. ga4. org/01/discrimination?source=myspace
We knew we needed something more. Something big. Something to remind California voters that there were times in our history when we did not stand up against discrimination, and these are times we now regret.
So our new ad -- which we call "History" -- focuses on the central fact of this campaign: it is wrong to discriminate and wrong to treat people differently under the law.
This new ad, narrated by renowned actor Samuel L. Jackson, drives home the message that discrimination is always wrong. Watch the ad and make a donation to keep it on the air.
https://secure. ga4. org/01/discrimination?source=myspace
Now it's our turn. It's our turn to make sure we do everything we can do so the next generation grows up in a more decent society -- a society where discrimination against LGBT Americans remains part of that sorry past rather than enshrined in our Constitution.
We must keep this ad on television statewide through Election Day. To make that happen we must raise at least $1.5 million today. Please donate NOW.
https://secure. ga4. org/01/discrimination?source=myspace
With your help, we will defeat Prop 8. Please continue your support with a donation and ask the people who care for you to do the same.
https://secure. ga4. org/01/discrimination?source=myspace
In solidarity,
Geoff Kors
Executive Committee Member
No On 8
This initiative battle is razor thin. We know that 7 to 10% of voters are still up for grabs.
And Tim Gill and Scott Miller will match your donation up to $100,000 if you respond NOW.
https://secure. ga4. org/01/discrimination?source=myspace
We knew we needed something more. Something big. Something to remind California voters that there were times in our history when we did not stand up against discrimination, and these are times we now regret.
So our new ad -- which we call "History" -- focuses on the central fact of this campaign: it is wrong to discriminate and wrong to treat people differently under the law.
This new ad, narrated by renowned actor Samuel L. Jackson, drives home the message that discrimination is always wrong. Watch the ad and make a donation to keep it on the air.
https://secure. ga4. org/01/discrimination?source=myspace
Now it's our turn. It's our turn to make sure we do everything we can do so the next generation grows up in a more decent society -- a society where discrimination against LGBT Americans remains part of that sorry past rather than enshrined in our Constitution.
We must keep this ad on television statewide through Election Day. To make that happen we must raise at least $1.5 million today. Please donate NOW.
https://secure. ga4. org/01/discrimination?source=myspace
With your help, we will defeat Prop 8. Please continue your support with a donation and ask the people who care for you to do the same.
https://secure. ga4. org/01/discrimination?source=myspace
In solidarity,
Geoff Kors
Executive Committee Member
No On 8
Obama appears on gay marriage ban mailer
The Associated Press
Fri, Oct 31, 2008 (5:54 p.m.)
The sponsors of a ballot initiative that would make same-sex marriage illegal in California are using quotes by Barack Obama to drum up support for Proposition 8, even though Obama opposes the measure.
A mailer sent out by the ProtectMarriage.com coalition this week features a large picture of Obama. The mailer also presents statements the Illinois senator has made indicating that as a Christian he personally thinks marriage should be limited to a woman and man.
The campaign to defeat Prop. 8 denounced the mailers as a "dirty trick," and released a new statement from the Obama campaign reiterating that while he favors civil unions for gay couples, he thinks the measure is discriminatory.
Fri, Oct 31, 2008 (5:54 p.m.)
The sponsors of a ballot initiative that would make same-sex marriage illegal in California are using quotes by Barack Obama to drum up support for Proposition 8, even though Obama opposes the measure.
A mailer sent out by the ProtectMarriage.com coalition this week features a large picture of Obama. The mailer also presents statements the Illinois senator has made indicating that as a Christian he personally thinks marriage should be limited to a woman and man.
The campaign to defeat Prop. 8 denounced the mailers as a "dirty trick," and released a new statement from the Obama campaign reiterating that while he favors civil unions for gay couples, he thinks the measure is discriminatory.
MARYLEE SHRIDER: Mettler shouldn't have to bear the blame
By MARYLEE SHRIDER, Californian columnist
mshrider@bakersfield.com | Friday, Oct 31 2008 5:12 PM
Last Updated: Friday, Oct 31 2008 5:10 PM
It’s been a great week for gay-rights activists, Prop. 8 protesters and the local media, all of whom are simply giddy over the infamous sign scuffle at a recent Friday-night rally.
Eight days after the incident, they’re still happily making hay over the video of Kern High School District trustee Ken Mettler punching protester Rob Badewitz.
And who can blame them? I mean, how often does such a gift fall into your lap?
That the video was shot and delivered to newsies by a crony of Badewitz’s and that it conveniently captures only Mettler’s part in the scuffle and that the police are still investigating the incident is apparently irrelevant.
Mettler got the trouble he was asking for, say critics, who are demanding apologies, talking recall and scouring public records for signs of a criminal past.
There isn’t one, save for an accusation six years ago that Mettler vandalized a campaign sign during a re-election run for the Rosedale Union School District. The matter went before Judge Sidney Chapin who threw the frivolous case out of court in under an hour.
In other words, Mettler has no criminal record. But that didn’t stop editorial writers from making the connection anyway, calling it “the same sort of act that enraged him to the point of alleged assault” in regard to the recent scuffle.
Enraged? Mettler? Did anyone actually watch the video?
The video shows Mettler calmly wading through a mob of vulgar, profanity spewing protesters to pick up a pile of “Yes on Prop. 8” signs — signs the protesters are heard to say they paid for, which is weird since the signs are free to anyone who supports the cause. Mettler says it wasn’t until he heard aggressors approaching from behind and spotted Badewitz at his side, that he reacted.
“Out of the corner of my eye, I could see a punch coming,” he said. “I leaned backwards to avoid it and felt the signs pulled from my hands — I threw one punch to defend myself.”
Both men walked away from the fracas uninjured, save for a bruise on Badewitz’s cheek. Judging from media reports, though, one might get the idea Mettler stabbed Badewitz with an ice pick, so outraged and fearful did the incident leave local Prop. 8 opponents.
“If he can’t keep his own temper, I’m worried about what the ‘Yes on 8’ people will do now,” said Whitney Weddell, Bakersfield leader of the “No on Prop. 8” campaign.
Oh, that’s right, I nearly forgot — this Prop. 8 thing is all about victimizing gay people, though Weddell admitted to a reporter that some of the younger members of her group went to the California Avenue rally because “they wanted to be more confrontational” with the “Yes on 8” crowd.
Maybe what Weddell should really worry about are fellow gay-rights activists who believe the law and rules of civility don’t apply to them.
The northwest corner protesters, by virtue of their youth, I suppose, get a free pass for their behavior, which, in recent days included harassing Mettler, mooning Vietnam veterans on the pro-American-troop corner and chasing a couple of Spanish-speaking Prop. 8 supporters up California Avenue.
“I was screaming in Spanish on my megaphone for the sisters to come to our side of the street, but they couldn’t hear me and don’t understand English,” says Pastor Novar Hernandez of Gethsemane Church. “The protesters chased them a quarter block up the street.”
As for that young rascal Badewitz, details of his recent criminal past are gradually making their way north from San Diego, where he was convicted in 2007 for felony drug possession. He also has a restraining order against him, according to court records, the result of a domestic violence case.
All of which, according to local media, was somehow irrelevant to recent events. Now, if the 21-year-old Badewitz had been convicted of, say, felonious assault on a campaign sign, well, then you might have some relevant reading.
Mettler’s decision to walk among the brutes for the sake of a few yard signs wasn’t the best idea he’s ever had — no doubt about it. But how about we set aside the tar and feathers for just a bit and give the police time to finish their investigation.
Mettler, a dedicated public servant who has served our kids and schools for 14 years, says he fought back in self defense.
Badewitz, an out-of-towner with a colorful rap sheet, says otherwise. Why is it that Mettler must bear the full burden of blame?
It’s quite a cost for just crossing the street.
These are Marylee Shrider’s opinions, not necessarily The Californian's. Call her at 395-7474 or write mshrider@bakersfield.com.
mshrider@bakersfield.com | Friday, Oct 31 2008 5:12 PM
Last Updated: Friday, Oct 31 2008 5:10 PM
It’s been a great week for gay-rights activists, Prop. 8 protesters and the local media, all of whom are simply giddy over the infamous sign scuffle at a recent Friday-night rally.
Eight days after the incident, they’re still happily making hay over the video of Kern High School District trustee Ken Mettler punching protester Rob Badewitz.
And who can blame them? I mean, how often does such a gift fall into your lap?
That the video was shot and delivered to newsies by a crony of Badewitz’s and that it conveniently captures only Mettler’s part in the scuffle and that the police are still investigating the incident is apparently irrelevant.
Mettler got the trouble he was asking for, say critics, who are demanding apologies, talking recall and scouring public records for signs of a criminal past.
There isn’t one, save for an accusation six years ago that Mettler vandalized a campaign sign during a re-election run for the Rosedale Union School District. The matter went before Judge Sidney Chapin who threw the frivolous case out of court in under an hour.
In other words, Mettler has no criminal record. But that didn’t stop editorial writers from making the connection anyway, calling it “the same sort of act that enraged him to the point of alleged assault” in regard to the recent scuffle.
Enraged? Mettler? Did anyone actually watch the video?
The video shows Mettler calmly wading through a mob of vulgar, profanity spewing protesters to pick up a pile of “Yes on Prop. 8” signs — signs the protesters are heard to say they paid for, which is weird since the signs are free to anyone who supports the cause. Mettler says it wasn’t until he heard aggressors approaching from behind and spotted Badewitz at his side, that he reacted.
“Out of the corner of my eye, I could see a punch coming,” he said. “I leaned backwards to avoid it and felt the signs pulled from my hands — I threw one punch to defend myself.”
Both men walked away from the fracas uninjured, save for a bruise on Badewitz’s cheek. Judging from media reports, though, one might get the idea Mettler stabbed Badewitz with an ice pick, so outraged and fearful did the incident leave local Prop. 8 opponents.
“If he can’t keep his own temper, I’m worried about what the ‘Yes on 8’ people will do now,” said Whitney Weddell, Bakersfield leader of the “No on Prop. 8” campaign.
Oh, that’s right, I nearly forgot — this Prop. 8 thing is all about victimizing gay people, though Weddell admitted to a reporter that some of the younger members of her group went to the California Avenue rally because “they wanted to be more confrontational” with the “Yes on 8” crowd.
Maybe what Weddell should really worry about are fellow gay-rights activists who believe the law and rules of civility don’t apply to them.
The northwest corner protesters, by virtue of their youth, I suppose, get a free pass for their behavior, which, in recent days included harassing Mettler, mooning Vietnam veterans on the pro-American-troop corner and chasing a couple of Spanish-speaking Prop. 8 supporters up California Avenue.
“I was screaming in Spanish on my megaphone for the sisters to come to our side of the street, but they couldn’t hear me and don’t understand English,” says Pastor Novar Hernandez of Gethsemane Church. “The protesters chased them a quarter block up the street.”
As for that young rascal Badewitz, details of his recent criminal past are gradually making their way north from San Diego, where he was convicted in 2007 for felony drug possession. He also has a restraining order against him, according to court records, the result of a domestic violence case.
All of which, according to local media, was somehow irrelevant to recent events. Now, if the 21-year-old Badewitz had been convicted of, say, felonious assault on a campaign sign, well, then you might have some relevant reading.
Mettler’s decision to walk among the brutes for the sake of a few yard signs wasn’t the best idea he’s ever had — no doubt about it. But how about we set aside the tar and feathers for just a bit and give the police time to finish their investigation.
Mettler, a dedicated public servant who has served our kids and schools for 14 years, says he fought back in self defense.
Badewitz, an out-of-towner with a colorful rap sheet, says otherwise. Why is it that Mettler must bear the full burden of blame?
It’s quite a cost for just crossing the street.
These are Marylee Shrider’s opinions, not necessarily The Californian's. Call her at 395-7474 or write mshrider@bakersfield.com.
California's Prop 8: Turns the Clock Backwards. Are We Ready for That?
Michelle KrausPosted October 31, 2008 | 07:53 PM (EST)
If this is successful in California, civil and human rights are no longer safe in this country. This is not just about those liberals in the land of fruit and nuts. This proposition is discriminatory. It has very little to do with the Church, G-d or school children regardless of all the television infomercials. Prop 8 is an insidious attempt to turn back the clock, and not just to daily light savings time this weekend.
Remarkably, the polls are very, very close foreshadowing larger issues at play in this Election. And if that is true, we must stand together and fight these forces of hatred.
Prop 8 removes dignity and respect from an entire sector of our culture, and relegates them to second class citizenship. It harkens to a society that once again tolerates segregation, discrimination, racism, misogyny, anti-Semitism and class warfare.
This is a time for hope, change and new beginnings. Please step into the future to build a country once again based on equality. Democrats, Republicans, Hollywood, school teachers, Silicon Valley leaders are all unified.
VOTE NO ON PROP 8. It is the only ethical and moral thing to do.
If this is successful in California, civil and human rights are no longer safe in this country. This is not just about those liberals in the land of fruit and nuts. This proposition is discriminatory. It has very little to do with the Church, G-d or school children regardless of all the television infomercials. Prop 8 is an insidious attempt to turn back the clock, and not just to daily light savings time this weekend.
Remarkably, the polls are very, very close foreshadowing larger issues at play in this Election. And if that is true, we must stand together and fight these forces of hatred.
Prop 8 removes dignity and respect from an entire sector of our culture, and relegates them to second class citizenship. It harkens to a society that once again tolerates segregation, discrimination, racism, misogyny, anti-Semitism and class warfare.
This is a time for hope, change and new beginnings. Please step into the future to build a country once again based on equality. Democrats, Republicans, Hollywood, school teachers, Silicon Valley leaders are all unified.
VOTE NO ON PROP 8. It is the only ethical and moral thing to do.
Comparing gay marriage to Hitler
You know, and many of you disagree with, what I think about Proposition 8. But have you heard what Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, thinks of the measure that would change California’s constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage?
In the above video, via Pam’s House Blend, Dacus likens defeating gay marriage to fighting back against Hitler:
“There was another time in history when people, when the bell tolled. And the question was whether or not they were going to hear it. The time was during Nazi Germany with Adolf Hitler. You see he brought crowds of clergy together to assure them that he was going to look after the church.
“And one of the members, bold and courageous, Reverend Niemoller made his way to the front and ... said, ‘Hitler, we are not concerned about the church. Jesus Christ will take care of the church. We are concerned about the soul of Germany.’
“Embarrassed and chagrined, his peers quickly shuffled him to the back.
“And as they did Adolf Hitler said, ‘The soul of Germany, you can leave that to me.’ And they did, and because they did bombs did not only fall upon the nation of Germany, but also upon the church and their testimony to this very day.
“Let us not make that mistake folks. Let us hear the bell! Vote on Proposition 8!”
The Rev. Martin Niemoller, who, with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, was a leader of the Confessing Church, is best known for this moving call to action:
They came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
Not surprisingly, the Anti-Defamation League was “outraged and deeply offended” by Dacus’ comparison. From a strategic standpoint, I’d agree it was a blunder. Voting yes on Prop. 8 is not a move toward Nazism, but Hitler rounded up and murdered gays along with the crippled and the Jews. I don’t think you’d want to make that association.
Posted by Brad A. Greenberg
In the above video, via Pam’s House Blend, Dacus likens defeating gay marriage to fighting back against Hitler:
“There was another time in history when people, when the bell tolled. And the question was whether or not they were going to hear it. The time was during Nazi Germany with Adolf Hitler. You see he brought crowds of clergy together to assure them that he was going to look after the church.
“And one of the members, bold and courageous, Reverend Niemoller made his way to the front and ... said, ‘Hitler, we are not concerned about the church. Jesus Christ will take care of the church. We are concerned about the soul of Germany.’
“Embarrassed and chagrined, his peers quickly shuffled him to the back.
“And as they did Adolf Hitler said, ‘The soul of Germany, you can leave that to me.’ And they did, and because they did bombs did not only fall upon the nation of Germany, but also upon the church and their testimony to this very day.
“Let us not make that mistake folks. Let us hear the bell! Vote on Proposition 8!”
The Rev. Martin Niemoller, who, with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, was a leader of the Confessing Church, is best known for this moving call to action:
They came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
Not surprisingly, the Anti-Defamation League was “outraged and deeply offended” by Dacus’ comparison. From a strategic standpoint, I’d agree it was a blunder. Voting yes on Prop. 8 is not a move toward Nazism, but Hitler rounded up and murdered gays along with the crippled and the Jews. I don’t think you’d want to make that association.
Posted by Brad A. Greenberg
Only 8,444 of you Have Donated to No on 8 -- What Are You Waiting For?
According to a handy zip-code-searching tool at the Chron, about 200 San Franciscans have stuck their noses into their neighbors' marriages by giving money to the anti-marriage campaign. Voting to end your neighbor's marriage? That's messed up. But here's what's even messier: less than 9,000 San Franciscans have donated to No On 8. Seriously, folks? How much easier could it be, especially now that they're matching donations?
And it's not just individuals; four SF companies have have launched attacks on local families, too:
- Blackford Construction gave $200
- Visionary Electronics gave $99
- Large Format Computing gave $1500
- Malta and Co, located in the Richmond, gave $100 (and Elena Malta gave another $100)
Malta and Co already seems to be suffering a bit of Yelp-retribution for its anti-marriage stance. Of course, these people and companies might object to their donations being made the subject of scrutiny -- and we can certainly understand that. It must be simply awful to have strangers involving themselves in your private life. To have people you don't even know talking about your values and personal decisions -- why, that must feel simply dreadful.
Is this conversation sort of like how the Yes On 8 campaign threatened to publish the names of donors to marriage equality? Well, yes. Yes, it is. Thanks for the idea!
Disclosure: SFist_Matt is working on a stop-prop-8 project.
And it's not just individuals; four SF companies have have launched attacks on local families, too:
- Blackford Construction gave $200
- Visionary Electronics gave $99
- Large Format Computing gave $1500
- Malta and Co, located in the Richmond, gave $100 (and Elena Malta gave another $100)
Malta and Co already seems to be suffering a bit of Yelp-retribution for its anti-marriage stance. Of course, these people and companies might object to their donations being made the subject of scrutiny -- and we can certainly understand that. It must be simply awful to have strangers involving themselves in your private life. To have people you don't even know talking about your values and personal decisions -- why, that must feel simply dreadful.
Is this conversation sort of like how the Yes On 8 campaign threatened to publish the names of donors to marriage equality? Well, yes. Yes, it is. Thanks for the idea!
Disclosure: SFist_Matt is working on a stop-prop-8 project.
Prop 8 Signs at Auburn Polling Place Raise Eyebrows
AUBURN, CA - Ty Yarnell has voted at the Bell Road Baptist Church for the past 5 or 6 years with no problems. But she began to feel a little uncomfortable this time around.
The new pastor of the church is in favor of Proposition 8 and has allowed nearly a dozen signs to be placed on the property.
That doesn't sit well with Yarnell, who has a small No on 8 bumper sticker on her car.
"It's a direct insult to those of us who support the opposition side," she said. "I and hundreds of other people will come here on Tuesday to perform our rights and responsibilities as American citizens and it doesn't feel right that that happens to be the only political sign that's posted in front of the church."
Pastor Rob Patterson said the signs are perfectly legal. "As I understand it, the signs have to be farther away than 100 feet from the entrance and these are," he said.
State Election Codes 18370 and 18541 prohibit any signs or campaigning within 100 feet from the entrance of a polling place on election day. The 100-foot restriction means a distance from the room or rooms in which voters are casting ballots, not the entrance to the property.
Yarnell said she sent an e-mail to Placer County elections officials because, while the signs aren't near the door of the church, voters can only access the property by driving past the signs.
"It just didn't seem appropriate," she said. "It is the entrance where hundreds of us will be coming on Tuesday and it felt assaultive to me."
Patterson said he got a call from a county election worker.
"They asked me nicely to remove the signs so even though we are within our rights on election day to leave them where they stand, I've chosen to take them down the night before," Patterson said.
Yarnell said she appreciates the pastor's decision and was happy the issue sparked a conversation.
"Just because there are political signs out in front of your polling place or even homes you drive by, take the time to educate yourself on what you believe to be right and not take the ease route, which is to go with what somebody else believes to be right," said Yarnell.
News10/KXTV
The new pastor of the church is in favor of Proposition 8 and has allowed nearly a dozen signs to be placed on the property.
That doesn't sit well with Yarnell, who has a small No on 8 bumper sticker on her car.
"It's a direct insult to those of us who support the opposition side," she said. "I and hundreds of other people will come here on Tuesday to perform our rights and responsibilities as American citizens and it doesn't feel right that that happens to be the only political sign that's posted in front of the church."
Pastor Rob Patterson said the signs are perfectly legal. "As I understand it, the signs have to be farther away than 100 feet from the entrance and these are," he said.
State Election Codes 18370 and 18541 prohibit any signs or campaigning within 100 feet from the entrance of a polling place on election day. The 100-foot restriction means a distance from the room or rooms in which voters are casting ballots, not the entrance to the property.
Yarnell said she sent an e-mail to Placer County elections officials because, while the signs aren't near the door of the church, voters can only access the property by driving past the signs.
"It just didn't seem appropriate," she said. "It is the entrance where hundreds of us will be coming on Tuesday and it felt assaultive to me."
Patterson said he got a call from a county election worker.
"They asked me nicely to remove the signs so even though we are within our rights on election day to leave them where they stand, I've chosen to take them down the night before," Patterson said.
Yarnell said she appreciates the pastor's decision and was happy the issue sparked a conversation.
"Just because there are political signs out in front of your polling place or even homes you drive by, take the time to educate yourself on what you believe to be right and not take the ease route, which is to go with what somebody else believes to be right," said Yarnell.
News10/KXTV
No On Prop.8 Signs Go Up At Steve Young's Home
PALO ALTO (CBS 5) ― Prominent voices have been coming out in opposition to Proposition 8, California's proposed ban on same-sex marriage — but one of them is a name that might come as a surprise.
The 'Yes On 8' campaign has been funded in large part by members of the Mormon church, but one of the Bay Area's most prominent Mormons and his wife have several "No on 8" signs on their property.
Former San Francisco 49ers' Hall of Fame quarterback Steve Young has two official "No on 8" signs in the windows of his house in Palo Alto.
On Friday, there were also three Halloween-themed signs in Young's yard that also urged people to reject the gay marriage ban.
Young's wife, Barbara, has also donated approximately $50,000 to the "No on 8" campaign aimed at defeating Proposition 8.
Steve Young, answering a doorbell ring at his home late Friday afternoon, declined to comment about the signs in his yard.
But in an e-mailed statement to the gay rights group Equality California, Barbara Young wrote: "We believe all families matter, and we do not believe in discrimination, therefore, our family will vote against Prop. 8."
The 'Yes On 8' campaign has been funded in large part by members of the Mormon church, but one of the Bay Area's most prominent Mormons and his wife have several "No on 8" signs on their property.
Former San Francisco 49ers' Hall of Fame quarterback Steve Young has two official "No on 8" signs in the windows of his house in Palo Alto.
On Friday, there were also three Halloween-themed signs in Young's yard that also urged people to reject the gay marriage ban.
Young's wife, Barbara, has also donated approximately $50,000 to the "No on 8" campaign aimed at defeating Proposition 8.
Steve Young, answering a doorbell ring at his home late Friday afternoon, declined to comment about the signs in his yard.
But in an e-mailed statement to the gay rights group Equality California, Barbara Young wrote: "We believe all families matter, and we do not believe in discrimination, therefore, our family will vote against Prop. 8."
Bill Clinton Gets on the Phone to California Voters
If you live in California, former president Bill Clinton may be giving you a ring.
The 42nd president's voice can be heard on robocalls made to California voters urging them to vote no on Proposition 8: "This is Bill Clinton calling to ask you to vote 'no' on Proposition 8 on Tuesday, November 4th. Proposition 8 would use state law to single out one group of Californians to be treated differently -- discriminating against members of our family, our friends, and our coworkers.
"If I know one thing about California, I know that is not what you're about. That is not what America is about. Please vote 'no' on 8. It's unfair and it's wrong. Thank you."
Millions of California voters heard the message on Thursday night. (Neal Broverman, The Advocate)
The 42nd president's voice can be heard on robocalls made to California voters urging them to vote no on Proposition 8: "This is Bill Clinton calling to ask you to vote 'no' on Proposition 8 on Tuesday, November 4th. Proposition 8 would use state law to single out one group of Californians to be treated differently -- discriminating against members of our family, our friends, and our coworkers.
"If I know one thing about California, I know that is not what you're about. That is not what America is about. Please vote 'no' on 8. It's unfair and it's wrong. Thank you."
Millions of California voters heard the message on Thursday night. (Neal Broverman, The Advocate)
City Official Gets Recall Threats for Opposing Prop. 8
Campbell, Calif., gay city council member Evan Low says some constituents have threatened to recall him for opposing the state's proposed ban on same-sex marriage.
Low wrote an e-mail to supporters on Wednesday, saying that seven people had contacted him that day promising to recall him from office if he did not reverse his opposition to Proposition 8. Low told The Advocate on Friday that the threats have not affected his opposition to banning same-sex marriage.
"It only reaffirms my commitment to why I do what I do," Low said. "This reaffirms why I serve in this capacity, to give a voice to those that are less fortunate, and to also stand up against this horrible, despicable, hateful agenda. It's unfortunate that a proposition like this brings out the worst in people. It's unfortunate that we aren't spending our time and energy on both sides working on something that we can all agree on, like health care and education."
The council member said that voters in Campbell are split on the proposition, but he sees a lot of Yes on 8 signs and banners on lawns and highway overpasses.
"I've actually been to another council member's home where there was a Yes on 8 sign, so it's really challenging," he said. "Not only do we help persuade our friends and neighbors, but to also thank other individuals who are standing up, and putting themselves on the line, and making themselves visible to do so, because there is an inherent risk to doing that."
Low said that he knew one of the callers was a Campbell resident, but was unsure as to where the others lived, according to the Bay Area Reporter.
After receiving the threats earlier this week, Low headed north to San Francisco to campaign against Proposition 8 in Chinatown with Mayor Gavin Newsom. Campbell is in the South Bay, about 50 miles south of San Francisco. (Michelle Garcia, The Advocate)
Low wrote an e-mail to supporters on Wednesday, saying that seven people had contacted him that day promising to recall him from office if he did not reverse his opposition to Proposition 8. Low told The Advocate on Friday that the threats have not affected his opposition to banning same-sex marriage.
"It only reaffirms my commitment to why I do what I do," Low said. "This reaffirms why I serve in this capacity, to give a voice to those that are less fortunate, and to also stand up against this horrible, despicable, hateful agenda. It's unfortunate that a proposition like this brings out the worst in people. It's unfortunate that we aren't spending our time and energy on both sides working on something that we can all agree on, like health care and education."
The council member said that voters in Campbell are split on the proposition, but he sees a lot of Yes on 8 signs and banners on lawns and highway overpasses.
"I've actually been to another council member's home where there was a Yes on 8 sign, so it's really challenging," he said. "Not only do we help persuade our friends and neighbors, but to also thank other individuals who are standing up, and putting themselves on the line, and making themselves visible to do so, because there is an inherent risk to doing that."
Low said that he knew one of the callers was a Campbell resident, but was unsure as to where the others lived, according to the Bay Area Reporter.
After receiving the threats earlier this week, Low headed north to San Francisco to campaign against Proposition 8 in Chinatown with Mayor Gavin Newsom. Campbell is in the South Bay, about 50 miles south of San Francisco. (Michelle Garcia, The Advocate)
Hindus Urged to Vote Against Prop. 8
Navya Shastra, the international Hindu reform organization based in Troy, Mich., sent out a press release Friday urging California voters to reject Proposition 8, which would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry under California law.
The organization notes that Hinduism has never classified homosexuality as a sin. While some ancient law codes have been critical of homosexual acts, the denomination has never called for the persecution of gays. In fact, there is ample evidence that alternative lifestyles have been accepted throughout Hindu history. Several modern Hindu leaders have also spoken positively of gay rights; however, many American Hindus remain uncomfortable with homosexuality.
“According to the Hindu contemplative tradition, we are all manifestations of the one universal spirit, straight or gay, and worthy of the same respect and rights” said Jaishree Gopal, chairman of Navya Shastra, in the release. “We urge American Hindus in California to remember this central insight of their faith when they vote on November 4.” (The Advocate)
The organization notes that Hinduism has never classified homosexuality as a sin. While some ancient law codes have been critical of homosexual acts, the denomination has never called for the persecution of gays. In fact, there is ample evidence that alternative lifestyles have been accepted throughout Hindu history. Several modern Hindu leaders have also spoken positively of gay rights; however, many American Hindus remain uncomfortable with homosexuality.
“According to the Hindu contemplative tradition, we are all manifestations of the one universal spirit, straight or gay, and worthy of the same respect and rights” said Jaishree Gopal, chairman of Navya Shastra, in the release. “We urge American Hindus in California to remember this central insight of their faith when they vote on November 4.” (The Advocate)
In the Belly of No on 8
When former Log Cabin Republicans president Patrick Guerriero came to San Francisco to visit the No on 8 headquarters, he didn’t know he’d wind up staying to run the biggest LGBT rights political campaign in history. But with a measly million in the bank and the Mormon church raising money hand over fist, No on 8 needed help, and Guerriero stepped in to close the gap -- and, with any luck, make history.
By Christopher Lisotta
An Advocate.com exclusive posted October 31, 2008
The No on 8 campaign headquarters is located on San Francisco’s Market Street in a space that was once the home of Tower Records. Dance mix CDs and DVD displays have been replaced with table after table of volunteers, who on the last Wednesday before the November 4 election are working their cell phones to encourage Californians to vote no on the ballot measure. If passed, Proposition 8 would ban same-sex marriages in California just months after the state supreme court voted narrowly to strike down laws preventing gay and lesbian couples from getting hitched.
Considering the polls showing 8’s potential passage, the onslaught of out-of-state money raised by the Yes on 8 campaign, and the damage done by Yes on 8 ads featuring scared parents and vulnerable children, I expect to find a much more tense, scared office. But the receptionist seems to represent the energy of place: focused, businesslike, and surprisingly calm.
I’m there to see Patrick Guerriero, who less than a month ago became No on 8’s campaign director. The former president of the Log Cabin Republicans, Guerriero now runs the Colorado-based Gill Action Fund, an issue advocacy organization founded by gay software mogul Tim Gill that promotes LGBT political rights. After being ushered into a smaller set of offices that are nonetheless full with No on 8’s media team and a “war room”–like conference call among No on 8 staffers, Guerriero comes out of an even smaller room, working his BlackBerry. It’s clear that if you told Guerriero six weeks ago he would be in California working full-time on the fight of his life, he would have said you’re crazy.
“I just came to visit in late September to check on the status of the campaign and to offer support from Gill Action,” he said. “Right about the time I came here there was a growing awareness the Mormon church had basically made an unprecedented financial commitment to raising a record amount of money in a social issue campaign.”
During the summer, No on 8 organizers were estimating $20 million would be needed to defeat the amendment, and with early polls showing a lack of support for Proposition 8 and a fairly muted opposition that hadn’t yet launched a media campaign, the No campaign appeared on track.
But the October fund-raising report brought No on 8 supporters cataclysmic news. Proposition supporters, with major help from very organized out-of-state Mormon donors, had raised $25 million and boasted $12 million in the bank, while No on 8 had raised only $15 million with a measly $1 million in the bank.
By Christopher Lisotta
An Advocate.com exclusive posted October 31, 2008
The No on 8 campaign headquarters is located on San Francisco’s Market Street in a space that was once the home of Tower Records. Dance mix CDs and DVD displays have been replaced with table after table of volunteers, who on the last Wednesday before the November 4 election are working their cell phones to encourage Californians to vote no on the ballot measure. If passed, Proposition 8 would ban same-sex marriages in California just months after the state supreme court voted narrowly to strike down laws preventing gay and lesbian couples from getting hitched.
Considering the polls showing 8’s potential passage, the onslaught of out-of-state money raised by the Yes on 8 campaign, and the damage done by Yes on 8 ads featuring scared parents and vulnerable children, I expect to find a much more tense, scared office. But the receptionist seems to represent the energy of place: focused, businesslike, and surprisingly calm.
I’m there to see Patrick Guerriero, who less than a month ago became No on 8’s campaign director. The former president of the Log Cabin Republicans, Guerriero now runs the Colorado-based Gill Action Fund, an issue advocacy organization founded by gay software mogul Tim Gill that promotes LGBT political rights. After being ushered into a smaller set of offices that are nonetheless full with No on 8’s media team and a “war room”–like conference call among No on 8 staffers, Guerriero comes out of an even smaller room, working his BlackBerry. It’s clear that if you told Guerriero six weeks ago he would be in California working full-time on the fight of his life, he would have said you’re crazy.
“I just came to visit in late September to check on the status of the campaign and to offer support from Gill Action,” he said. “Right about the time I came here there was a growing awareness the Mormon church had basically made an unprecedented financial commitment to raising a record amount of money in a social issue campaign.”
During the summer, No on 8 organizers were estimating $20 million would be needed to defeat the amendment, and with early polls showing a lack of support for Proposition 8 and a fairly muted opposition that hadn’t yet launched a media campaign, the No campaign appeared on track.
But the October fund-raising report brought No on 8 supporters cataclysmic news. Proposition supporters, with major help from very organized out-of-state Mormon donors, had raised $25 million and boasted $12 million in the bank, while No on 8 had raised only $15 million with a measly $1 million in the bank.
Same-Sex Rush to the altar before Election Day
By Mike Swift
Mercury News
Article Launched: 10/31/2008 06:14:06 PM PDT
Like any wedding, there were proud moms aiming cameras, Kleenex wordlessly passed and two people standing before family and friends, their eyes so deeply locked that it felt they might never look away.
For Paula Jabloner and Lisa Miller, Joseph Toves and Jorge Hernandez, Weston McMillan and Danny Strilchuk, Linda Hulberg and Michelle Dana, among a surge of same-sex couples who got married in San Jose this week, there was also a deep feeling of happiness as a deputy wedding commissioner intoned the identical 13 words:
"I now pronounce you married under the laws of the state of California."
Four days from now, after California votes on whether to ban same-sex marriage, they may not be able to hear those words. For the same-sex couples who married this week just before Election Day, there was certainly happiness. But if their happiness was just as deep, it was more subdued than on June 17, when a triumphant line of gay and lesbian couples formed soon after dawn outside the county offices in San Jose, waiting to become the first same-sex couples married in Santa Clara County.
Many couples who took their vows in the little wedding chapel at the Santa Clara County building this week say they accelerated their plans, to say "I thee wed" before the state votes on Proposition 8 Tuesday.
"It kind of feels like a shotgun wedding," Miller, an archivist at the Hoover Institute at Stanford, said Friday with a rueful smile as she stood with
Jabloner, who is also an archivist, at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View. "Neither one of us is pregnant, but . . ."
Around the Bay Area, even in areas like Silicon Valley and the East Bay where gay people are not as numerous or visible as in San Francisco, county officials say 20 to 30 percent more people have gotten married this October than the same month last year. Business is growing more brisk as Election Day approaches.
Most counties do not track the gender of wedding partners, but clerk-recorders are confident that same-sex couples worried about Prop. 8 are one reason for the increase.
"From what I'm hearing by phone calls and the public that's coming in, that's why they are coming in," said Kevin Hing, chief of the clerk-recorder's office in Alameda County, where the number of weddings this past week was more than a third-higher than last week.
In Santa Clara County, the number of weddings performed in the county offices this month will be at least 25 percent higher than last October. Gina Alcomendras, the county-clerk recorder, is setting aside an auditorium Monday at 4 p.m. for a mass ceremony, to accommodate any last-minute rush. A mass ceremony Friday afternoon drew nine couples.
Even clerk-recorders are uncertain about what will happen if Prop. 8 passes. While the constitutional ban would take effect immediately, the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials don't know what to do about same-sex couples who receive a 90-day marriage license before Nov. 4, but plan to marry later.
"If somebody buys their license on the First, and the measure passes and takes effect, and you go to get married on the 10th, does it count or not?" said Stephen Weir, clerk-recorder in Contra Costa County and past president of the state association. "We don't know."
If Prop. 8 passes, the fate of same-sex couples who have already married is certain to wind up back in the courts, as well as an anticipated challenge to whether it is constitutional for California to revive its ban on same-sex marriage.
All that uncertainty has been weighing on many couples with marriage plans.
Clark Williams of San Jose, had planned to marry his partner Jim Moore in April, and they had even put a deposit down on a big hall. Instead, they decided to save some money and make a statement.
By moving up their wedding and sending out announcements of their Oct. 17 wedding to as many people as they could, they hoped to influence some to vote No on Prop. 8.
"Jim and I are fairly well integrated into the community," Williams said. "But we do know people who, we're the only gay people that they know."
Miller and Jabloner of San Jose, who have been together for 12 years, were also planning to wait until next year to get married. So were Hulberg and Dana, who live in Morgan Hill and have been together for six and a half years. News reports convinced them they couldn't wait.
"We were looking at the polls, and decided we should get married," said Hulberg, "just in case."
On Thursday, Hulberg, a mortgage broker, and Dana, who works for Cisco Systems, got their two-year-old daughter up, and their twin nine-year-old sons off the school. Hulbert installed two "No on 8" campaign signs on their front lawn. Dressed in Navy blue pant suits, the couple headed off to San Jose.
Dana said one reason to get married was to send a message to their kids. Marriage, she thought, would help convey "the normalcy" of their family to the children.
As two close friends took photos, the two women stood facing each other in front of a white trellis in the 15-person chapel off the cafeteria in the county office building. Hulberg lightly rested her left hand on Dana's shoulder as deputy marriage commissioner Joseph Stasi, a volunteer, began the ceremony.
Afterwards, the happy couple drove home to Morgan Hill. As they pulled into the driveway, they received an unpleasant wedding gift.
The "No on 8" campaign signs Hulberg had posted on her property that morning were gone.
Mercury News Staff Writer Howard Mintz contributed to this story. Contact Mike Swift at (408) 271-3648 or at mswift@mercurynews.com.
Mercury News
Article Launched: 10/31/2008 06:14:06 PM PDT
Like any wedding, there were proud moms aiming cameras, Kleenex wordlessly passed and two people standing before family and friends, their eyes so deeply locked that it felt they might never look away.
For Paula Jabloner and Lisa Miller, Joseph Toves and Jorge Hernandez, Weston McMillan and Danny Strilchuk, Linda Hulberg and Michelle Dana, among a surge of same-sex couples who got married in San Jose this week, there was also a deep feeling of happiness as a deputy wedding commissioner intoned the identical 13 words:
"I now pronounce you married under the laws of the state of California."
Four days from now, after California votes on whether to ban same-sex marriage, they may not be able to hear those words. For the same-sex couples who married this week just before Election Day, there was certainly happiness. But if their happiness was just as deep, it was more subdued than on June 17, when a triumphant line of gay and lesbian couples formed soon after dawn outside the county offices in San Jose, waiting to become the first same-sex couples married in Santa Clara County.
Many couples who took their vows in the little wedding chapel at the Santa Clara County building this week say they accelerated their plans, to say "I thee wed" before the state votes on Proposition 8 Tuesday.
"It kind of feels like a shotgun wedding," Miller, an archivist at the Hoover Institute at Stanford, said Friday with a rueful smile as she stood with
Jabloner, who is also an archivist, at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View. "Neither one of us is pregnant, but . . ."
Around the Bay Area, even in areas like Silicon Valley and the East Bay where gay people are not as numerous or visible as in San Francisco, county officials say 20 to 30 percent more people have gotten married this October than the same month last year. Business is growing more brisk as Election Day approaches.
Most counties do not track the gender of wedding partners, but clerk-recorders are confident that same-sex couples worried about Prop. 8 are one reason for the increase.
"From what I'm hearing by phone calls and the public that's coming in, that's why they are coming in," said Kevin Hing, chief of the clerk-recorder's office in Alameda County, where the number of weddings this past week was more than a third-higher than last week.
In Santa Clara County, the number of weddings performed in the county offices this month will be at least 25 percent higher than last October. Gina Alcomendras, the county-clerk recorder, is setting aside an auditorium Monday at 4 p.m. for a mass ceremony, to accommodate any last-minute rush. A mass ceremony Friday afternoon drew nine couples.
Even clerk-recorders are uncertain about what will happen if Prop. 8 passes. While the constitutional ban would take effect immediately, the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials don't know what to do about same-sex couples who receive a 90-day marriage license before Nov. 4, but plan to marry later.
"If somebody buys their license on the First, and the measure passes and takes effect, and you go to get married on the 10th, does it count or not?" said Stephen Weir, clerk-recorder in Contra Costa County and past president of the state association. "We don't know."
If Prop. 8 passes, the fate of same-sex couples who have already married is certain to wind up back in the courts, as well as an anticipated challenge to whether it is constitutional for California to revive its ban on same-sex marriage.
All that uncertainty has been weighing on many couples with marriage plans.
Clark Williams of San Jose, had planned to marry his partner Jim Moore in April, and they had even put a deposit down on a big hall. Instead, they decided to save some money and make a statement.
By moving up their wedding and sending out announcements of their Oct. 17 wedding to as many people as they could, they hoped to influence some to vote No on Prop. 8.
"Jim and I are fairly well integrated into the community," Williams said. "But we do know people who, we're the only gay people that they know."
Miller and Jabloner of San Jose, who have been together for 12 years, were also planning to wait until next year to get married. So were Hulberg and Dana, who live in Morgan Hill and have been together for six and a half years. News reports convinced them they couldn't wait.
"We were looking at the polls, and decided we should get married," said Hulberg, "just in case."
On Thursday, Hulberg, a mortgage broker, and Dana, who works for Cisco Systems, got their two-year-old daughter up, and their twin nine-year-old sons off the school. Hulbert installed two "No on 8" campaign signs on their front lawn. Dressed in Navy blue pant suits, the couple headed off to San Jose.
Dana said one reason to get married was to send a message to their kids. Marriage, she thought, would help convey "the normalcy" of their family to the children.
As two close friends took photos, the two women stood facing each other in front of a white trellis in the 15-person chapel off the cafeteria in the county office building. Hulberg lightly rested her left hand on Dana's shoulder as deputy marriage commissioner Joseph Stasi, a volunteer, began the ceremony.
Afterwards, the happy couple drove home to Morgan Hill. As they pulled into the driveway, they received an unpleasant wedding gift.
The "No on 8" campaign signs Hulberg had posted on her property that morning were gone.
Mercury News Staff Writer Howard Mintz contributed to this story. Contact Mike Swift at (408) 271-3648 or at mswift@mercurynews.com.
Prop. 8 still trails, but margin narrows
John Wildermuth, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, October 31, 2008
The struggle over Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage in California, has tightened dramatically in the past month, with opponents holding a slim 49 to 44 percent edge among likely voters, according to a new Field Poll.
"The 'Yes' campaign has raised some doubts and moved people over to their side," said Mark DiCamillo, the poll's director. "A relatively large segment of voters are in conflict over this measure."
The new poll also showed that Proposition 2, which would require bigger cages and pens for farm animals, appears headed toward an easy victory on Tuesday with a 60 to 27 percent lead. The news is worse for Proposition 7, the renewable energy generation measure, which is now losing 39 to 43 percent, down from 63 percent support a month ago.
Proposition 11, which would let a citizens' committee draw political boundaries in the state, holds a solid 45 to 30 percent lead, but 25 percent of likely voters still haven't made up their minds.
But the same-sex marriage battle is the top California issue on the ballot and the new poll suggests the final margin could be razor thin, with victory within reach for either side.
Opponents of Prop. 8 saw their 17-point lead in the September Field Poll melt away in the face of a multimillion-dollar onslaught of TV ads, leaving them hanging on desperately to their lead.
They still have a lead, however, with Prop. 8 supporters running out of time.
"I like the fact that the 'Yes' side is stuck in the mid-40s," said Steve Smith, political consultant for the opposition effort. "The other side is clearly having trouble crossing the 50 percent barrier."
History suggests that Prop. 8 supporters have a tough road ahead, DiCamillo said.
"Undecided voters in proposition races tend to come down on the 'No' side," he added.
But Prop. 8 supporters were pleased with the new numbers.
"We're moving in the right direction," said Chip White, a spokesman for Yes on Prop. 8. "Momentum is clearly on our side in what's going to be a close race."
The poll showed just how divided voters are over same-sex marriage. Sixty-five percent of likely voters agreed that traditional marriage is "one of the cornerstones of the country's Judeo-Christian heritage" and 50 percent agreed that Prop. 8 restores the institution of traditional marriage without taking domestic partnership rights from gay or lesbian couples.
But 61 percent also agreed that Prop. 8 would deny one class of citizens "the dignity and responsibility of marriage" and 58 percent believe that domestic partnership laws don't give same-sex couples "the same certainty and security that marriage laws provide."
With individuals forced to deal with their own conflicting views on the same-sex marriage issue, "voters are giving this a much more nuanced look" in the days before the election, DiCamillo said.
The poll found that 22 percent of those surveyed already have voted and that this group backed Prop. 8, 50 to 44 percent. But the early voters are older and somewhat more conservative than those who will cast ballots at the polls, DiCamillo said.
Voters 65 and older is the only age group that supports Prop. 8, while people in California's populous coastal region oppose the measure, 54 to 39 percent.
Minority groups, expected to come out strongly for Democrat Barack Obama on Tuesday, could play a key role in the Prop. 8 vote. Latino voters are split almost evenly, 46 to 48 percent, on the measure, while black voters back the same-sex marriage ban, 49 to 43 percent.
Catholics, who make up nearly a quarter of likely voters, also could make a difference, DiCamillo said. Catholics opposed Prop. 8 by a 48 to 44 percent margin, but that's down from 55 to 36 percent a month ago.
When the Proposition 22 same-sex marriage ban was on the ballot in 2000, Catholics were split almost evenly in the final pre-election poll, DiCamillo said. But exit polls showed Catholics actually voting for Prop. 22 by 15 points.
"The Sunday before the election could be important, since people may hear priests and ministers preaching against same-sex marriage," he said.
The survey is based on a telephone poll of 966 likely voters, taken between Oct. 18 and 28. Polls on ballot measures other than Prop. 8 were divided into random subsamples of 481 and 485 likely voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.3 percentage points in the overall sample and plus or minus 4.6 percent in the subsets.
E-mail John Wildermuth at jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com.
Friday, October 31, 2008
The struggle over Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage in California, has tightened dramatically in the past month, with opponents holding a slim 49 to 44 percent edge among likely voters, according to a new Field Poll.
"The 'Yes' campaign has raised some doubts and moved people over to their side," said Mark DiCamillo, the poll's director. "A relatively large segment of voters are in conflict over this measure."
The new poll also showed that Proposition 2, which would require bigger cages and pens for farm animals, appears headed toward an easy victory on Tuesday with a 60 to 27 percent lead. The news is worse for Proposition 7, the renewable energy generation measure, which is now losing 39 to 43 percent, down from 63 percent support a month ago.
Proposition 11, which would let a citizens' committee draw political boundaries in the state, holds a solid 45 to 30 percent lead, but 25 percent of likely voters still haven't made up their minds.
But the same-sex marriage battle is the top California issue on the ballot and the new poll suggests the final margin could be razor thin, with victory within reach for either side.
Opponents of Prop. 8 saw their 17-point lead in the September Field Poll melt away in the face of a multimillion-dollar onslaught of TV ads, leaving them hanging on desperately to their lead.
They still have a lead, however, with Prop. 8 supporters running out of time.
"I like the fact that the 'Yes' side is stuck in the mid-40s," said Steve Smith, political consultant for the opposition effort. "The other side is clearly having trouble crossing the 50 percent barrier."
History suggests that Prop. 8 supporters have a tough road ahead, DiCamillo said.
"Undecided voters in proposition races tend to come down on the 'No' side," he added.
But Prop. 8 supporters were pleased with the new numbers.
"We're moving in the right direction," said Chip White, a spokesman for Yes on Prop. 8. "Momentum is clearly on our side in what's going to be a close race."
The poll showed just how divided voters are over same-sex marriage. Sixty-five percent of likely voters agreed that traditional marriage is "one of the cornerstones of the country's Judeo-Christian heritage" and 50 percent agreed that Prop. 8 restores the institution of traditional marriage without taking domestic partnership rights from gay or lesbian couples.
But 61 percent also agreed that Prop. 8 would deny one class of citizens "the dignity and responsibility of marriage" and 58 percent believe that domestic partnership laws don't give same-sex couples "the same certainty and security that marriage laws provide."
With individuals forced to deal with their own conflicting views on the same-sex marriage issue, "voters are giving this a much more nuanced look" in the days before the election, DiCamillo said.
The poll found that 22 percent of those surveyed already have voted and that this group backed Prop. 8, 50 to 44 percent. But the early voters are older and somewhat more conservative than those who will cast ballots at the polls, DiCamillo said.
Voters 65 and older is the only age group that supports Prop. 8, while people in California's populous coastal region oppose the measure, 54 to 39 percent.
Minority groups, expected to come out strongly for Democrat Barack Obama on Tuesday, could play a key role in the Prop. 8 vote. Latino voters are split almost evenly, 46 to 48 percent, on the measure, while black voters back the same-sex marriage ban, 49 to 43 percent.
Catholics, who make up nearly a quarter of likely voters, also could make a difference, DiCamillo said. Catholics opposed Prop. 8 by a 48 to 44 percent margin, but that's down from 55 to 36 percent a month ago.
When the Proposition 22 same-sex marriage ban was on the ballot in 2000, Catholics were split almost evenly in the final pre-election poll, DiCamillo said. But exit polls showed Catholics actually voting for Prop. 22 by 15 points.
"The Sunday before the election could be important, since people may hear priests and ministers preaching against same-sex marriage," he said.
The survey is based on a telephone poll of 966 likely voters, taken between Oct. 18 and 28. Polls on ballot measures other than Prop. 8 were divided into random subsamples of 481 and 485 likely voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.3 percentage points in the overall sample and plus or minus 4.6 percent in the subsets.
E-mail John Wildermuth at jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com.
Passions, Budgets Sky-High Over Prop 8
California Vote To Reverse Same-Sex Marriage Ruling A Heated Issue
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS) ― When California's Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage legal, most polls showed majority support around the state. That's not the case anymore, CBS News correspondent John Blackstone reports.
"I am really worried," said Willie Brown, a former mayor of San Francisco.
Brown, one of the wise men of California politics, says the battle over Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage, is raising passions and money across the country.
The passion reaches into normally quiet neighborhoods, such as the one where Tom and Kelly Byrne put out a "Yes on 8" sign - only to have it answered by graffiti.
"I've heard that a lot, that we're 'haters,'" said Kelly Byrne, who opposes gay marriage.
For the Byrnes, voting "yes" on 8 is returning marriage to the meaning it has always held.
"I can't just redefine a word. I can't take the word 'heterosexual' and say that it means someone who has a sexual preference for plants, right? So it is by the same token, no one else should be able to take the word 'marriage' and redefine it to mean something else that they feel it should mean," said Tom Byrne.
Jeanne Rizzo and Pali Cooper feel strongly that the meaning of marriage should include them.
"There is something really special about a wedding and marriage," said Cooper, who supports gay marriage.
They fought all the way to California's Supreme Court, and won last May. Proposition 8 would ban future gay marriages.
"Now it really is about taking something away from us," said Rizzo. "That's not OK with me."
It's an issue that has been raising strong emotions and an impressive amount of money. More than $31 million has poured into the anti-same-sex marriage campaign.
But what could be priceless is the boost the campaign gets every Sunday in church.
"It's decision time in our lives today," said Pastor Edward Smith, who leaves no doubt how he expects his congregation to vote. "Our posture is we want to preserve marriage as being defined between a man and a woman from the beginning of time."
But on the other side, the campaign to keep same-sex marriage has raised more than $44 million, fueling the TV ad war.
With both sides viewing this vote as crucial, this is a campaign where both budgets and passions are sky high.
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS) ― When California's Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage legal, most polls showed majority support around the state. That's not the case anymore, CBS News correspondent John Blackstone reports.
"I am really worried," said Willie Brown, a former mayor of San Francisco.
Brown, one of the wise men of California politics, says the battle over Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage, is raising passions and money across the country.
The passion reaches into normally quiet neighborhoods, such as the one where Tom and Kelly Byrne put out a "Yes on 8" sign - only to have it answered by graffiti.
"I've heard that a lot, that we're 'haters,'" said Kelly Byrne, who opposes gay marriage.
For the Byrnes, voting "yes" on 8 is returning marriage to the meaning it has always held.
"I can't just redefine a word. I can't take the word 'heterosexual' and say that it means someone who has a sexual preference for plants, right? So it is by the same token, no one else should be able to take the word 'marriage' and redefine it to mean something else that they feel it should mean," said Tom Byrne.
Jeanne Rizzo and Pali Cooper feel strongly that the meaning of marriage should include them.
"There is something really special about a wedding and marriage," said Cooper, who supports gay marriage.
They fought all the way to California's Supreme Court, and won last May. Proposition 8 would ban future gay marriages.
"Now it really is about taking something away from us," said Rizzo. "That's not OK with me."
It's an issue that has been raising strong emotions and an impressive amount of money. More than $31 million has poured into the anti-same-sex marriage campaign.
But what could be priceless is the boost the campaign gets every Sunday in church.
"It's decision time in our lives today," said Pastor Edward Smith, who leaves no doubt how he expects his congregation to vote. "Our posture is we want to preserve marriage as being defined between a man and a woman from the beginning of time."
But on the other side, the campaign to keep same-sex marriage has raised more than $44 million, fueling the TV ad war.
With both sides viewing this vote as crucial, this is a campaign where both budgets and passions are sky high.
Critically thinking Prop 8
Premise #1: The Mormon Church has spent the last three months intimidating their members into giving money to "Yes on Prop 8,” which would take marriage rights away from same-sex couples, telling Mormon families that their "souls will be in jeopardy" if they do not contribute.
Premise #2: According to the Sacramento Bee, members of the Mormon Church have contributed a whopping $8 million to the "Yes on 8" campaign, about 40 percent of the total amount raised as of October 13, to pass a ballot measure that removes basic civil rights from our state constitution.
Premise #3: This week, the Prop 8 campaign sent a certified letter to several California businesses, demanding that they withdraw their support for Equality California, a nonprofit organization leading the "No on 8" campaign, and instead donate to support the Prop 8 campaign. The price of not complying? Placement on a public blacklist of anti-Prop 8 businesses published by the official "Yes on 8" campaign.
Conclusion: The Mormon Church wishes to shove their religious doctrine down Californians’ throats, eliminate equal rights, and ruin business for those who refuse to be intimidated by them.
Tommy Gleason
Rough and Ready
Premise #2: According to the Sacramento Bee, members of the Mormon Church have contributed a whopping $8 million to the "Yes on 8" campaign, about 40 percent of the total amount raised as of October 13, to pass a ballot measure that removes basic civil rights from our state constitution.
Premise #3: This week, the Prop 8 campaign sent a certified letter to several California businesses, demanding that they withdraw their support for Equality California, a nonprofit organization leading the "No on 8" campaign, and instead donate to support the Prop 8 campaign. The price of not complying? Placement on a public blacklist of anti-Prop 8 businesses published by the official "Yes on 8" campaign.
Conclusion: The Mormon Church wishes to shove their religious doctrine down Californians’ throats, eliminate equal rights, and ruin business for those who refuse to be intimidated by them.
Tommy Gleason
Rough and Ready
There's some confusion about Prop 8
In reading letters to the editor and talking to people about Proposition 8, I think there is some confusion about it. Some people believe that they are voting on if it is acceptable to be gay. We are not voting on if we think it is morally acceptable to be gay. We are voting on if gay people should be allowed to have the right to marry. Should we treat a portion of our population as "less than" and deny them a right? That is the question.
As far as people who feel threatened by this, I don't understand why. I am married and it doesn't bother or affect me or my marriage if same-sex couples marry too. In fact, it is none of my business.
I don't understand why people are so afraid of allowing gay people a right that everybody else has. It reminds me of an old saying, "You are what you fear the most."
J. Ristow
Penn Valley
As far as people who feel threatened by this, I don't understand why. I am married and it doesn't bother or affect me or my marriage if same-sex couples marry too. In fact, it is none of my business.
I don't understand why people are so afraid of allowing gay people a right that everybody else has. It reminds me of an old saying, "You are what you fear the most."
J. Ristow
Penn Valley
UCSB Students Rally Against Proposition 4 and 8
Candace Gingrich Speaks at Campus Event Encouraging Gay, Women’s Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, October 31, 2008
By Shannon Switzer
Flashes of red and white filled Storke Plaza today on UCSB’s campus as a flurry of posters reading ‘Vote No on 4 & 8’ were waved at the rally against what are perhaps California’s most controversial propositions in the November 4 election.
The rally was sponsored by the Get Up Vote Down campaign, an active political organization on college campuses statewide. Its goal is to convince students to vote against Proposition 4 — which would require doctors to inform a guardian and wait 48-hours before performing abortions on girls under 18 — and Proposition 8 — which would amend the state constitution to prohibit marriages between same-sex couples.
A star-studded lineup spoke at the event including key note speaker Candace Gingrich — the famous spokeswoman for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community and sister of former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich — who flew in from Washington D.C. to show her support. Candace Gingrich energized the crowd with calls help fight props 4 and 8. “We need people to base their decision on the truth, and the only way they’ll know the truth is if you tell them,” she urged.
When asked later if she thinks these rallies are effective in convincing people to vote no when they might on the fence on the matter or even in support of such measures, Gingrich again emphasized the importance of spreading a message. “While most of the events I attend are like preaching to the choir, the important part is getting the choir to sing,” she said.
Hannah Beth-Jackson, the democratic candidate for California’s 19th state senate seat, also stirred the crowd with her words. When she encouraged everyone to “Look forward to your future,” a lone protestor, who identified himself as Paul and had been periodically yelling over the speakers, screamed, “That’ll be hell!” Jackson responded quickly: “We want a world where we love each other. We want a nation whose government reflects our equality in God’s eyes,” she said, eliciting cheers from the crowd.
Congresswoman Lois Capps, running for re-election as representative of the 23rd congressional district and Doreen Farr, running for 3rd District Supervisor, also gave well-received speeches at the rally. Capps, similarly interrupted by Paul the protestor, responded, “This country and God are watching what we are going to do on Prop 8.”
Reverend Nicole Jeanelle of Isla Vista’s St. Michael’s Episcopal Church also shared her support for voting no. “Gay and lesbian couples are valuable members of our community of faith,” she explained.
Aside from Paul the protestor, no other opposition appeared at the rally. Everyone interviewed had already decided to vote no on prop 8. Annie Young, an 18 year-old pre-biology major who said, “While the presidential election is important, I registered on the last possible day mainly to vote no on [Proposition] 8.”
However, Keily Campagna, a freshman majoring in English, while certain to vote no on Proposition 8, shared her indecision about how to vote on Prop 4. “On the whole abortion thing, I have views on both sides. It’s not black and white to me at all,” she explained after the rally was over. Her uncertainty also reflects statewide polls recently conducted by The Public Policy Institute of California and the Knights of Columbus by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, which have independently released conflicting results on the fate of Prop 4.
One of the key organizers of the event and emcee at the rally, Amanda Wallner emphasized that her main goal of participating is to equip voters with information so they can make it through the numerous propositions and measures on voting day. She and the Get Up Vote Down campaign know there’s a long ballot of potentially confusing issues to decide on and want to insure people don’t get overwhelmed. “We want people to feel confident in where they stand so they will vote all the way down the ballot next Tuesday,” she explained.
Shannon Switzer is an Independent intern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, October 31, 2008
By Shannon Switzer
Flashes of red and white filled Storke Plaza today on UCSB’s campus as a flurry of posters reading ‘Vote No on 4 & 8’ were waved at the rally against what are perhaps California’s most controversial propositions in the November 4 election.
The rally was sponsored by the Get Up Vote Down campaign, an active political organization on college campuses statewide. Its goal is to convince students to vote against Proposition 4 — which would require doctors to inform a guardian and wait 48-hours before performing abortions on girls under 18 — and Proposition 8 — which would amend the state constitution to prohibit marriages between same-sex couples.
A star-studded lineup spoke at the event including key note speaker Candace Gingrich — the famous spokeswoman for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community and sister of former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich — who flew in from Washington D.C. to show her support. Candace Gingrich energized the crowd with calls help fight props 4 and 8. “We need people to base their decision on the truth, and the only way they’ll know the truth is if you tell them,” she urged.
When asked later if she thinks these rallies are effective in convincing people to vote no when they might on the fence on the matter or even in support of such measures, Gingrich again emphasized the importance of spreading a message. “While most of the events I attend are like preaching to the choir, the important part is getting the choir to sing,” she said.
Hannah Beth-Jackson, the democratic candidate for California’s 19th state senate seat, also stirred the crowd with her words. When she encouraged everyone to “Look forward to your future,” a lone protestor, who identified himself as Paul and had been periodically yelling over the speakers, screamed, “That’ll be hell!” Jackson responded quickly: “We want a world where we love each other. We want a nation whose government reflects our equality in God’s eyes,” she said, eliciting cheers from the crowd.
Congresswoman Lois Capps, running for re-election as representative of the 23rd congressional district and Doreen Farr, running for 3rd District Supervisor, also gave well-received speeches at the rally. Capps, similarly interrupted by Paul the protestor, responded, “This country and God are watching what we are going to do on Prop 8.”
Reverend Nicole Jeanelle of Isla Vista’s St. Michael’s Episcopal Church also shared her support for voting no. “Gay and lesbian couples are valuable members of our community of faith,” she explained.
Aside from Paul the protestor, no other opposition appeared at the rally. Everyone interviewed had already decided to vote no on prop 8. Annie Young, an 18 year-old pre-biology major who said, “While the presidential election is important, I registered on the last possible day mainly to vote no on [Proposition] 8.”
However, Keily Campagna, a freshman majoring in English, while certain to vote no on Proposition 8, shared her indecision about how to vote on Prop 4. “On the whole abortion thing, I have views on both sides. It’s not black and white to me at all,” she explained after the rally was over. Her uncertainty also reflects statewide polls recently conducted by The Public Policy Institute of California and the Knights of Columbus by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, which have independently released conflicting results on the fate of Prop 4.
One of the key organizers of the event and emcee at the rally, Amanda Wallner emphasized that her main goal of participating is to equip voters with information so they can make it through the numerous propositions and measures on voting day. She and the Get Up Vote Down campaign know there’s a long ballot of potentially confusing issues to decide on and want to insure people don’t get overwhelmed. “We want people to feel confident in where they stand so they will vote all the way down the ballot next Tuesday,” she explained.
Shannon Switzer is an Independent intern
Poll: 49% of Likely Voters Oppose Prop. 8
11/01/08-11/03/08
Poll: 49% of Likely Voters Oppose Prop. 8
A poll released on Thursday shows that 49% of likely California voters oppose Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage. The Field Poll also showed that 44% of likely voters were in favor of the measure, while 7% remained undecided. The results indicate a narrowing of opinion since the last Field Poll in mid September, when 55% of respondents opposed Prop. 8 and 38% supported it.
"It's certainly closer than it was before the advertising campaign hit," Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo told the Sacramento Bee. "A lot of that has to do with the campaigning on the yes [on 8] side."
The No on 8 campaign, however, saw reason for optimism. In a statement, No on 8's senior campaign adviser Steve Smith said the poll shows that the opposition's "deceptive campaign has failed to move their numbers much at all," noting that in this survey and others, support for Prop. 8 has remained below 50%.
According to the poll, 22% of respondents have already voted. Among that group, the yes side was ahead by six points. (The Advocate)
Poll: 49% of Likely Voters Oppose Prop. 8
A poll released on Thursday shows that 49% of likely California voters oppose Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage. The Field Poll also showed that 44% of likely voters were in favor of the measure, while 7% remained undecided. The results indicate a narrowing of opinion since the last Field Poll in mid September, when 55% of respondents opposed Prop. 8 and 38% supported it.
"It's certainly closer than it was before the advertising campaign hit," Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo told the Sacramento Bee. "A lot of that has to do with the campaigning on the yes [on 8] side."
The No on 8 campaign, however, saw reason for optimism. In a statement, No on 8's senior campaign adviser Steve Smith said the poll shows that the opposition's "deceptive campaign has failed to move their numbers much at all," noting that in this survey and others, support for Prop. 8 has remained below 50%.
According to the poll, 22% of respondents have already voted. Among that group, the yes side was ahead by six points. (The Advocate)
Newsom takes Prop. 8 campaign to Google headquarters
Examiner Staff Writer 10/31/08
SAN FRANCISCO – Mayor Gavin Newsom took his campaign against Proposition 8 to Google headquarters in Mountain View on Wednesday. Prop. 8, which would ban same-sex marriage in the state, has generated almost $60 million in contributions from around the country. By publicly opposing Prop. 8, companies such as Google risk the ire of their customers as opponents of same-sex marriage threaten boycotts.
SAN FRANCISCO – Mayor Gavin Newsom took his campaign against Proposition 8 to Google headquarters in Mountain View on Wednesday. Prop. 8, which would ban same-sex marriage in the state, has generated almost $60 million in contributions from around the country. By publicly opposing Prop. 8, companies such as Google risk the ire of their customers as opponents of same-sex marriage threaten boycotts.
How I plan to vote on Prop 8
I'm voting "no" on Prop 8 and this is why.
I am a happily married physician with two young daughters. It so happens that I am male, and my wife is female.
How other people choose to live their lives does not affect my marriage or my children, at all. In fact, I want my children to be tolerant of other lifestyles, races, religions and so forth.
In history classes, they will learn about the bigotry that existed to a much greater extent in our country than it does now. It would be very sad to see it displayed again in the 21st century, right here in California.
Tom Curran
Granite Bay
I am a happily married physician with two young daughters. It so happens that I am male, and my wife is female.
How other people choose to live their lives does not affect my marriage or my children, at all. In fact, I want my children to be tolerant of other lifestyles, races, religions and so forth.
In history classes, they will learn about the bigotry that existed to a much greater extent in our country than it does now. It would be very sad to see it displayed again in the 21st century, right here in California.
Tom Curran
Granite Bay
I will not support marriage inequality
Voting "yes" on Proposition 8 effectively relegates gays and lesbians to second-class citizenship status.
Regardless of how you personally feel about marriage equality, consider how you would feel if your rights were being taken away. Unless you have lived in the shoes of the people you are judging, please refrain from imposing your personal beliefs to deny others of the same rights you have as a citizen of this “free country.”
Please vote “no” on Prop. 8 on Election Day.
Robert Persky
Roseville
Regardless of how you personally feel about marriage equality, consider how you would feel if your rights were being taken away. Unless you have lived in the shoes of the people you are judging, please refrain from imposing your personal beliefs to deny others of the same rights you have as a citizen of this “free country.”
Please vote “no” on Prop. 8 on Election Day.
Robert Persky
Roseville
Obama Backers May Sway Local Votes Over Gay Marriage, Governors
By William Selway
Oct. 31 (Bloomberg) -- From the battle over gay marriage in California to the governor's race in North Carolina, local election fights across the U.S. may turn on the ballots cast by an influx of voters backing Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama.
In Washington state, his supporters may help bolster Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire's bid for a second term. In Colorado, where polls show Obama leading, voters may defeat a measure banning abortion. And in California, Obama draws support from voters who oppose a ballot item to halt same-sex weddings.
``The turnout of Obama voters could have an important impact on the propositions,'' said Mark Baldassare, a pollster for the San Francisco-based Public Policy Institute of California.
Voters on Nov. 4 will decide on 153 ballot measures touching everything from taxes to the rights of farm animals, as well as the governorships of 11 states. The local contests are being waged against the backdrop of a national presidential election that has attracted new Democratic voters who may side with their party on social issues including abortion and same-sex marriage.
As opinion polls show Obama leading against Republican John McCain nationally, records show that the Democrat -- the first black presidential nominee of a major U.S. political party -- held an edge in seven of nine states that collect party- registration and demographic data on early voting as of last week. Democrats, blacks and first-time voters are casting ballots in unprecedented numbers, the data show.
`Tilted Against Republicans'
Democrats may build on support for Obama to withstand Republican challenges to the 28-22 majority the party won in state governorships two years ago, analysts said.
``There's a political landscape out there that's just tilted against Republicans,'' said Jennifer Duffy, an analyst who follows state political races for the Cook Political Report in Washington.
Among the 11 states picking governors are Washington, Indiana, Missouri and North Carolina, where competitive contests are being waged this year. Washington and North Carolina are currently led by Democrats, with Republicans in charge of Missouri and Indiana.
In the presidential battleground of Missouri, state Attorney General Jay Nixon, a Democrat, is leading in his bid against U.S. Representative Kenny Hulshof to take the governorship from Matt Blunt, a Republican who didn't seek another term. In North Carolina, another state where an incumbent isn't running, Lieutenant Governor Beverly Perdue is seeking to hold it for the Democrats amid a challenge from the Republican mayor of Charlotte, Pat McCrory.
Democratic Turnout
In North Carolina, Democrats boosted their registrations by 336,174 as of yesterday, more than four times the number of Republicans added, state records show. Polls released by Public Policy Polling, based in Raleigh, this week show that Perdue was leading McCrory by 3 percentage points and Democrat Kay Hagan also had a narrow lead in her bid to unseat U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole.
``The Obama campaign has just done an incredible job in terms of voter registration,'' said Dean Debnam, who oversaw the polls. ``To the extent that he boosts turnout, that's to the benefit of other Democrats.''
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, President George W. Bush's former budget director, holds the edge over Democratic Congresswoman Jill Long Thompson, polls show. Duffy, the political analyst, said even the inroads that Thompson made against a well-funded incumbent reflect the challenges that Republicans face this election.
``If Daniels loses, it's all because of environment,'' she said.
Tight Washington Race
In Washington, Gregoire opened a slight lead over Republican businessman Dino Rossi in a rematch of an election that was so close it was decided by a statewide recount four years ago.
``There's no question that Gregoire is benefiting from Obama's popularity,'' said Matt Barreto, a University of Washington political science professor who has conducted opinion polls on the governor's race.
The presidential contest may also influence the outcome of ballot propositions. That's a reversal from four years ago, when gay marriage bans in 11 states were credited with drawing Bush backers to the polls.
``This year, everybody's focus is really on the presidential election,'' said John Matsusaka, who tracks ballot issues for the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
Affirmative Action
In Colorado and Nebraska, voters are being asked to do away with racial preferences in state programs. Arizona, which defeated a proposal to bar gay marriage in 2006, is being asked to reconsider, while Florida is also taking up the issue.
In California, those in favor of keeping gay marriage legal may gain support from young, Democratic voters to defeat a proposal to ban it. The number of Democrats and independents has risen since the 2004 election, records show, while the number of Republicans has declined. A poll released by Field Research Corp. today showed Obama supporters oppose the ban by more than 3-to-1.
Even so, it may cut both ways. The Field poll showed opponents leading by only 49 percent to 44 percent. And proponents of banning gay marriages say African-Americans who turn out for Obama may help them win a fight over the issue that may influence other states.
``The outcome of this election is going to send shockwaves throughout the nation,'' said Sonja Eddings Brown, a spokeswoman for the campaign to pass the ban, known as Proposition 8. ``We're at a cultural crossroads in this country.''
Abortion Fight
Opponents of abortion are using state ballots again this year to provoke the Supreme Court to reconsider the 1973 decision holding that women have a right to end their pregnancies.
South Dakota, which defeated a ban two years ago, will consider a measure granting exemptions in cases of rape, incest and threats to the mother's health. Colorado is being asked to define ``person'' at the beginning of fertilization, a step that would equate abortion with murder. California is also reconsidering a measure, defeated two years ago, that would require girls' parents to be told two days before a pregnancy is ended, with some exemptions.
Also in California, the most-populous state, farm groups are fighting a measure requiring that farm animals be given a minimum amount of living space.
California Energy Measure
Energy issues are also on the ballot. Colorado is being asked to raise taxes by some $321 million on oil and gas companies. In California, PG&E Corp. is fighting a measure that would require one-fifth of electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2010, a proposal that has also drawn criticism from environmental groups for being poorly crafted.
``Prop 7 will disrupt the progress made on renewables and set back California's efforts to increase supplies of clean renewable energy,'' said Joe Molica, a spokesman for PG&E Corp.
California is also being asked to consider a $10 billion bond issue to build a high-speed train spanning the state, which backers say would add construction jobs to a state reeling from the collapse of the U.S. home market. A separate measure would use $5 billion of state bonds to subsidize the purchase of fuel- efficient cars and research into renewable energy sources.
Voters in Massachusetts are being asked to repeal the state income tax. Oregon is asking voters whether they would support deducting federal income taxes on their state tax returns, an effective tax cut.
As states reel from the economic slowdown that has sapped their revenue, some are exploring gambling to help raise revenue. Maryland may allow 15,000 video slot machines, while Missouri may raise more money for schools by increasing taxes on gambling.
The turmoil in the stock market has also become an issue in South Dakota. Voters there may ban naked short-selling, a practice that allows speculators to sell shares they don't have in a bet the price will drop.
To contact the reporter on this story: William Selway in San Francisco at wselway@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: October 31, 2008 00:01 EDT
Oct. 31 (Bloomberg) -- From the battle over gay marriage in California to the governor's race in North Carolina, local election fights across the U.S. may turn on the ballots cast by an influx of voters backing Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama.
In Washington state, his supporters may help bolster Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire's bid for a second term. In Colorado, where polls show Obama leading, voters may defeat a measure banning abortion. And in California, Obama draws support from voters who oppose a ballot item to halt same-sex weddings.
``The turnout of Obama voters could have an important impact on the propositions,'' said Mark Baldassare, a pollster for the San Francisco-based Public Policy Institute of California.
Voters on Nov. 4 will decide on 153 ballot measures touching everything from taxes to the rights of farm animals, as well as the governorships of 11 states. The local contests are being waged against the backdrop of a national presidential election that has attracted new Democratic voters who may side with their party on social issues including abortion and same-sex marriage.
As opinion polls show Obama leading against Republican John McCain nationally, records show that the Democrat -- the first black presidential nominee of a major U.S. political party -- held an edge in seven of nine states that collect party- registration and demographic data on early voting as of last week. Democrats, blacks and first-time voters are casting ballots in unprecedented numbers, the data show.
`Tilted Against Republicans'
Democrats may build on support for Obama to withstand Republican challenges to the 28-22 majority the party won in state governorships two years ago, analysts said.
``There's a political landscape out there that's just tilted against Republicans,'' said Jennifer Duffy, an analyst who follows state political races for the Cook Political Report in Washington.
Among the 11 states picking governors are Washington, Indiana, Missouri and North Carolina, where competitive contests are being waged this year. Washington and North Carolina are currently led by Democrats, with Republicans in charge of Missouri and Indiana.
In the presidential battleground of Missouri, state Attorney General Jay Nixon, a Democrat, is leading in his bid against U.S. Representative Kenny Hulshof to take the governorship from Matt Blunt, a Republican who didn't seek another term. In North Carolina, another state where an incumbent isn't running, Lieutenant Governor Beverly Perdue is seeking to hold it for the Democrats amid a challenge from the Republican mayor of Charlotte, Pat McCrory.
Democratic Turnout
In North Carolina, Democrats boosted their registrations by 336,174 as of yesterday, more than four times the number of Republicans added, state records show. Polls released by Public Policy Polling, based in Raleigh, this week show that Perdue was leading McCrory by 3 percentage points and Democrat Kay Hagan also had a narrow lead in her bid to unseat U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole.
``The Obama campaign has just done an incredible job in terms of voter registration,'' said Dean Debnam, who oversaw the polls. ``To the extent that he boosts turnout, that's to the benefit of other Democrats.''
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, President George W. Bush's former budget director, holds the edge over Democratic Congresswoman Jill Long Thompson, polls show. Duffy, the political analyst, said even the inroads that Thompson made against a well-funded incumbent reflect the challenges that Republicans face this election.
``If Daniels loses, it's all because of environment,'' she said.
Tight Washington Race
In Washington, Gregoire opened a slight lead over Republican businessman Dino Rossi in a rematch of an election that was so close it was decided by a statewide recount four years ago.
``There's no question that Gregoire is benefiting from Obama's popularity,'' said Matt Barreto, a University of Washington political science professor who has conducted opinion polls on the governor's race.
The presidential contest may also influence the outcome of ballot propositions. That's a reversal from four years ago, when gay marriage bans in 11 states were credited with drawing Bush backers to the polls.
``This year, everybody's focus is really on the presidential election,'' said John Matsusaka, who tracks ballot issues for the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
Affirmative Action
In Colorado and Nebraska, voters are being asked to do away with racial preferences in state programs. Arizona, which defeated a proposal to bar gay marriage in 2006, is being asked to reconsider, while Florida is also taking up the issue.
In California, those in favor of keeping gay marriage legal may gain support from young, Democratic voters to defeat a proposal to ban it. The number of Democrats and independents has risen since the 2004 election, records show, while the number of Republicans has declined. A poll released by Field Research Corp. today showed Obama supporters oppose the ban by more than 3-to-1.
Even so, it may cut both ways. The Field poll showed opponents leading by only 49 percent to 44 percent. And proponents of banning gay marriages say African-Americans who turn out for Obama may help them win a fight over the issue that may influence other states.
``The outcome of this election is going to send shockwaves throughout the nation,'' said Sonja Eddings Brown, a spokeswoman for the campaign to pass the ban, known as Proposition 8. ``We're at a cultural crossroads in this country.''
Abortion Fight
Opponents of abortion are using state ballots again this year to provoke the Supreme Court to reconsider the 1973 decision holding that women have a right to end their pregnancies.
South Dakota, which defeated a ban two years ago, will consider a measure granting exemptions in cases of rape, incest and threats to the mother's health. Colorado is being asked to define ``person'' at the beginning of fertilization, a step that would equate abortion with murder. California is also reconsidering a measure, defeated two years ago, that would require girls' parents to be told two days before a pregnancy is ended, with some exemptions.
Also in California, the most-populous state, farm groups are fighting a measure requiring that farm animals be given a minimum amount of living space.
California Energy Measure
Energy issues are also on the ballot. Colorado is being asked to raise taxes by some $321 million on oil and gas companies. In California, PG&E Corp. is fighting a measure that would require one-fifth of electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2010, a proposal that has also drawn criticism from environmental groups for being poorly crafted.
``Prop 7 will disrupt the progress made on renewables and set back California's efforts to increase supplies of clean renewable energy,'' said Joe Molica, a spokesman for PG&E Corp.
California is also being asked to consider a $10 billion bond issue to build a high-speed train spanning the state, which backers say would add construction jobs to a state reeling from the collapse of the U.S. home market. A separate measure would use $5 billion of state bonds to subsidize the purchase of fuel- efficient cars and research into renewable energy sources.
Voters in Massachusetts are being asked to repeal the state income tax. Oregon is asking voters whether they would support deducting federal income taxes on their state tax returns, an effective tax cut.
As states reel from the economic slowdown that has sapped their revenue, some are exploring gambling to help raise revenue. Maryland may allow 15,000 video slot machines, while Missouri may raise more money for schools by increasing taxes on gambling.
The turmoil in the stock market has also become an issue in South Dakota. Voters there may ban naked short-selling, a practice that allows speculators to sell shares they don't have in a bet the price will drop.
To contact the reporter on this story: William Selway in San Francisco at wselway@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: October 31, 2008 00:01 EDT
California can lead the way by rejecting Prop 8
By Eve Pearlman
Columnist
Article Last Updated: 10/30/2008 04:20:36 PM PDT
TO THE REV. LAURA ROSE of the First Congregational Church in Alameda being Christian means, among other things, being open hearted.
"To be Christian, we believe, means to embrace anyone who is pushed to the margins, who is denied equality for any reason," she said.
In 2005, the national meeting of the United Church of Christ, to which Rose's congregation belongs, voted to support marriage rights for all people, opting against a gender-specific definition of marriage. "What I say to people, what Martin Luther King Jr. said to people is the only thing Jesus was extreme about is love. And love sometimes takes the form of working for justice for anyone who is denied basic human rights."
On Tuesday, Alamedans, along with the rest of California, will vote on Proposition 8, the "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act." The proposition is, with the exception of the presidential contest, the most expensive item on any ballot for Nov. 4. More than $60 million has flowed to both sides of the debate from across the country. The airways are full of arguments both pro and con. The Mormon Church has actively supported the initiative, while the League of Women Voters has opposed it saying, "No person or group should suffer legal, economic or administrative discrimination."
Nearly every major California newspaper has editorialized against Prop. 8, with the Los Angeles Times editorial page calling it, "A drastic step to strip people of rights."
The initiative would change the California Constitution in order to invalidate this summer's California Supreme Court decision that found the state had no business denying rights to same sex couples. In that decision, the court wrote, —...the California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying."
The arguments for Prop. 8 have ranged from the fear-based (young children will be forced to learn about same-sex marriage) to the ridiculous (if same-sex couples are allowed to marry then people will soon be able to marry their pets).
But the issue remains at its core one of civil rights. When a different-sex couple marries, they are granted many rights, including the right to visit a sick spouse in the hospital, to file joint tax returns, or to easily inherit property. These are rights that are automatic for opposite sex couples, and it's wrong to deny them to same sex couples.
What I find most perplexing about the opposition to same sex marriage rights, is the idea that opposite sex marriages are somehow threatened if two people of the same gender fall in love and marry. How is my marriage, with all the challenges and joys that come from modern life, in any way imperiled by the marriage of another couple? How is what we do in our own home — make dinner, do laundry, make love, discuss where to place the couch — in any way touched by other people doing more or less the same thing in their own homes? I find this argument mystifying.
Our nation has a history of prohibiting marriages between people of different races. What was once taboo is now part of the fabric of modern life. Some day in the future, sensible people will wonder what all the shouting over same sex marriage was about.
In 1948, the California Supreme Court was the first state court in the country to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marriage. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated all remaining laws against interracial marriage.
Let California continue to take the lead in human rights in our nation. Vote no on Prop. 8.
Columnist
Article Last Updated: 10/30/2008 04:20:36 PM PDT
TO THE REV. LAURA ROSE of the First Congregational Church in Alameda being Christian means, among other things, being open hearted.
"To be Christian, we believe, means to embrace anyone who is pushed to the margins, who is denied equality for any reason," she said.
In 2005, the national meeting of the United Church of Christ, to which Rose's congregation belongs, voted to support marriage rights for all people, opting against a gender-specific definition of marriage. "What I say to people, what Martin Luther King Jr. said to people is the only thing Jesus was extreme about is love. And love sometimes takes the form of working for justice for anyone who is denied basic human rights."
On Tuesday, Alamedans, along with the rest of California, will vote on Proposition 8, the "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act." The proposition is, with the exception of the presidential contest, the most expensive item on any ballot for Nov. 4. More than $60 million has flowed to both sides of the debate from across the country. The airways are full of arguments both pro and con. The Mormon Church has actively supported the initiative, while the League of Women Voters has opposed it saying, "No person or group should suffer legal, economic or administrative discrimination."
Nearly every major California newspaper has editorialized against Prop. 8, with the Los Angeles Times editorial page calling it, "A drastic step to strip people of rights."
The initiative would change the California Constitution in order to invalidate this summer's California Supreme Court decision that found the state had no business denying rights to same sex couples. In that decision, the court wrote, —...the California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying."
The arguments for Prop. 8 have ranged from the fear-based (young children will be forced to learn about same-sex marriage) to the ridiculous (if same-sex couples are allowed to marry then people will soon be able to marry their pets).
But the issue remains at its core one of civil rights. When a different-sex couple marries, they are granted many rights, including the right to visit a sick spouse in the hospital, to file joint tax returns, or to easily inherit property. These are rights that are automatic for opposite sex couples, and it's wrong to deny them to same sex couples.
What I find most perplexing about the opposition to same sex marriage rights, is the idea that opposite sex marriages are somehow threatened if two people of the same gender fall in love and marry. How is my marriage, with all the challenges and joys that come from modern life, in any way imperiled by the marriage of another couple? How is what we do in our own home — make dinner, do laundry, make love, discuss where to place the couch — in any way touched by other people doing more or less the same thing in their own homes? I find this argument mystifying.
Our nation has a history of prohibiting marriages between people of different races. What was once taboo is now part of the fabric of modern life. Some day in the future, sensible people will wonder what all the shouting over same sex marriage was about.
In 1948, the California Supreme Court was the first state court in the country to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marriage. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated all remaining laws against interracial marriage.
Let California continue to take the lead in human rights in our nation. Vote no on Prop. 8.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
