I’ve been despondent since Monday morning, friends and neighbors.

That’s when the new polls started coming out about California Proposition 8 – the anti-marriage equality proposition. Just as my pastor feared, the attack ads from the Mormon Church and other backers of Prop 8 have had an effect. Prop 8 is now leading in the polls by about 5 percentage points.

Tomorrow, I start phone banking against Proposition 8. Come with me over the jump for the points I plan to make.

Just in the four months since the court decision went into effect, about 11,000 same-sex couples have married in the state of California. That’s 22,000 people who have exercised their right to marry the person they love. I am one of those 22,000 people.

The new ads plant a bunch of unfounded fears in people who are on the fence. For the uninformed and the afraid, these are powerful fears. They MUST be refuted at all costs.

First, the ads claim that if Proposition 8 fails, people will be sued and/or open to criminal prosecution over their personal beliefs about homosexuality and same-sex marriage – namely, their religion. This is not true. California law already prohibits discrimination against people due to sex, race, religion, national origin or orientation. The passage of Prop 8 has nothing to do with it. Proposition 8 is about one thing, and one thing only: who has the right to get married and who does not.

The second thing these advertisements claim is that Proposition 8 will keep churches from losing their tax-exempt status, if their pastors or administrators refuse to marry gay people in their churches. This is nonsense. First of all, tax-exempt status is federal, not state. Secondly, the court decision In Re Marriage Cases, which decided that a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, specifically exempts churches from having to perform wedding ceremonies that are against their beliefs, and I quote:

“no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

Another objection the advertisements have is that the non-passage of Proposition 8 will force children in schools to be taught that same-sex marriage is normal (and, by extension, that homosexuality is, too). This is utter nonsense. The schools are already enjoined by state law that parents have the right to pull their children out of any class in which sex ed, health, or family issues are being taught. The defeat of Proposition 8 will not change that law.

Another smear that these ads are promoting is that it’s about controlling activist justices. That’s simply untrue. The justices have a job. Their job is to compare a law with the standards set by the state constitution; if it does not qualify, the law is overturned. The job of the justices is to protect our rights and freedoms by making sure that laws do not fall short of the constitutional standard.

This isn’t about judicial activism. It’s about people who hate gays. Let’s be clear about this. All these lies are just that – lies. And they’re excuses. They’re ways to give people who would otherwise vote to protect rights and freedoms an excuse to vote to eliminate them.

There’s one further thing that most people who would vote for this amendment haven’t thought about. It’s the unexpected consequence of passing Proposition 8. Here it is: It sets a precedent whereby the government of the state of California can prohibit certain religious practices. By enacting this law, the people of the state will have said that they should be able to regulate the free exercise of religion by religious groups who support marriage equality. And the big argument I keep hearing from the anti-gay crowd is that marriage is about procreation – biological procreation. So what’s next? A law saying that only marriages that have produced biological offspring are legal? A law saying that you have three years to produce at least one child in a biological manner, or your marriage is annulled? That would undermine adoption as a method of having children, as well as making marriage impossible for infertile people, elderly people, and those who have chosen not to have children.

If we allow one group’s religious beliefs to limit the choices of every group, if we enshrine that into law, well, members of most minority religions can kiss their rights good-bye. Do we want that?

Finally, and edited to add this: if this passes, it sets a precedent that the government can take away anyone’s civil rights at any time by legislating them away. Do we want that? I don’t think so.

Please donate to Equality California. EQCA is running the ad campaign, so donate to them. If you can’t do that, please phonebank here: http://noonprop8.com/page/?id=… .

Please help us turn those polls around and get enough ads on the air in enough places that we can defeat this amendment before it nullifies the rights of at least 22,000 gay people in this state, me included. My goal is for us to raise $15 million so we can out-spend the haters. Help me do it?

Thank you.

Crossposted to Daily Kos.

You know that claim from the fundamentalist crowd that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, if Proposition 8 doesn’t pass, it will violate their religious freedoms?

Well, if Proposition 8 passes and encodes discrimination into my state constitution, it will violate my religious freedoms, and the religious freedoms of every Unitarian, liberal Christian, liberal Jew, liberal Muslim, and any other religious person whose faith supports the inherent worth and dignity of every person and their right to choose their partner. Why? Because we’ll only be allowed to marry those couples who fit the state standard of “one man, one woman.” Our freedom to choose who we can marry as a denomination will be taken away.

It’s interesting how the fears the fundamentalists have about the passage or non-passage of an amendment banning marriage equality actually do apply to people and churches of a liberal faith tradition. Let’s be honest: Proposition 8 is an outright attack on the liberal faiths and values of a number of religious groups.

More after the jump.

For those who didn’t already know, I am a Unitarian Universalist. I believe strongly in the principles of my faith tradition, including the inherent worth and dignity of every person. Like the United Church of Christ across the street, my church marries same-sex couples gladly and openly. It’s part of our belief and value system that same-sex couples deserve marriage equality. We have a big banner on the side of our church annex building which says “Civil Marriage is a Civil Right.” We’ve heard several sermons on the topic over the summer, since the Sunday following the May 17th decision, and the church community is united behind defeating Prop 8. Groups from our church handed out roses and wedding cake to couples getting married down at the courthouse on the first day it was legal, and one of those groups stood around myself and my husband as our pastor married us on the courthouse steps on June 17th. Last Sunday there was a phone-banking event organized in our church annex by Equality California. Yesterday, two of our friends and members of the church, John and Bill, celebrated their wedding.

So as Unitarians, we talk the talk and we walk the walk.

Even so, our sermon this morning was on marriage equality. It was titled, “Why do we need yet another sermon on marriage equality?”

Our pastor, Matthew, talked earnestly about Proposition 8, and how important it is, as a faith community, for us to defeat it. He’s afraid, he said. And he has good reason to be. Despite all the wonderful Field Polls that have come out saying that Californians are 55% against and only 38% for the amendment that would negate recognition of my husband’s and my marriage, our pastor is afraid. In fact, the polls made him more afraid, not less.

First, he pointed out that right now, we’re ahead – but at the time that poll and all the ones prior to it were taken, no advertising and no campaigning had happened for or against Proposition 8. Not one bumper sticker. Not one yard sign. Not one television or radio advertisement.

I can see his point. Once the media saturation of anti-gay and pro-Prop-8 messages starts, with claims from “Our churches will be FORCED to marry gay couples!” to  “Homosexuals will force your children to be taught their lifestyle is normal!!!” we could easily face a huge backlash. We can’t afford that. And it’s coming. We won’t know if we’re really successful at getting the message out until the next poll comes out. And then, it may be too late.

Pastor Matthew also said he was afraid because those polls could easily lead to complacency. He talked about the Olympics this summer, and Michael Phelps’ bare-split-second win in one of the races. He said, “Phelps’ competitor thought he was ahead. He coasted the last few inches. And because he did, he came in second place when he thought he was in for gold. Do we want to be that guy? Or do we want to be Michael Phelps, and push on as if we were ten seconds behind in the race all the way to the wall?”

And then he talked about how angry this proposition makes him. Angry, as a person of faith. This proposition would encode discrimination into our state constitution. It would violate our rights as a religious faith that affirms the inherent worth and dignity of every person, by restricting who we were allowed to marry in our churches. He talked about how angry it makes him, that we might just let this proposition pass out of complacency, and let our rights be violated as a religious tradition and faith community.

It would, in fact, severely impact our religious freedom.

Now, let’s be honest here. The fundamentalists cannot say that. A defeat of Prop 8 would not force them to suddenly start marrying same-sex couples in their churches – and as I said to a couple of our lesbian friends over lunch in the church hall after the service, if anyone tried to force that issue, I’d be out there with the fundamentalists fighting on their side, to protect their religious freedoms to choose whom they will marry. And everyone at the table agreed with me. But if Proposition 8 passes, it would force us to stop marrying same-sex couples, in clear violation of our religious beliefs.

Finally, Pastor Matthew called for action. He called for us to do more than just vote against Proposition 8. He called for us to talk to that 20% – those people who were on the fence and undecided. He called for us to phonebank, to emailbank, to put a bumper sticker on our car and a sign in our front yards. To talk to our neighbors, our co-workers, and our extended families.

In short, he called us to follow our faith tradition, and get the word out that Proposition 8, in addition to violating personal liberties, violates religious freedom. And that if that chink into religious freedom happens here, it can happen to any religion’s freedoms, anywhere, anytime.

This must not happen.

I was pretty shaken after the service was over. So were a lot of other people in the church. I’m terrified of calling strangers on the phone. But as you all know, I can write fairly persuasively. So I’m going to start emailing my family and friends, and most especially my in-laws, who are having severe problems with the idea of marriage equality because of their own religious faiths, and see what I can do to spread the idea that this proposition is an attempt to interfere with religious freedom – not the religious freedom of conservatives, but that of liberals.

Actually, it would violate the religious freedoms of everyone. It would provide a precedent for other anti-religion amendments to pass. If the fundamentalist crowd isn’t aware of that, and isn’t afraid of that, they should be.

In fact, it could mean that someday, their right to practice their religion could be limited or halted by the imposition of a legal definition that belongs to some other religion – and if this amendment passes it will set that precedent. They are trying to impose a religious definition on a civil practice. How would they like it if someday a religious definition that came from a tradition they weren’t part of was imposed on them?

And yes, I know that certain people will say “but then we should allow child abuse, or polygamy, or bestiality, or the use of drugs, or human sacrifice! There have to be some standards!” Yes, and we have standards. Those standards are:

– The integrity of the individual and his or her choices

– The ability to consent to participation

The consent issue wipes away bestiality, child abuse, and human sacrifice without even a second thought. The other two issues – what’s the problem? Look at it through the lens of integrity of the individual and their freedom of choice, and through the lens of consent, and as long as those standards are met, it is not an issue.

So maybe this frame – that religious beliefs and practices ARE being violated if Proposition 8 passes – will help get the point across. Any suggestions on how to word it are more than welcome.

And please – spread the word.

Crossposted to Daily Kos.

It’s time to recall Arnold Schwarzenegger from the Governor’s seat in California.

He claims that the state is in a cash crisis. He’s also committed himself to not raise taxes, and to cut them wherever possible.

Well, now he’s moved beyond cutting taxes. Now he’s cutting wages. And that’s the point at which I say, “It’s time to recall this guy.”

Come with me after the jump for some reasons why, starting with the fact that he lied about the state having a cash crisis, and that he’s the one who’s responsible for creating this budgetary problem in the first place.

When he orders that 200,000 state workers’ salaries be slashed to the federal minimum wage of $6.55 per hour, and that 20,000 or more state workers be laid off entirely in order to balance the state budget, it’s time to think about recalling him. When he refuses to sign any bill at all, and further states that he may start vetoing all bills that reach his desk until his budget gets passed, it’s beyond time to think about a recall and start acting on it. When it’s discovered that the state does not have a cash crisis, and that this wage-slashing stunt has no real point except to frighten state workers, it’s time to talk about stronger censures than a recall.

But let’s start with that.

Schwarzenegger’s commitment to slashing taxes has finally come back to bite him, and by extension the state, in the ass. His refusal to sign bills that have, in some cases, been working their way up to his desk for several years shows that he still thinks the way he did as a movie star – that if he just bluffs hard enough, people will buy it. He figured if he could bluff his way through several mediocre action films, he could bluff his way through the political arena as well. He learned his lines: “tax cuts” and “fiscal responsibility,” figuring that saying the words would distract people from the consequences of his actions.

It isn’t working anymore. It’s time for him to stop.

Folks, taxes are a fact of life. You must pay them. Period. If you don’t, the state doesn’t have the money to do its jobs. Period. It is unconscionable to penalize working-class people for the budget shortfall when the government will not institute reasonable and necessary taxes to ensure reasonable and necessary income for the state.

It’s time to ditch the movie star, folks, and put someone in office who understands the realities of the situation: government costs money. That money should be raised by taxation, not by cutting state workers’ salaries by 2/3. Penalizing the workers because the government chose not to raise the necessary funds from the entire population? That, as columnist Dan Walters says, is nothing more than a movie-star stunt.

I don’t want a movie star running my state. I want a governor who gives a damn about the people who work for him, and the ones who work for them, and the ones who work for them. I want a governor who acts like an adult, even when being an adult isn’t pretty or fun or glamorous. I want a governor who works for compromise, instead of demanding “my way or the highway.” I want a governor who will work things out without harming the people who can least afford to have their pay slashed to the floor.

Yes, it’s great that Arnie opposes the ballot initiative that would take away my marital rights. But he has to do more than that. He has to do the really hard stuff: act like an adult about the money situation, and accept that government requires revenue. Act like an adult and stop lying. Act like an adult and stop throwing tantrums.

His job is to make sure that the needs of California’s workers are provided for. It’s his job to put out these budgetary fires before they threaten to burn down the Capitol. What he’s done, instead, is to tell the people who can least afford a pay cut that the budgetary crisis he’s created is their fault and that they will be the ones to pay for it, not him. That’s like a parent dropping the family money crisis on the shoulders of their sixteen-year-old kid.

I have a great idea to balance our budget in this state. Let’s tax the Governor. Let’s demand two-thirds of all the income Schwarzenegger ever made from his movies, and funnel that money into the state coffers. Perhaps then he’d get a glimpse of what it’s like to be part of the working class.

Who’s responsible for this financial crisis? He is. Who should pay for it? I think he should.

And if we can’t make him pay financially, then we should make him pay politically.

It’s time for a recall. Who’s with me?

Crossposted from my diary on Daily Kos.

(It’ll be interesting to see what comes of this. – promoted by Lucas O’Connor)

In an analysis published today on both Metnews.com and the Log Cabin Republicans blog, Kevin Norte wrote a scathing analysis of the legal issues behind the anti-equality initiative which is currently working its way through validation proceedings and aimed at the California ballot in November. Norte has been a research attorney for the Los Angeles Superior Court since 1991.

According to Norte’s analysis, the initiative cannot legally proceed to the ballot because it constitutes a revision, not just an amendment, of the California Constitution.

If this is the case, then the GLBT people of California have nothing to fear from this ballot initiative. It’s already dead in the water. It’s a moot point. Even if it was passed, it could not be enforced. It’s already as archaic as the anti-sodomy, anti-miscegnation and Jim Crow laws are.

More after the jump…

Norte cites several sets of case law, but what it boils down to is that California citizens can amend the Constitution by ballot initiative, but they cannot change the fundamental parts of it (such as fundamental rights granted, and fundamental workings of the government) by ballot initiative. Changes of that scale are called revisions, and revisions can only be accomplished by a constitutional convention and popular ratification of the changes made by the convention, or by the Legislature passing the change and submitting it to the electorate for popular ratification.

With the CA Supreme Court ruling on May 15th, marriage was reaffirmed as a fundamental right in California, and furthermore, sexual orientation was placed into a protected category, subject to strict scrutiny. Therefore, a ballot initiative cannot take away that fundamental right, because that kind of a change is a revision of the Constitution, necessitating a constitutional convention. Additionally, any attempt to do so will come under the heading of strict scrutiny, which means that the government must show a compelling reason why it is excluding people from marriage. That cannot be done; there is no compelling reason. Ron George and his fellow justices made sure that they eliminated those arguments in their majority opinion.

The kicker? This:

Therefore, Schwarzenegger, Bowen, Leno and Newsome should use their constitutional powers to obtain an opinion of the Attorney General as to whether the initiative is an amendment or a revision that would revise the fundamental right to marry as it applies to same gender couples because it would remove that right for them and deny gays and lesbians equal protection as it applies to that fundamental right.

In other words, they’re going to have to ask Jerry Brown his legal opinion on this, and then follow it. Jerry Brown, mind you. The champion of the little guy and the minority.

Thank you, Ron George and the other justices who ruled for us. You set this ruling in stone six ways from Tuesday, and the way the law in California works, there’s no way the bigots can countermand you. You have done an amazing thing for the people of this state.

I can hardly wait to see how this pans out.

(Please recommend this diary. Send the links above to your state representatives and senators, too, if you’re in California. It’s important that the message get out there that there’s a real, legal, constitutional basis for denying the ballot initiative a space on the ballot, regardless of the number of signatures.)

Thanks are owed to a good friend of mine, Joe Decker, on LiveJournal, who spotted this and pointed it out to others. Thanks also to UTBriancl for asking me to re-post this Daily Kos diary here on Calitics. I’m honored.