It’s hard to get a handle on the efforts of the Yes on 8 people because they’re so haphazard.  They vow to produce a million yard signs but then get delayed because the signs are “in route” from China.  They try to make their campaign seem to be about ordinary couples who want their traditional aw-shucks marriage, and then the virulence of their intolerance is revealed, over…

I am a Mormon High Priest.  My bishop is a long-time family friend, and he has come to see me a couple of times recently, but each time he has come by assignment of his church supervisor.  On the first visit, my bishop offered me a chance to resign my membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  When I declined, he told me a church disciplinary council would be held.  On the second visit, just a couple of days ago, he brought me a letter informing me that I am charged with conduct unbecoming a member of the Mormon Church, and being “in apostasy.”

…and over again…

Turns out the aptly-named “Church of the Divide” in faraway Placerville had sent a group of hate-mongering protesters to the church where (Sacramento mayoral candidate Kevin Johnson) and his family worships, complete with signs blaring “SODOMY” (and worse), to protest Kevin’s decision to oppose Prop 8. They also flew in Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson from Los Angeles as their Rent-A-Hack.

What has become cleear is this: the Yes on 8 movement is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the fundamentalist right, an alliance of various religious sects who are coming together to try and impose their will on the people of California.  They’ve certainly been successful financially, outraising the no side to this point.  To be sure, there are liberal religious leaders coming out against this measure, like the California Faith for Equality coalition.  But the level of participation by many groups, particularly the Church of Latter-Day Saints, is profoundly unsettling:

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have contributed more than a third of the approximately $15.4 million raised since June 1 to support Proposition 8. The ballot initiative, if passed, would reverse the current right of same-sex couples to marry […]

The top leadership of the Mormon Church, known as the First Presidency, issued a letter in June calling on Mormons to “do all you can” to support Proposition 8.

Mormon donors said they weren’t coerced. “Nobody twisted my arm,” said Richard Piquet, a Southern California accountant who gave $25,000 in support of Proposition 8. He said Mormon Church leaders called donating “a matter of personal conscience.” Some Mormons who declined to donate said their local church leaders had made highly charged appeals, such as saying that their souls would be in jeopardy if they didn’t give. Church spokesmen said any such incident wouldn’t reflect Mormon Church policy […]

The prominence of Mormon donors in the Proposition 8 fight has also led to alliances with evangelical Protestant groups and other Christian religions, some of which have deep theological differences with Mormons.

Jim Garlow, pastor of the evangelical Protestant Skyline Church near San Diego and a leading supporter of Proposition 8, said, “I would not, in all candor, have been meeting them or talking with them had it not been for” the marriage campaign. Rev. Garlow said he had developed a “friendship” with the Mormons he met, although he feels the theological differences remain “unbridgeable.”

Certainly there is a broader movement among the religious spectrum beyond just the Mormons; the Family Research Council is heavily invested in the measure, and is spreading lies about the consequences of same-sex marriage to their members (Christians will be jailed!!!).  But what is going to be the focus of their efforts to get out the vote and pass the proposition?  Apparently, fasting and praying (I don’t buy the 100,000 figure below, by the way, it sounds like more bluster):

Hundreds of pastors have called on their congregations to fast and pray for passage of a ballot measure in November that would put an end to gay marriage in California.

The collective act of piety, starting Wednesday and culminating three days before the election in a revival for as many as 100,000 people at the San Diego Chargers’ stadium, comes as church leaders across California put people, money and powerful words behind Proposition 8.

Some pastors around the state and nation are encouraging their flocks to forgo solid food for up to 40 days in the biblical tradition.

Well, not quite.  In a remarkable catch by skippy, this 40-day fasting period, scheduled to begin today, would be somewhat unusual.

the gathering, called the call, will conclude a 40-day fasting period for california that begins sept. 24. christians are being asked to fast in some way, either the entire 40 days or perhaps by using team relays to cover the entire 40 days. running parallel to the 40-day fast is a 100-day prayer effort, which was scheduled to start july 28.

Um… team relays?

Let me get this straight.  If I last from lunch to dinner without a morsel, then tag off to my partner in prayer, I can go ahead and eat dinner then?  Is that really a fast, or is it, I don’t know… just not snacking?

Well, the religious right can’t be the only ones to get in on this fun.  That’s why, starting today, I am calling on every liberal and progressive to take part in a counter-fast for equality.  The goal is to get enough people involved that we only have to chip in about 15 minutes or so of fasting apiece.  I’m blocking out September 29, 4:30-4:45.  I’m not eating a thing.  We’re talking commitment!!!

More on this tomorrow. For now, sign up in the comments with your fasting interval.  Together, we can show these guys what a fasting relay team is all about!

Maybe it’s all the endorsements, or that the anti-equality side has thus far been confined to right-wing zealots and religious forces trying to impose their doctrine on the state, but Proposition 8’s chances of passage are getting worse.

Opposition to a California ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage is mounting following Attorney General Jerry Brown’s move to change the language on the initiative, according to a Field Poll released today.

The poll found that just 38 percent of likely voters support the measure, while 55 percent intend to vote no. That compares with 42 percent in support and 51 percent opposed in July.

Brown amended the Proposition 8 summary language after the state Supreme Court’s decision on May 15 to overturn California’s previous ban on same-sex marriage.

The pollsters found the amended language played a role in that growing opposition, especially among the 30 percent of likely voters interviewed who had never heard of Prop. 8.

Those voters were much more likely to oppose the measure when read Brown’s wording (58 percent against it and 30 percent for it) than those in the same category who were read the old version of Prop. 8 (42 percent against and 37 percent for it), according to the Field Poll.

Yes, how dare that Jerry Brown put into print what the initiative would actually do, which is eliminate the right granted by the state for same-sex couples to marry.  The Yes on 8 folks are whining that Brown “interfered” with the election, when actually, words with meaning did.

You can get the internals of the poll here.  The initiative is running weak among DTS voters (56-28 against) and young voters (58-31 against).  Hispanics are against it 51-36, which actually is not as solid as whites (55-39 against).  And the key stat to me is that among divorced or separated voters, Prop. 8 fails 65-33.  That makes perfect sense; those who have lived through a bad marriage have less illusions about how equality would ruin its sanctity.

The way I would view this is the way that California initiative watchers commonly view the “Pro” side of the argument.  You have to start out 55% or higher before the negative ads kick in.  Right now the Yes on 8 folks are outraising the No side 3:2, mostly with out-of-state checks.  They’re going to blanket the state with ads and so we should not let our guard down.

Contribute via the Calitics ActBlue page

Volunteer

Yesterday, the Bay Area Reporter ran a story that raised some eyebrows about Dianne Feinstein’s reticence on Proposition 8, the Hate Amendment.  It must have certainly raised eyebrows inside Feinstein’s headquarters, because today she released this statement:

“Proposition 8 would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.  I oppose it as a matter of equality and fairness.

The right to marry is fundamental.  It provides social stability, economic equality, and the ability to make decisions for a spouse in a time of crisis.

If Proposition 8 were to pass, not only would it eliminate the right to marry for gay and lesbian couples, but it would also create a complicated legal quagmire for those who have exercised this right under the California Constitution, as adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the State.

The views of Californians on this issue have changed over time, and as a State, I believe we should uphold the ability of our friends, neighbors, and co-workers who are gay and lesbian to enter into the contract of

marriage.

I urge Californians to oppose Proposition 8.”

It shouldn’t have taken this long, and it shouldn’t have taken a newspaper story to set it in motion, but I’m glad she released this.  Now we’ll she if she’ll do anything more.

Of far more interest to me is this (h/t Think Progress):

Though she long sat on the sidelines as her father served as second in command over the past eight years, Vice-President Dick Cheney’s daughter Mary is flexing her political muscle and joining the fight to stop Prop. 8.

According to the website RepublicansAgainst8.com, Cheney pledged $3,000 back in July to the campaign to stop the ballot measure attempting to re-ban gay marriage in California.

It’s quite a coalition that can include all of these disparate elements of the political spectrum.  Meanwhile, Ron Prentice of the “California Family Council,” running the Yes on 8 side of things, is funneling donations into his own pocket:

Since 2003, the public has given the Riverside, Calif.-based California Family Council (CFC) nearly $3 million to support charitable work that the organizations says “protects and fosters judeo-Christian principles in California’s laws.” But, according to its federal tax returns, little more than $500,000 of that money has gone to “program services,” or expenses directly related to that charitable work.

In contrast, the CFC’s top two employees, including its founder and executive director, Ron Prentice, were paid a total of $1.1 million over four years. The CFC’s other employees earned a total of $900,000 in compensation — bringing the total spent on employees at the Council to about $2 million since it began in 2003.

(More on that sordidness here)

This is just a wingnut welfare scheme to the pro side.  On the other side are those who believe in equality and fairness.

The LDS Church has recently released a statement under the title: “The Divine Institution of Marriage”

Notably, in this statement, the LDS Church seems to be suggesting that it does not oppose rights protected under civil union or domestic partnership laws:

“The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.”

If this is the official LDS Church position, it leads me to wonder why Gary Lawrence, the California LDS Grassroots Director, is distributing “Yes on 8” campaign literature (PDF) to Mormons that includes advice like this:

“We must help ordinary people to wake up to the role of incrementalism and language manipulation in law and policy so that domestic partnerships and civil unions, which are exactly like marriage but in name only, do not become the laws in the states.”

Translation: the Mormons directing the “Yes on 8” campaign are distributing campaign material that expresses opposition – not only to gay marriage – but to domestic partnerships and civil unions as well.

What’s up with that? Anyone care to explain the true LDS position here? Because, at this point, I’m confused. As far as I can tell, what Salt Lake is now saying doesn’t seem to square with what I’m reading from the Mormons directing the “Yes on 8” effort in California.

Sources:

Meridian Magazine: How to Help Pass Proposition 8

WHY A MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY (PDF linked to in the Meridian article)

Of course, that said, knowing that the LDS Church has already fought against civil unions in places like Vermont, it’s not surprising to find Mormon staff on the “Yes on 8” campaign payroll arguing against domestic partnerships in California. It is merely confusing, since I assume they’d want their “Yes on 8” campaign materials to conform with the latest statements coming out of Utah. As things stand, it looks like LDS HQ is saying something that does not correspond to what their California operatives are doing.

There’s a general discussion about this question over at BCC (a Mormon blog): A change on Domestic Partnerships?

The specific question I’m posing here is: do the “Yes on 8” campaign materials that the Mormons are using in California hew to the same line that’s now coming out of LDS Church Headquarters? The answer, at least for now, would seem to be “No” …

Until they do, it looks like a case of the church and the campaign trying to have it both ways, saying one thing and doing another, treating their own members and their California neighbors like chumps, playing nice with the official church statements, while playing hardball in the campaign literature. I’m sure someone will let me know if I’ve jumped to the wrong conclusion here. I mean, it is possible that the “Yes on 8” campaign has simply fallen into complete disarray and all central messaging control capability has been lost. However, I think it’s much more likely that this is what’s happening here:

This whole Prop 8 charade is part of a Republican GOTV (get-out-the-vote) effort. The GOP needed a way to fire up their California base without offending the mushy (and generally fair-minded) middle. So, on the one hand, you get Mormon volunteers delivering campaign materials (promising a rollback of gay rights) directly to target voters, while at the same time using other channels to release statements that adopt a more tolerant tone.  The base gets angry and moderate voters get shielded from the uglier aspects of the “Yes on 8” campaign.

In other words, a creepy GOP version of PURE GENIUS.

Not to mention that Falwell had already pitched Salt Lake previously on the merits of joining his Trinitarian Christian army in this contest, and so – with Mitt in the running for the White House – to Mormon HQ, Falwell’s proposal sounded like a no-brainer at the time.

At least, that’s my take on all of this.

In any event, here’s a bit of news to brighten your day:

Support is weak for anti-gay ballot measure

In a Public Policy Institute of California survey released Wednesday, 54 percent of likely voters said they opposed Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage. The initiative has the support of 40 percent of voters.

Yay! The “Yes on 8” folks aren’t even spinning these poll results (they already tried that with the Field Poll) … this time around, they’re just glumly suggesting that Jerry Brown had it in for them from the get-go. Whatever. Whiners.

By contrast, no whining from the leaders of the “No” side, who embrace reality and are bracing for the fight ahead:

Steve Smith, campaign consultant for Equality for All, the coalition leading the No on 8 campaign, said the group was encouraged by the Public Policy Institute poll but is still preparing for an expensive and emotional fight in the coming months.

He expects opponents of same-sex marriage will try to sway public opinion by misleading voters into thinking that churches will be forced to recognize gay relationships if the initiative fails.

My only quibble: the misleading has already begun, Steve.

Otherwise, all in all, a good day.

And while I’m hanging out, celebrating, and waiting for clarification of the question raised up top, here’s a bonus conundrum:

One of the pamphlets the Mormons are distributing in California is called “Six Consequences if Proposition 8 Fails”

Here’s the final claim they make in this execrable handout:

6. [The defeat of Prop 8] will cost you money. A change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits. Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money, your church contributions – that will have to be spent on legal fees.

Too funny. Let’s stop and think about this for a second: how would church contributions ever get spent on legal fees related to Prop 8? Perhaps because the churches themselves are bringing the lawsuits? BINGO! In fact, in that very same PDF distributed by Mormon grassroots director Gary Lawrence, the “Yes on 8” strategy is clearly stated:

As we have many times before, we must continue to use legal muscle and aggressively make our arguments in the courts in definition of marriage cases.

So, on the one hand, the “Yes on 8” groups are using their “legal muscle” to make their arguments in the courts, while on the other hand, they’re trying to scare their followers and gullible voters into believing that it’s the “No” side who deserve the blame for the potential waste of precious church funds. The audacity of their mendacity is stunning. If Brother Lawrence really wants to prevent this waste of church contributions, here’s a tip: ask your “legal muscle” to stop filing lawsuits! Problem solved.

In any case, since I’ve now mentioned that “Six Consequences if Proposition 8 Fails” flyer, here are some links to a few blogs that answer these “Six Lies from the ‘Yes on 8’ Campaign” …

Marriage Equality Foes Peddling Lies

Hateful, Lying Scumbags

Bearing False Witness

If you have the time, do a Google blog search of “Six Consequences if Proposition 8 Fails” … these six lies are being posted all over the Internet by Mormon families who have received this info from Gary Lawrence and other LDS directors of the “Yes on 8” campaign.

Regardless of how you or I may plan to vote on Proposition 8, there is never any justification for deliberately spreading blatant falsehoods to support your position.

Of course, the biggest lie is that this amendment is about “protecting marriage” … But maybe once you’ve begun selling that whopper, any additional lying required to make your case against gay marriage feels like no big sin?

What a sad and (spiritually) worthless campaign the LDS leadership has called its members to join.

Sadder still, I’ll probably never get to ask Gary Lawrence (or any other Mormon “Yes on 8” campaign operative) these three questions:

In terms of your religious commitments, is it acceptable for a member of the LDS faith to lie in order to achieve political objectives?

In terms of your responsibilities as a citizen, aren’t you betraying your civic duty as an American by resorting to lies to scare up votes for your side?

In terms of your church’s own self-interest, this election will be over in November, but the memory of your shameful “Yes on 8” campaign tactics will linger much longer … don’t you worry about the damage your false witness is doing to the public image of the LDS Church?

But, hey, I’m against this infernal amendment, so … who cares about a few sad sacks and their misguided political adventures? We’re gonna get mad, and then we’re gonna get even.

In the immortal words of Ron Prentice, Grand Poobah of the “Yes on 8” campaign:

“Unless the people are angry, nothing will happen.”

Congratulations, Ron. Lord knows you’ve been working hard to get folks riled up about this whole gay marriage business. In light of this latest poll, if it’s any consolation, you may not be getting the votes, but at least your little trope about angry people is gonna get proven correct: I’m people, I’m angry, and I’m gonna help make sure plenty happens between now and November 4th. That said, not much of what’s gonna happen from here on out is gonna be any good for the “Yes on 8” side of things.

I mean, I know your group has ordered 1 million yard signs to be put up in unison next month, but considering how angry you’ve made me, I think you might want to consider ordering a million more.

Not that it would make any difference.

Vote No on Prop 8!

—————————————————————————

Sudden death double bonus question:

Which four letters are shared in the names of the two states that boast the country’s lowest divorce rate in one and a perennially above-average young male suicide rate in the other? [hint: the same four letters can be arranged to form the name of a certain Western state]

If you guessed Massachusetts and Utah and came up with U T A H as your answer … you’re a winner!!

Comment below to claim your prize.

Contest not available to former presidential candidates from Arkansas. Restrictions may apply.

—————————————————————————

So, this post is quickly devolving into one part j’accuse, another part cri de coeur, with a generous dollop of Hallelujah.

In other words, a rant.

In 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state court to declare unconstitutional that state’s ban on interracial marriages.

If you’ve ever wondered what LDS (Mormon) leaders had to say on the subject of interracial marriage in the years that followed that 1948 California decision, wonder no more. As you’ll find out below, this crowd has always had plenty to say on the subject of marriage …

In the spirit of the Yes on 8 campaign’s bogus “Six Consequences if Proposition 8 Fails” … I’ve thrown together “Six Quotes on Interracial Marriage from Mormon Leaders”

Actually, I’ve got seven, but I’m gonna give BRIGHAM YOUNG a break, what with him being from the 19th century and all.

One (1) From the current LDS manual for young men (12-18 years old – i.e., the Aaronic Priesthood):

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question.”

Two (2) From the 90’s: RUSSELL M. NELSON:

“The commandment to love our neighbors without discrimination is certain. But it must not be misunderstood. It applies generally. Selection of a marriage partner, on the other hand, involves specific and not general criteria. After all, one person can only be married to one individual. The probabilities of a successful marriage are known to be much greater if both the husband and wife are united in their religion, language, culture, and ethnic background.”

Three (3) From the 80’s: SPENCER W. KIMBALL:

“We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs.”

Four (4) From the 70’s: BOYD K. PACKER:

“We counsel you…to marry…within your race. Now interracial marriages are not prohibited but they are not encouraged, for the blood that’s in your veins is the blood of the children of the covenant.”

Five (5) From the 60’s: BRUCE R. McCONKIE:

“…[I]n a broad sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.”

Six (6) From the 50’s: MARK E. PETERSEN:

“The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth….We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not to be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject…. “I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn’t that he just desires to go the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the negro seeks absorbtion with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, ‘First we pity, then endure, then embrace.’…. “Now let’s talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? when the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation…. When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation…. “Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them…. “The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse — as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there…. “Now we are generous with the negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, ‘what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ Only here we have the reverse of the thing — what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.”

Six LDS leaders, a good half-dozen reasons to never ever pay any further attention to anything that these folks might have to say on the subject of marriage.

Maybe it’s all BRIGHAM YOUNG’s fault. I wasn’t gonna quote him, but maybe if I do, it’d help us all appreciate how relatively progressive LDS leaders have become in their thinking:

“… Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”

Based on the six 20th-century quotes from LDS leaders that I’ve listed above, it’s at least somewhat reassuring to note the progress that’s been made since Brigham Young’s 1860’s decree:

White men who marry black women are no longer required to die on the spot.

Progress!

Hallelujah.

End rant.

Chino Blanco

I recently stopped by a fave blog of mine, Frank’s Weekly Rant, the personal blog of Frank Schubert, who, when he’s not busy blogging, is the co-manager of the ‘Yes on 8’ campaign in California.

Avid readers of Frank’s blog, like me, had recently become very concerned with the decidedly non-weekly and increasingly infrequent fresh rants available at Frank’s place, so we were all very relieved to read this in his latest post:

I’ve heard from several fans … noting that my Weekly Rant has missed a few weeks. I apologize for the lapse. It’s been a busy time as our firm works tirelessly to pass Proposition 8, the common-sense marriage initiative. If I weren’t so busy battling the People’s Lawyer [Jerry Brown], I could have written more columns. I’m back on track now.

Now that Frank is back on track, I hope he might make himself available to answer a few questions from this inquisitive fan.

Is your Prop 8 campaign strategy – which takes advantage of Mormon volunteers to identify potential ‘Yes on 8’ voters in California – one that was formulated in your office or did that strategy originate elsewhere?

I mean, you’re obviously someone who understands how costly such micro-targeting efforts can be.

Frank in February:

The big news being reported out of the SF convention is that the state GOP apparently has a big donor on the hook to erase the crushing debt it accumulated during the 2006 election cycle. That’s a sordid tale of its own. The GOP went heavily into debt to, in part, finance the highly-touted “micro-targeting” strategy undertaken by political advisors to Arnold Schwarzenegger. Micro-targeting involves integrating political databases with commercial databases to create a profile of an individual voter. Those deemed “persuadable” are targeted by the campaign. Schwarzenegger’s advisers had seen micro-targeting used in the 2004 presidential election, and credited it for helping Bush carry critical states like Ohio. But the 2006 Schwarzenegger micro-targeting effort came with a steep price – at least $26 million. Arnold won reelection, but the micro-targeting effort that was counted on to boost the prospects of GOP candidates and causes was a complete and costly bust. With the presidential election fast approaching, the GOP is still trying to pay off those old bills.

My only concern here is … who to credit for such a brilliant plan?  Falwell?  Romney? You?  Whoever it was, saving $26 million bucks oughta be a feather in somebody’s cap … is that cap yours?



As a follow-up question, if you are, in fact, the genius behind the current Mormon precinct-walking, vote-counting effort, did you bother to take into account the potential risk of mobilizing members of a faith who’ve historically displayed a willingness to follow counsel given by racist Mormon leaders, such as Apostle Mark E. Petersen?

Mormon leader Mark E. Petersen:

“The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth….We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not to be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject…. “I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn’t that he just desires to go the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the negro seeks absorbtion with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, ‘First we pity, then endure, then embrace.’…. “Now let’s talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? when the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation…. When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation…. “Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them…. “The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites [Native Americans] and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse — as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there…. “Now we are generous with the negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, ‘what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ Only here we have the reverse of the thing — what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.”

— LDS (Mormon) Apostle Mark E. Petersen:  Race Problems – As They Affect The Church, speaking at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954

Seriously now, having followed your rants, I’m having a hard time pegging you as a bigot in the mold of the Mormon Elder Petersen I’ve quoted above.  I don’t think you are.  For example, I thoroughly enjoyed this April rant of yours:

I am convinced that attacking smokers is the only remaining acceptable discrimination out there. While on a recent business trip, I flew through Chicago. Most every airport is nonsmoking. I get that. On a layover at O’Hare on my way to the east coast, I stopped at the United Red Carpet Club, to whom I pay $400 a year for the privilege of being insulted and inconvenienced, and asked the woman at the desk whether there were any smoking areas at the airport, fairly certain of the answer. She stares at me with a most disapproving look and says, “Why don’t you not smoke and add a minute to your life.”

This is a woman who is at least 50 pounds overweight. How is it that this fat woman feels that it is okay to lecture me about smoking when her rear end is spilling over the sides of her chair? I could have told her that I was concerned that her weight would result in heart disease, diabetes and any number of other medical ailments. I could have lectured her about how much American taxpayers spend each year to provide medical care to obnoxious fat women. I could have adopted a sanctimonious attitude and advised her about the obvious benefits of a Stairmaster, letting her know that it might turn her rear end into an attractive human body part instead of the planet she was lugging around her solar system. Instead, I laughed and said, “Gee, thanks for the tip. I wasn’t aware that smoking was bad.” Then I walked off.

I am not asking for sympathy, but I am asking people to seriously think about how acceptable it has become to attack smokers, and think about the broader implications this has on basic American principles. Like, say, this crazy idea of liberty and freedom that is at the core of our civilization.

…

There are also proposals to prohibit parents from smoking in their own car if children are present. These same parents are free to decide how to educate their children, teach them a value system, decide what type of food to ingest into their bodies, determine their leisure pursuits, decide what kind of clothes they’ll wear, determine if they should see a doctor when they are sick, and otherwise make decisions covering every aspect of their young lives. But, by God, these parents should be prohibited from engaging in a legal pursuit (smoking) while in the presence of their kids.

If a lawmaker authored a bill to prohibit blacks from renting an apartment, they would be recalled from office. If there was a proposal enacted to ban women or gays from driving a car, a lawsuit would immediately be filed challenging the measure. But when a proposal is offered to discriminate against smokers, it is met with applause.

If there is one thing the Constitution of the United States stands for, it’s the principle of equal protection for all. It’s not just the favored who enjoy constitutional rights. Or the privileged. Or the rich. Or the popular. It’s ALL. Yes, even smokers.

However, in the context of discussing your work in favor of Prop 8, might I gently suggest that perhaps attacking smokers is NOT the only remaining acceptable discrimination out there?  I gotta admit, I was sorely tempted to edit your final “Yes, even smokers.” to read “Yes, even gays.” .. but that’d be plain silly, now wouldn’t it?  Everybody knows that us smokers are out there fighting the good fight every day, whereas those damn gays, well, what’s that all about anyway?  Deviants.  I should be able to blow a little smoke in my boy’s face without having some PC patrol coming along telling me I’m less of a father for it … right, Frank?  I mean, I’m heterosexual, so back me up here.  Who are these people bringing the judgment down on our parenting choices?  Like you, it’s gettin’ me riled up and rearin’ for a fight.  Although, before I come out swingin’, could you remind me again who the enemy is here?  You seem to enjoy taking the do-gooders to task, but at the same time, you seem to be relying on the same do-gooders to help you pass Prop 8.  Color me … confused.

Of course, all my inconvenient questions aside, it’s not that I don’t understand the WHY behind Prop 8.  You’re a smart guy, and as a professional (and strictly GOP) PR flack, you obviously understand the challenges ahead for your party, as another one of your February rants makes clear:

There has been a decided lack of enthusiasm among Republicans for any of the people who entered the presidential race this cycle. In fact, Republicans have been dispirited for a good long while now. After more than a decade of power in Washington, it’s as if rank and file Republicans have a hangover. And for good reason: GOP Congressional leaders bungled their years in power and became the party of big spending, rather than fiscal conservativism. “Conservative” lawmakers became experts in earmarking, bringing home the federal pork for their districts at the expense of the national interest. War heroes like Duke Cunningham turned out to be on the take. Conservative stalwarts like Tom Delay and John Doolittle got wrapped up in the Jack Abramoff influence peddling scandal. Despite their rhetoric, the GOP did nothing to secure our borders when they had the chance. And then the war in Iraq went south, and with it, the final reason for GOP passion.

Until Prop 8 came along, right?

Right?

I mean, until the chance came along to hate on an unpopular minority, you were pretty much SOL, weren’t you, Frank?

In any case, I hope you won’t use the following excuse to avoid responding to me directly (admittedly, I’ve grown tired of the responses I’ve gotten from your Secretary-cum-Communications-Director Jennifer Kerns on this issue):

Frank in June:

This is why I almost never talk to the media during a hotly contested initiative campaign. I would much rather have a press secretary handle those chores. First, if the media thinks they can talk directly to the campaign manager, they will always want to talk to me and not the press secretary. Second, the press secretary can honestly avoid discussion of subjects about which she or he is not informed. If the media asks me, for example, how much money we are going to spend on an ad buy, I have to tell them, “I’m not going to say.” That sort of response doesn’t make the campaign look very good in print.

With all due respect for Jennifer’s talents, and with apologies for any hassle that answering this question might involve, please allow me to ask you directly:  how much are you saving by mobilizing the Mormons, Frank?

What I mean is, I wanna interface directly with the patriot who penned this memorable paragraph on his blog in April:

In our history, we’ve seen women, minorities, students and taxpayers all win important freedoms through application of the Bill of Rights. Sadly, today we increasingly see demands that unpopular people lose certain freedoms-the freedom to smoke in one’s own car or house, and the freedom to own a gas-guzzling car or truck are but two of countless behaviors under constant attack. That’s the thing about the Bill of Rights. It applies to all, and must be defended if it is to be meaningful.

And, if/when you reply, could you also let me know your true feelings about the Field Poll?  I’ve recently read comments of yours dissing the Field polling that’s been done re Prop 8, but pardon me if I place more credence in these earlier comments of yours (which strike me as a tacit endorsement of the same polling outfit that you’ve been slagging lately).  

Frank in January:

With the Field Poll results on Proposition 93 showing the term limits measure tied at 39 percent ‘yes,’ 39 percent ‘no,’ the game of legislative dominoes is now on. There’s little doubt that Prop 93 will be defeated. Support for this proposal is down 11 points in the past month, while opposition is up 7 points. All the momentum is favoring the ‘no’ side of this contest, and there isn’t much that can be done to reverse that momentum.

It was pretty funny watching Gale Kaufman – an exceptionally talented consultant and someone with whom I’ve had the pleasure of working – attempt to spin the Field Poll results. Her campaign didn’t say the survey results were wrong, but instead were “volatile.” That’s like saying the last voyage of the Titanic was “trending downward.” Prop. 93 is tanking and will soon be resting at the bottom of the political sea.

Pretty funny, indeed.  Considering the latest Field Poll, thank goodness you have a Press Secretary to cover for you, because Prop 8 is tanking.  In any case, eight months of Frank’s Rants later, I’m thinking we’ve found a new ally in the fight against Prop 8.  

Welcome aboard, Frank.

—

Footnote:  All the words in blockquotes above are Frank Schubert’s own (other than the Mark E. Petersen quote).

Chino Blanco

The very interesting aspect of the gay marriage debate out here in California is how corporate America has made their bet.  Companies like PG&E have donated heavily to the “No on 8” side, and now we see Hallmark, about as conservative (not in their politics, but in their style and outlook) a company as you can find, coming out with same-sex marriage cards (just in time for me to get one for a certain couple in a few weeks!):

Most states don’t recognize gay marriage – but now Hallmark does.

The nation’s largest greeting card company is rolling out same-sex wedding cards – featuring two tuxedos, overlapping hearts or intertwined flowers, with best wishes inside. “Two hearts. One promise,” one says […]

The language inside the cards is neutral, with no mention of wedding or marriage, making them also suitable for a commitment ceremony. Hallmark says the move is a response to consumer demand, not any political pressure.

“It’s our goal to be as relevant as possible to as many people as we can,” Hallmark spokeswoman Sarah Gronberg Kolell said.

Apparently they weren’t relevant enough to the American Family Association, which is commencing a protest of the company.  AFA is one of the many hatemongers trying desperately to inspire their troops over Prop. 8.  But I think Hallmark’s decision is far more instructive.

Corporations have balance sheets and shareholders.  They don’t make these kind of decisions frivolously.  They know that history is bending on the side of justice.  They know that equality is on the way.

This report of a national conference call to fight Prop. 8 and marriage equality sounds more like a battle plan than a political strategy session.  All the leading figures of the religious right were there, and the language is undeniably militaristic.  I believe that the best way to counteract the theocratic right is to display them in all their radicalism, so the whole country understands the goals of their movement.  So here ya go:

The primary focus of the call was Proposition 8 in California, described by (Chuck) Colson as “the Armageddon of the culture war.” Many speakers invoked the language of warfare, raising up an army of believers, putting soldiers in the streets, being on the front lines of a battle. Lou Engle actually described a massive rally planned in Qualcomm stadium on November 1 as a “blitzkrieg moment.”

While speaker after speaker spoke of the dire threats same-sex married couples pose to “traditional” marriage, religious freedom, and civilization itself, the overall tone of the call was confidence that victory would be won with God’s help, 40 days of prayer and fasting before the election, teams of intercessors and prayer warriors around the country, and a massive highly organized deployment of volunteers in a systematic voter identification and turnout campaign.

This is not exactly the stuff of democracy, nor is it in any way reflective of a country with a separation of church and state.  What is at work here is a putsch, a desire to seize the instruments of power and subjugate everyone to one belief system.  They mobilize through fear, claiming that the next steps in the fiendish plan are to ban the Bible, legalize polygamy, and “destroy marriage”.  They’re also using supposedly apolitical churches as an illegal communications apparatus:

Ron Luce from Teen Mania ministries and other organizers talked about plans to organize 300,000 youth and their families for an October 1 simulcast, and using them to reach 2.4 million. A representative of the Church Communication Network, a satellite network that has downlink equipment in 500 churches in California, 95 in Arizona, and 321 in Florida, said it would simulcast the youth event free of charge, and would make a satellite dish available “at cost” to churches who don’t yet have one. Said one speaker of the youth organizing, “if we don’t use them, Satan will.”

That is manifestly against the spirit of tax-exempt laws regarding churches – laws which I imagine you’ll see broken many times between now and November.  The free simulcasting and satellite services amount to in-kind donations.

People for the American Way is on this and keeping tabs on the theocratic right.  As I said, forewarned is forearmed – there’s a growing segment of the state and the country who are repulsed by this fundamentalism, this anti-Democratic dominionism.  We have an opportunity this fall to lay bare the innate bigotry of their movement for all to see.

UPDATE:  Another aspect to this is the exhuming once again of far-right theocratic icon Alan Keyes, who’s running for President again – but only in California, as part of the American Independent Party (formed in 1968 by segergationist George Wallace, which is somewhat ironic).  His running mate is Rev. Wiley Drake, the minister who prayed for the death of members of Americans United for Separation of Church and State last year.  The fundies are lining up, packed in two at a time, and all headed to California in lockstep.  It’s going to be crazy out here for the next 95 days.

We spend an inordinate amount of time on the bad of California politics here on the site.  And with a system this dysfunctional, there’s a lot of bad to go around.  But as the budget hostage crisis continues, and state workers don’t know if they’ll be able to afford their bills come Monday, I wanted to at least recognize some of the positive developments around the city and state:

• The Governor signed a bill today banning trans fats in all state restaurants and bakeries by 2011.  Combined with the law signed earlier this week to crack down on the sale of downer cattle in US groceries, and the LA City Council moving forward on a one-year moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in South Los Angeles, this is a good week for food safety, nutrition and public health.

• As mentioned by Shayera, the Los Angeles City Council voted to ban plastic bags by 2010, if the state does not mandate a $0.25 charge for every bag by then.  Additionally on the environmental front, there’s also the statewide green building code adopted by the California Building Standards Commission, and another passage for the third year in a row, of a port container fee which would be invested in fighting pollution (Hopefully this time the Governor will sign it).  This too is good.

• Leland Wong was convicted yesterday on 14 counts of public corruption and bribery while he was LA City Commissioner.  Accountability is good.

• In Orange County, the Laguna Beach City Council, which is majority Republican, became one of the first to publicly oppose Prop. 8, the hate amendment.  Saying no to hate is good.

• Unfortunately, not everything is good.  Foreclosure rates are skyrocketing nationwide, more than doubling in the second quarter.  In one incredible example, almost 1 in 20 homes in Merced have been lost to foreclosure, the highest rate in America.  Wow.  Not good.

• A couple more good things: PDLA is kicking off a Legislative Education Project and assigning progressive scores to individual Congressmembers (The first, David Dreier, has a 0).  They’re also going after Lou Dobbs for his criticism of their deeply unserious notion that health care is a human right.

What set off Dobbs’ eruption? Apparently it was his correspondent reporting that PDA “is urging the Democratic Party to adopt a plank at the party’s convention in Denver, guaranteeing accessible health care for all.”

You can help us push back against Dobbs and other media demagogues.

Within a day, you’ll be receiving a follow-up email from Norman Solomon, co-chair of PDA’s “Healthcare NOT Warfare” campaign, about our efforts to bring the principle of guaranteed health care for all into the heart of the Democratic Convention in Denver. And ways you can participate throughout the country.

For now, I want to ask you to click here and help PDA talk back to the media attacks now underway against us.

They should take the lead on Dobbs the way Color of Change took the lead on Fox News.

So reports the LA Times:

The California Supreme Court refused Wednesday to remove an anti-gay marriage initiative from the November ballot.

Meeting in closed session, the court denied a petition calling for the removal of the initiative, Proposition 8, on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters….

The court, meeting at its regular weekly conference, denied the petition without comment in a brief order.

No surprise here, especially if you’ve been following Brian’s excellent commentaries on the issue.

November isn’t that far away. If you haven’t signed up with Equality for All – what the hell are you waiting for?!

Enjoy your fireworks in areas not so dried out that it’s not a fire hazard to display them.  I leave you with two thoughts:

1) Tila Tequila is responsible for marriage equality in the state, just so you’re aware.  So go find her and thank her.

2) Via our friends at People For The American Way, a little patriotic sketch featuring… the Muppets.

(this thread mainly posted for the tags)