The battle for equality, fairness and rights, aka Prop. 8 is an extremely close fight.  So, it is with pleasure that I pass along this story about the California Family Council (CFC).  They have been raising millions to pass Prop. 8, but instead of spending most of the money on GOTV efforts, the leaders have been lining their own pockets.  Justin McClachlan, a freelance journalist in SoCal broke the story on his blog.

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.

McClachlan has a pretty chart to go with his article, but more interestingly makes the case that CFC is in danger of losing their tax exempt status based on this overspending on salaries.

Gene Takagi, an attorney who specializes in nonprofit organizations and who writes the Nonprofit Law Blog, said the legal intricacies of nonprofit finances are complex. He pointed to an article he wrote in the American Bar Association’s The Practical Lawyer on nonprofit governance.

In the article, he warns that “(a)n organization that engages in an inurement transaction (such as paying an unreasonable compensation to an insider) may face revocation of its exempt status” and that nonprofits have to show that they are working to benefit public interests, not private ones.

While seeing their tax exempt status revoked would be great, right now I am just thrilled that they are a) busy dealing with this rather than trying to pass Prop. 8 b) not spending those dollars on trying to pass Prop. 8.

In general, the other side has been pretty inefficient in their activities, focusing on visibility events, which do not do a great job of persuading voters, or descending en mass into neighborhoods without walk lists.  They are having huge rallies instead of talking to voters.  They think they can fire up their base enough to win in California.  It is up to all of you to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Make sure all of your friends and family know to vote No on Prop. 8.  Vow to vote no.  Contribute to the campaign via ActBlue.

(We won! – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Yesterday I mentioned the Prop 7 ballot argument lawsuit, but there’s always more of this stuff. Today we should be getting the Prop 8 ballot title result. A hearing on the case was held yesterday, and it didn’t go so well for the Yes on 8 folks:

Despite objections from opponents of same-sex marriage, a judge seemed inclined Thursday to leave intact a state ballot label that declares a November initiative “eliminates (the) right of same-sex couples to marry.”

Sponsors of Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 ballot argued that Attorney General Jerry Brown’s formal title and summary of the measure – the first words voters will see on their ballots – were one-sided and prejudicial. Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley appeared skeptical, although he deferred a ruling until today. (SF Chronicle 8/8/08)

UPDATE: The ballot title stays. This is a nice little victory for the opponents of Prop 8.  Thatks to Hermit9 in the comments. Full press release over the flip.

UPDATE by Dave: The other big news today is that the LA Times has come out No on 8, which, given their reach and their tendency to be something less than liberal in worldview, is very significant.

But it was Ronald M. George, chief justice of the California Supreme Court, who cut through to the essence of the issue in the May 15 opinion he wrote: “[A]ffording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.”

In other words, the very act of denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry — traditionally the highest legal and societal recognition of a loving commitment — by definition relegates them and their relationships to second-class status, separate and not all that equal.

Good for the LAT ed board.

Court Upholds Attorney General’s Ballot Language

Judge keeps ballot title and summary, declares Prop. 8 ‘eliminates the right of same sex couples to marry’

(Sacramento – August 8, 2008) In agreement with Attorney General Jerry Brown, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley ruled today that the Attorney General’s Title and Summary of Proposition 8 is accurate. He also ruled that domestic partnership and marriage are not equal and that educators are not required under California law to teach young students about marriage against a parent’s will.

Judge Frawley heard arguments from both sides of Prop. 8, ultimately ruling in favor of the opponents of the proposition and in favor of the Attorney General.

Clarifying the distinction between marriage and domestic partnerships, Judge Frawley referred to California case law that concludes that “domestic partnership is not marriage.” and, while finding it within the bounds of political speech, did describe the assertion that marriage and domestic partnership are the same as “hyperbole.”

Judge Frawley further rejected the assertion that marriage by same sex couples would be required in the California school curriculum, saying, “…children cannot be required to attend any health-related instruction, including instruction on the subject of marriage, against their parents’ will [Cal. Ed. Code §51240.]. Petitioner therefore has failed to show that the opponents’ arguments [stating that no such mandate would occur] are objectively false or misleading.”

“We are delighted that the court found some of the proponent’s arguments to be false and misleading,” said Geoff Kors, a member of the NO on 8, Equality for All Executive Committee. “We are confident that California voters will see through these scare tactics.”

The information will be included in the November ballot materials, which are the only official direct mail materials California voters receive from the state.

• The CDP’s Rules Committee is going to be having a meeting to discuss, primarily, the CDP’s Endorsement Process on August 17. It’s a system that truly needs reform.

• A quick reminder about the CDP’s Rural Caucus Questions for the Chair Candidates. The time has been extended out to August 15th. They will send the questions to all of the candidates for Chair.

• Some funny stuff from the Prop 8 Donor roll. For months there have been no donations from Chino Hills, and then on July 24, there were 3 donations of $5,000+. Then on July 28, 2 more $5K+ donations.  Guess what else happened the next day? Yup, an earthquake centered in Chino Hills.  If you follow your typical right-wing logic, isn’t this the deities being enraged with Prop 8?  Just sayin’

Anything else?

[UPDATE] by Robert – I will be on KRXA 540 AM tomorrow morning at 8 to discuss California politics, including Arnold’s latest act of right-wing desperation.

Portions XPosted 8/3/2008 11:23 AM PDT on MyDesert.com

According to one of my activist friends, a former deacon of a religious extremist church in Utah, who attends an evangelical megachurch in the Coachella Valley in order to monitor its adherence to the tax code as it applies to its tax exempt status, churches across America today began ‘100 Days of Prayer’ against Marriage Equality and cajolled their members and attendees to vote in favor of Proposition 8 and defeat gay marriage at the polls in November.

Proposition 8 is an amendment to the California State Constitution that would ban Marriage Equality and would dictate that marriage is only between ‘a man and a woman.’ Prop 8 is another in a long line of attempts by out-of-state religious extremist organizations that attempts to further the religious extremist agenda as a step towards fomenting theocracy rather than democracy in the United States of America:

(Proposition 8) (a)mends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state. (Initiative 07-0068.) (Full Text)

From the pulpit of the church, directly in violation of the principles of the separation of church and state, church leaders discussed the impending vote on Prop 8 and advised members to not only ‘pray’ for the success of the proposition, but to also vote for Prop 8.  My friend advises that in churchspeak, this use of the term ‘pray’ means ‘send money.’

More below the flip…

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has investigated churches that in violation of their tax-exempt status exhort attendees to vote particular ways.  Recently, those investigations have been suspiciously limited to more mainstream, more liberal churches.  It is not against the law for, say, a minister, priest, or rabbi to state how he or she will vote, but it is against the law to encourage attendees to vote in a particular manner.  The most extreme penalty for the latter action is removal of tax-exempt status.

In 2005, the IRS began to investigate All Saints Church in Pasadena, CA and its guest minister, George Regas.  According to National Public Radio, Regas issued a sermon from the pulpit about a hypthetical conversation between Jesus, Pres. George W. Bush, and Sen. John Kerry. For that effort, someone filed a complaint with the IRS, and the IRS threatened to remove the tax exempt status of the church, claiming that Regas’ sermon constituted an endorsement of Kerry. The IRS renewed its investigation in 2006.  However, All Saints Church refused to comply with the investigation.  Finally, in September 2007, the IRS bowed to public pressure and to the church and terminated its investigation.  In response, Rector Ed Bacon demanded that the IRS apologize and that the IRS be investigated.

In an attempt to strengthen democracy and to prevent institution of theocracy in America, more and more progressives and activists are attending religious extremist churches in order to monitor potentially illegal activities.

Americans United: for Separation of Church and State indicates that the greatest threat to the separation of church and state is the so-called ‘Religious Right:’

The single greatest threat to church-state separation in America is the movement known as the Religious Right. Organizations and leaders representing this religio-political crusade seek to impose a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint on all Americans through government action.

Americans United, as part of our educational responsibility, regularly monitors the agenda and activities of the Religious Right. We share our research with journalists, elected officials and all Americans who care about church-state separation, democracy and pluralism.

BlueBeaumontBoyz wonders how quickly the IRS will begin an investigation into churches’ endorsement of Prop 8 from pulpits across America.

Next time, my friend promises not funble his video/audio recorder and promises to provide the smoking gun.  Kudos to those who are working to preserve democracy in America!

Dan Walters has never been a fan of Jerry Brown. In the past few years, he’s never missed a chance to call him a flip-flop artist or go after him as a Flake Extraordinaire (PDF).  We get it, Dan Walters doesn’t like “Governor Moonbeam.”

But his most recent attack is really beyond whatever logic even Dan Walters has. Dan thinks that Jerry went all cynically pro-gay by changing the title and summary of Prop 8 from “amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.”  And by doing so, Dan becomes nothing more than a Knight acolyte.

The logic behind the change is clear. Before In re Marriage Cases was decided the amendment was not really removing any already existing rights.  Today, Prop 8 would eliminate the right of gays and lesbians to marry the person they love. That is a right today that would no longer exist after. The switch only reflects the changing state of the law.

But Dan Walters simply loves going after Jerry Brown, so he attacks Brown as a sycophant to the gays. Well, I won’t deny that Brown is trying to ingratiate himself with what is a powerful Democratic voting block, but this decision only reflects the world as it is.  The courts will soon confirm that Brown did the right thing.

In most, if not all, of the states that have passed marriage bans, corporations have pretty much stayed out of the ballot fight. After all, who wants to get boycotted by the Family Research Council. I mean that’s three bottles of soap that you could have sold right down the drain.

So, the introduction of a “Equality Business Advisory Council” at a presser tomorrow is something of a big deal. No on 8 needs to pick up a few points from CalChamber types who not only see the importance of equality from a fairness perspective but also see the value of marriage equality to their bottom line.  And first up is Pacific Gas & Electric.

PG&E is a big political player. They know exactly what they are doing here.  They need some credibility with the left, especially in San Francisco. It doesn’t hurt that they are in a fight over a possible public power measure in SF either.  Of course, being something of a monopoly doesn’t hurt. Where else are people going to go to get the electricity to turn on their lights?

As for other companies, I expect we’ll see a few other businesses. Maybe a few similar monopolies, but also a group of businesses that cater to the rising creative class. As the title and summary of Prop 8 mentioned, this ban will have an effect on the bottom line of some businesses in the state.  I have confidence in the voters of California seeing the fairness and logic in voting NO on Prop 8.

The Attorney General just released the ballot title and summary for Prop. 8, the amendment that would take away marriage equality.  The title and summary are a marked improvement upon the language that the proponents had circulated and that is still up on the Secretary of State’s website.  That should change shortly.

Here is the version that will be on the official ballot.

Proposition 8 ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.

   INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments.

The phrase “eliminate right” is a huge improvement to “limit on marriage” and more accurately describes what will happen.  See the circulated version:

Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment.

Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state.

When someone is standing in the voting booth or staring at their vote-by-mail ballot the title and summary is the last thing they will see.  It is extremely important that it reflect accurately what the initiative will do.

There is almost always a legal fight over the title and summary, because it can be good for a few percentage points either way.  We have to assume that the pro-side will take Jerry Brown to court over it, though they are unlikely to be successful.  Now that we have marriage equality in this state, same-sex couples have the right to get married.  This initiative would take this away.  While it would also limit marriage to between a man and a woman, its impact will not be felt on heterosexual couples, but on the same-sex couples.

And of course in general, same-sex marriage has no effect on hetero marriage, but that is besides the point.  This ballot and summary is good for us and they aren’t going to like it.

Prop 8 was highlighted in today’s Field Poll release (PDF). And there is some very good news here:

Prop 8: Yes 42%, No 51%

No, this isn’t old data. The numbers have been completely static since the May Field Poll (PDF). Marriages have happened, and yet the sky hasn’t fallen. Those people that the Gail Knights, Dennis Hollingsworths, and Randy Thommasson need to convince that the world will surely end if committed loving LGBT couples are allowed to marry are just not buying it. The anti-marriage forces were not all that successful in getting coverage on June 16 when the marriages began. The stories in the media were all about the stable relationships that were now being granted the same standing as any other marriage.  How can you be against Del and Phyllis solemnizing their relationship after 55 years? Or Carol and Rachel after 13 years? Or any of the other committed relationships?

The answer is a resounding silence. Californians are not outraged. A whole lot of nothing.

There are all sorts of great numbers in the full report on Field’s site.  Eventually, you’ll be able to get full cross-tabs on the CapAlert site. The thing that jumps out most obviously is party affiliation. Interestingly, “Other” (DTS, etc.) was pretty much equally likely to vote no as Democrats.  Also interesting is that while young voters are the most likely to oppose Prop 8, even voters over 65 aren’t as strongly opposed as they once were. In fact, the vote is pretty much even in that category.

I’m a bit skeptical of these age numbers. Ok, more than a bit skeptical, as the 50-59 numbers are totally wacky at 38% Yes, 57% No, quite a flip from the May numbers. I’ll try to contact the Field folks about this and see if they have any thoughts on this switch.

UPDATE: Here are the CapAlert cross-tabs(PDF). The 50-59 group is a set of about 190 people, so not a completely tiny set of respondents there.

The United States Census is extremely important for a number of reasons. Not only do we allocate representation in our government using that data, but it also affects how federal and state funding is allocated and how we view the nation. The data, generalized and without names, is also made available for research purposes.

Yet in 2010, the Census will consciously doctor the data, ignoring thousands of weddings in California, Massachusetts and hopefully a few more states by then. From MediaNews:

But no matter what the voters decide, the official government count of the number of married same-sex couples in California is not in doubt. It will be zero.

The U.S. Census Bureau, reacting to the federal Defense of Marriage Act and other mandates, plans to edit the 2010 Census responses of same-sex couples who marry legally in California, Massachusetts or any other state. They will be reported as “unmarried partners,” rather than married spouses, in census tabulations – a policy that will likely draw the ire of gay rights groups. (Monterey Herald 7/15/08)

But, now don’t you worry, they aren’t tampering with the data. They’ll have it, but just completely ignore it. Maybe in a few years will my marriage or the other marriages happening all across the state will be acknowledged by the federal government.

One can only hope an Obama administration would change this ridiculous ruling. Ignoring the legally binding weddings in some states is preposterous and would lead to inaccuracies all along the data food chain.