The No on 8 Campaign just released a new ad, this time focusing on the elimination of rights.  This is one of the most effective arguments against Prop 8: never before have we voted to eliminate rights, and we shouldn’t now.  It has done well in message testing in focus groups and the like, and if you are talking to friends, I highly suggest the tack. The ad trumpets a few prominent opponents to Prop 8, including the California Teachers Association.

Speaking of CTA, they have just reported a $1 million donation to No on 8.  (h/t Shane Goldmacher) Thank you teachers!

Once upon a time, I was a patent attorney. Yup, I sat in an office and wrote uber-fun stuff.  Good times really.  The firm that I worked for was based in Orange County, and is now the largest law firm in Orange County, Knobbe Martens Olson and Bear.

Why do I tell you about this on a political blog? Well, it’s not because I’m just getting some kicks about talking about my background, rather it’s because Knobbe attorneys also happen to be the largest donor of funds of any of the 200 largest law firms (as judged by the AmLaw 200).

While other major companies, like Google, Levi Strauss and PG&E are taking stands for equality, Knobbe  Martens is taking a stand for writing discrimination into our state constitution, and for affirmatively limiting the rights of a minority.

I should point out that many of the attorneys that I worked with at Knobbe were phenomenal people.  Extremely friendly and all that.  And, as far as I can tell, nobody from the San Francisco office has given any money to the Yes on 8 campaign, the money seems to come only from the mothership in Orange County and the smaller San Diego office.

However, the firm does have a sizable group of Mormon attorneys who are dedicated to ending my marriage, and thousands of lifelong commitments like mine.  Dedicated to the tune of over $25,000 in the third quarter alone.  You can find a chart of third quarter to Yes on 8 from Knobbe Martens attorneys here.  I’ve not taken the time to include spouses, but I did see a couple of them in the list. Further, it is possible I missed a few donations due to misspellings in the firm name on the Form 460.

So, if you are looking for an intellectual property attorney who shares your values of equality for all, I’d keep walking right past the Knobbe Martens offices in San Diego and Orange County.

(W00t! We made the $2500 Challenge on Be_Devine’s Match Page alone, with plenty of time to spare.  But don’t let that stop you from giving to the great campaigns on our Calitics ActBlue page. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

UPDATE by Brian Leubitz: This is working, and I don't want to cut people off. So, the Calitics CaliPAC will match up to another $1,500. You can donate on either the page below or on the Calitics ActBlue Page.  Keep giving folks, we need it.  And while you are at the Calitics ActBlue Page, you might want to think about dropping a few bucks for the Campaign for Teen Safety, No on Prop 4.

We need to step up the fundraising for No on Prop 8, so it's time for another weekend challenge.

I will match all contributions up to $1,000 through Sunday.

Use this page to contribute to the challenge.  The money goes directly to Equality for All.

Economic times are tough, I know. But this is important. There are fewer than four weeks left before the election. We're down in the polls and the Yes Campaign is taking in bags of money from bigots in other states who think they should be allowed to decide who Californians are and are not allowed to marry.

Spread the word and make me pay.

Two new polls have emerged showing Prop 8 leading. One is a poll commissioned by the No on 8 Committee, the other is from Survey USA:

Earlier polls had shown Proposition 8, which would eradicate the right for same-sex couples to marry in California, trailing by about 5 percentage points. This week, a Lake Research poll paid for by the campaign of 1,051 likely voters showed the proposition winning, with 47 percent saying they supported the measure and 43 percent saying no. The polling period was Sept. 29-Oct. 2. That finding is reinforced by a SurveyUSA poll of 670 likely voters showing the proposition winning 47 percent to 42 percent. That poll was taken Saturday and Sunday. (Boston Edge 10/07/08)

So, can you spot the flaws in these two polls? Well, as somebody who has followed polls for a while and has taken a class or two in statistics, a couple of things jump out. On the Lake Poll, you’d generally like to see the poll completed in three days rather than four. But that’s a quibble compared to SUSA taking their poll on a weekend.  A weekend audience will get you a far older, and far more conservative audience.

None of that is to say that we shouldn’t be worried.  The article quotes the campaign as blaming two reasons here. First is the massive spending of the Yes campaign, with most of that being from the Mormon community.  It seems the Mormons liked persecution so much that they want to inflict it upon others.  At any rate, Yes is outraising No by about $10 million. That’s Bad.  Very Bad.

Which leads us to the “complacency” reason. Specifically, the No on 8 campaign is saying that queer and queer-friendly communities are now expecting to win and are not working and contributing enough to see this thing through.  So people, let’s get on this.  

Do you want to do something? Why not Fast 4 Equality? Skip a snack for marriage equality!

The LA Times’ Meghan Daum takes a crack at the “gay indoctrination in the schools” thing the right-wingers are trying to convince Californians.  Funny thing here, the real world and our popular culture pretty much made that moot:

And, wait a second: If gay marriage would have to be taught, is heterosexual marriage already in the curriculum? Do teachers say “Today, boys and girls, we’re going to learn about passive aggressive behavior related to laundry”? Are there workbook exercises called “Ten things I’m accusing you of that really have to do with my own insecurities”? And don’t those lessons already cross over to gay marriage?

As it turns out, the only thing in the education code related to marriage has to do with teaching “the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.” Moreover, it’s only a requirement for school districts seeking state funds for health education, which not every school does.

***

As for the Proposition 8 supporters who apparently fear that such discussions would be tantamount to promoting gay marriage — how can I say this without hurting your feelings? Perhaps your invitation to the popular culture’s collective and ongoing celebration of same-sex matrimony has been lost in the mail, because I don’t see how you could think that kids haven’t already been “indoctrinated.”

As she points out, any Californian, or really any American, would have to be blind to miss the changes of the past few months.  While it probably goes back to 2004 and the Massachusetts ruling, when it happened in California, the center of creativity and popular culture, it became nearly impossible to miss. You see it on daytime tv with Ellen. You see it in the aisles of the grocery store. It’s not indoctrination, it’s people simply living their lives.

So, at some point, these people will take their heads out of the sand.  We’ll be waiting for them, cocktail in hand.

In what is sure to be an important component of the campaign, No on 8 started airing a TV spot in markets across California.  It is a strong commercial featuring a married couple of 46 years with three grown children, one of whom is gay. Here’s the words from the commercial, video to the right:

SAMUEL THORON: Julia and I have been married for 46 years.

JULIA THORON: Together we’ve raised three children – who are now adults.

SAMUEL THORON: My wife and I never treated our children differently, we never loved them any differently and the law shouldn’t treat them differently either.

JULIA THORON: If Prop 8 passes, our gay daughter and thousands of our fellow Californians will lose the right to marry. Please don’t eliminate that right – for anyone’s family.”

SAMUEL THORON: Don’t eliminate marriage for anyone. Vote No on Prop 8.

You can help get this commercial on television more frequently at the No on 8 Website. Here at Calitics, we’re hoping to have some fun activities for you as well soon…

[UPDATE] by Julia: The Thorons signed the ballot argument against passage of Prop. 8.  This is a good, solid ad carefully calibrated to move undecided voters.  The more you donate, the more they can get ads up on the air.  The other side had booked TV earlier than us, but with this ad we have beaten them to the punch.

Yesterday, the six most senior bishops in California announced their opposition to Proposition 8, the anti-marriage amendment.

“We believe that continued access to civil marriage for all, regardless of sexual orientation, is consistent with the best principles of our constitutional rights,” said the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles.

Bruno, flanked at a news conference by fellow clergy members and gay and straight couples, added: “We do not believe that marriage of heterosexuals is threatened by same-sex marriage.” (LA Times 9/11/08)

This is just another crack in the facade the Yes on 8 people are trying to put up. That somehow they own religion. Despite the fact that nearly all of their endorsements are tied to Dobson-esque quasi-religious right-wing organizations (and the Republicans that love them), they do not speak for all religious groups.  These Episcopal Bishops join other religious leaders like those from the National Council of Jewish Women and the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry Action Network.

Also, the LA Times has an interesting graphic on the donations to both sides on Prop 8 and where they come from. Yes on 8 still leads, with about $14.5 million compared to about $10.5 million for the no side. Let’s just hope the yes side squanders more resources.

(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.

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.