We all know David Dreier is a Bush rubber stamp who has voted with George W. Bush 93.6% of the time. But what about that other 6.4%? We don’t talk about it much because, well, there isn’t that much to talk about.
But credit where credit is due, there is one important issue where Dreier has differed from Bush: The Federal Marriage Amendment.
The FMA, if passed (and ratified), would have limited marriage nationwide to between a man and a woman and it would have prevented courts from granting same sex couples certain rights that married couples enjoy. When it came up for a vote in 2004 and 2006, Dreier voted against it both times and the reasoning he gave for opposing it was simple.
He explained his opposition to the amendment by stating that he felt the Constitution was not the appropriate tool for restricting rights.
Well, now we have a similar initiative on the ballot in California in the form of Proposition 8, except this time, if Prop 8 passes, it wouldn’t just amend the California constitution to restrict rights, it would amend the California constitution to eliminate the rights that people are exercising every day.
Yet David Dreier has been silent…and his silence is deafening.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has stated publicly that he opposes Prop 8. John McCain has said he supports it. David Dreier’s constituents deserve to know where he stands.
That’s why the Courage Campaign has launched a petition demanding that David Dreier come out against Proposition 8.
Dear Rep. David Dreier,
We, the undersigned, urge you to come out against Proposition 8, which would “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry” the person they love in California.
You have voted the right way in the past, so we think it’s time for you come out against Prop 8 today. Please join us in taking the following pledge:
I pledge to vote No on Prop 8, a statewide ballot initiative that, if passed, “eliminates the right of same sex couples to marry.”
Gay and lesbian couples deserve the same fundamental freedoms that all Californians enjoy. I pledge to vote No on any constitutional change that stands in the way of equality for all.
Following the lead of Governor Schwarzenegger and other Republicans, we urge you to vote No on Prop 8. Thank you for your consideration of this fundamentally important issue to Californians.
People who publicly oppose gay marriage, whether Republican or Democrat, like to say “it should be left up to the states.” Well, this year it is up to the state, our state. This year, all Californians get to decide if we are going to lead the nation on marriage equality or if we’re going to eliminate that right for same sex couples, so many of whom have been happily exercising that right since June.
It’s time for Congressman Dreier to lead and come out against Proposition 8.
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 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?
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.
Sonja’s husband, Lowell Brown, is also involved in the campaign as an Area Director in charge of organizing the LDS (Mormon) Yes on 8ground game.
Sonja Eddings Brown and Lowell Brown The Yes on 8 campaign’s Mormon Power Couple
To their credit, no matter how busy they might be in their professional lives or with the Yes on 8 campaign, they both still manage to find time to blog.
In fact, it was Sonja’s interview of Cecil “Chip” Murray (posted over at Article VI) that first got me interested in learning more about Dr. Murray:
A6 (Sonja Eddings Brown): As a respected long-time member of the Christian ministry, how do you feel we are doing as a country when it comes to the actual separation of Church and State?
Reverend Murray: I think the separation of Church and State is a basic policy that we simply must follow. Not to follow that separation, that line in the sand separating church and state is to flirt with danger. Now of course when you separate church and state that doesn’t mean that you weed religion out of those who are in politics, not that you weed politics out of those in religion, but you can’t customize it, you can’t structure it, so that you have the bully pulpit dictating to Congress. You can’t give God a stick and you be God’s agent and you are whipping people into line in your religious context.
You have your religion, your religion is personal. And even though religion is personal but never private, it cannot be public to the extent that it’s “my way or the highway.”
It isn’t American and it isn’t sensible to make the bully pulpit the bully. The bully pulpit at best deals with conscience and conscientiousness. Not consensus and not control. People have the right to believe as they believe. The Pure Charity Trust says that 87% of Americans believe in God but now when we look at how these Americans look at God, you have the Abrahamic faiths. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. You have the faith that comes out of the Mormon Church, you have Bhuddist and Daoist. These people have the right to their individual beliefs, but no one has the right to a collective belief that sweeps and demands and says you believe as we believe … or you get hurt.
Sadly, I’ve not been able to find the video for the above portion of Sonja’s interview.
However, I did manage to find the contact info for all the folks running the ground game for Lowell.
Once I’d compiled that information, I fired off the following email to the entire group of Yes on 8 volunteers under Lowell’s command:
Subject: Please avoid using falsehoods to achieve a political victory
Some of you may have already enjoyed the opportunity to read the attached commentary from a BYU law professor.
For those who have not, I sincerely ask that you please take a few minutes to read and consider his remarks.
For those who’ve already read the attached, perhaps you could spare another moment to read this recent editorial from the Contra Costa Times (09/30/2008):
“ADVOCATES OF Proposition 8 claim it is simply a marriage protection measure that does not discriminate against gays. They argue that it would not diminish domestic partner rights but only reinstate a statutory initiative passed by 61 percent of the voters in 2000.
However, that is hardly the case. Prop. 8 is a constitutional amendment that would reverse a decision earlier this year by the California Supreme Court. Prop. 8, like the 2000 measure, states that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
That is a clear discrimination against homosexuals. Domestic partnerships and marriage aren’t the same. If they were, there would be no issue and no motivation for promoting a constitutional amendment that actually delineates the difference.
Only marriage guarantees the certainty that couples count on in times of greatest need such as in making life-and-death decisions, with no questions asked. Marriage also confers a special social status upon couples that legal partnerships do not.
To its credit, the state’s highest court understood that there is a real difference between a domestic partnership and a marriage. That is why it ruled that to deny one group of people the right to marry is discriminatory and thus a violation of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.
The court did not create a new right for anyone. Instead it logically expanded the scope of a basic right to accommodate the social changes regarding homosexual relations.
Few Californians, including supporters of Prop. 8, would seek to outlaw gay partnerships or keep gays from teaching or charge them with a crime. Yet in the not so distant past, such discrimination was the norm in much of the nation.
Fortunately, there has been considerable progress over the past few decades in eliminating bias against sexual orientation. Removing the ban on marriage was an important step in that direction.
Prop. 8 would negate that progress, perhaps for many years, by adopting a needless exception to the basic constitutionally protected right of equal protection under the law.
Regardless of how one feels about homosexual relationships or one’s personal religious views, it would be a grave mistake to pass an initiative that reduces liberty by returning gay couples to second-class status.
We strongly urge voters to carefully consider the harm Prop. 8 would do not just to gays, but to all Californians, and reject the initiative.”
Here is a sampling of the responses that came back from these Yes on 8 volunteers:
Please don’t send me any more emails. Thank you.
Let’s be honest, opponents of Prop 8 want one thing….to force religion to change and accept gay marriage or to shut them down.
I don’t know where you obtained my email address but would greatly appreciate it if you would NOT contact me ever again!
I don’t care what your political values are! You don’t need to share them with me! I could care less what your thoughts are and it is very presumptuous of you to think I care anything about what you think!!!!
DO NOT SHARE MY EMAIL ADDRESS WITH ANYONE ELSE EITHER!!!!!
DO NOT EVER EMAIL ME AGAIN!!!!!
And from Lowell Brown himself:
Please stop. Thank you.
To the Yes on 8 activist who was upset that I’d obtained her email address, I would like to point out that your contact info was made public by someone on your own team: here, here, and here.
And in response to Lowell Brown’s request to “please stop” … the best I can muster is a clip from the greatest sci-fi flick ever made:
And just in case this reference might be too arcane for the Yes on 8 crowd, what I’m suggesting here is that we No on 8 folks are the guy holding the screwdriver … not because we want to be holding that screwdriver, but because there’s obviously been a serious system malfunction once a machine that we built has arrived at the conclusion that the mission objective takes precedence over any one of our lives.
In terms of the present malfunction (i.e., the lopsided support for Prop 8 among California Mormons), this comment over at Mormonsfor8.com struck me as a useful insight for those of us interested in evaluating this latest version of the LDS anti-gay program:
When Knights of Columbus or Focus On The Family makes a large
donation, one recognizes these names and one knows immediately what
they stand for. Ten years ago, the LDS Church suffered some bad
publicity when they gave 500K (out of 600K raised total) to an Alaskan
effort to pass a same sex marriage ban.
That’s right, an out of state church organization gave 83% of the
funds to promote a ballot measure in Alaska. While legal, the donation
gave many the impression that an out of state religious entity was
trying to manipulate an election in Alaska.
Having learned this lesson in Alaska, in 2002 the LDS Church asked
members to donate individually. The result was that few people
realized the extent of LDS Church involvement in arm twisting those
donations out of the members.
Since most of the LDS donors are not celebrities, few people outside
their stake would realize the extent of the church’s involvement. As a
California voter, I reserve the right to know the source of all
funding for state ballot measures and candidates. And when ten million
dollars comes from one particular source, yes the voters have a right
to know before they choose.
For some reason, this comment seems important. That said, I’m admittedly interested in understanding the extent to which Mormon efforts to pass Prop 8 are tactically distinct from those of other groups in the Yes on 8 coalition. To the extent that I’m probably one of only half a dozen folks on the planet who could give a damn about fleshing out such a point, I’ll leave it at that for now.
So, moving on to the data dump, here’s what the Mormons have planned for The Golden State:
Sorry about all the scrolling involved in reading this diary. It was supposed to be all about Sonja Eddings Brown, the new (Mormon) spokeswoman for Yes on 8, and I probably could’ve done a better job maintaining the focus on her and her new role in the campaign.
That said, where I have managed to discuss Sonja’s new role in the campaign, I hope the commentary has not given the impression that I have any desire to demonize her personally. Depending on the issue, she’s proven herself capable of delivering the kind of cogent analysis that would otherwise make me a fan, e.g., in Sonja’s own words:
Several dozen judges have now reviewed the Schiavo case and have ruled in favor of the rights of her husband as principal guardian. Whether we side with her husband or not, we must not fail to recognize his rights and more importantly his responsibilities under the law. In the future, the government should act to spare families, friends, medical professionals and other caregivers from vague customary practices and place the responsibility for life or death decisions on the individual and his or her trusted representative.
Amen, Sonja. We’re all born into families of one sort or another, but we all choose our trusted representatives, and that’s a choice that we both agree needs to be respected.
And now, just for fun, a few bars from my favorite Sonja Eddings Brown tune to accompany this link to my favorite Sonja Eddings Brown story:
And I’m so glad to have found this story from a Granada Hills Charter High School graduate.
P.S. If you do decide to contact the Zip Code Supervisors whose email addresses I’ve posted online here, please do make an effort to be civil. All we need to bring is the truth, let them worry about bringing the hate. OK?
Milk. Screenplay by fellow Mormon Dustin Lance Black:
The board – a collection of leaders from the Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox movements – this week declared its opposition to the measure, which would amend the California Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Leaders of the board said they wanted protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples.
“For many rabbis, it speaks on a personal level in terms of people they deal with whose lives have been impacted over the issue,” said Rabbi Stewart Vogel of Temple Aliyah in Woodland Hills and the board’s president.
The board has more than 290 members. Roughly 120 took part in Wednesday’s vote, the largest number of rabbis to weigh in on such an issue in recent memory. Vogel said Friday that 93% of those who cast votes supported the resolution.
Good Yom Tov!
Calitics is a part of this coalition through our Counter-Fast For Equality. We’re giving thousands of supporters the opportunity to sign on to stop the elimination of marriage equality, and donate through the Fast4Equality ActBlue page. We also have a Twitter feed set up. If you send a tweet with the #fast4equality hashtag, it’ll appear on our site. So sign up today!
Last week I wrote about the religious right’s takeover of the Yes on 8 campaign, and their efforts to rile up their base to eliminate marriage for same-sex couples. In particular, I highlighted this statement:
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 […]
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.
This “fast relay” thing just sounded more like eliminating between-meal snacking. And just the notion of fasting to pass a ballot initiative is kee-razy to the extreme. Well, if they can do it, so can we.
Calitics has decided to set up a Counter-Fast For Equality. Participants can fast for 1 minute, 10 minutes, half an hour, whatever you can spare. At the Counter-Fast For Equality website, you can sign up for the amount of time you’ll be fasting (hey Jews, don’t pick Yom Kippur, you’re fasting anyway!). And much like a charity race, you can get sponsored for your time and trouble for fasting at the rate of a dollar a minute. At the Fast4Equality ActBlue page, you can donate as little as $1 (or one minute’s worth of fasting) to the No on 8 campaign.
Just to get you in the swing of things, we put together this video detailing the ins and outs of a short-term fast. Actually, our volunteer faster had a little trouble with it:
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Sept. 27 Christian Newswire — The following news advisory is submitted by ProtectMarriage.com:
Who: ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on Proposition 8 Campaign
Campaign Managers Frank Schubert & Jeff Flint
What: Press Conference to reveal the first Yes on Proposition 8 television ad
Where: Offices of Schubert Flint Public Affairs
1415 L Street, Suite 1250
Sacramento, CA 95814
When: Monday, September 29, 2008
11:00 AM
Notes: Yes on Prop 8 Campaign Managers Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint will unveil the first in a series of campaign commercials designed to educate voters about the critical need to pass Proposition 8, which will restore traditional marriage to California.
Additionally, Professor Richard Peterson of the Pepperdine University School of Law, who appears in the ad, and Mr. Andrew Pugno, counsel to ProtectMarriage.com, will be available to answer questions.
Most importantly, I’ve still got stacks of this old flyer lying around and I was just wondering if this might not be the last chance to hand them out?
Two more upcoming events on the Prop 8 calendar:
October 1 (Wednesday) – The Fine Line Rally Satellite Broadcast (Evangelical rally for Prop 8). 7:00 PM PST.
October 8 (Wednesday) – LDS Church Satellite Broadcast regarding Proposition 8. 7:30 PM PDT.
Dear Brothers and Sisters:
October 8, 2008 Satellite Broadcast re Proposition 8
On Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. PDT, there will be a satellite broadcast regarding Proposition 8 to stake centers throughout California. General Authorities and others will speak during the broadcast. We ask that the following please be invited to attend: stake presidencies; bishoprics and branch presidencies; stake, ward and branch Relief Society presidents; and all members working in grassroots support of the Proposition 8 campaign.
In addition, we ask that a special invitation to attend the broadcast be extended to young single and young married adults. With only this coming Sunday to make this announcement before the broadcast, we ask that you please ensure that this invitation is personally extended to all who are invited. We greatly appreciate your support of this most important matter.
Sincerely,
L. Whitney Clayton
Presidency of the Seventy
I wonder if the October 8th satellite broadcast from Salt Lake City will include yet another declaration of LDS political neutrality?
At what point does the Mormon leadership’s continued insistence that Proposition 8 is a “moral”–rather than “political”–issue begin to ring so hollow with so many California voters that it will indelibly taint public perception of the LDS church long after it has helped trigger a massive rejection of Prop 8 on Nov. 4th?
I mean, c’mon, everywhere one looks, it’s nothing but GOP operatives running the Yes on 8 effort.
Just today, when Frank Schubert, the Yes on 8 campaign manager, invited me to pop over and check out his campaign’s first TV ad, here’s what I found:
If you go to the ProtectMarriage.com website and click on “First TV Ad” on their front page, it takes you to this site to view the clip:
So, then I popped over to www.patrickruffini.com to learn a little about Patrick, and this is what I found …
Patrick Ruffini is an online strategist dedicated to helping Republicans and conservatives achieve dominance in a networked era … Ruffini currently advises Republican candidates and organizations on mastering new media, with a disciplined focus on Web site, e-mail, and blog strategies … From 2005 to 2007, Ruffini served as eCampaign Director at the Republican National Committee, overseeing the Party’s online strategy for the 2006 election cycle … In the 2004 election cycle, Ruffini served as webmaster for Bush-Cheney ’04, overseeing a wide range of activities from day-to-day website operations, designing special features around high-profile events like the Conventions and Presidential debates, and managing the first-ever campaign blog for an incumbent President.
Google is typically viewed as a good corporate citizen. They’re a major employer in our state and they provide excellent benefits and one of the best work environments on the planet.
As an Internet company, Google is an active participant in policy debates surrounding information access, technology and energy. Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions — Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, all religions and no religion, straight and gay — we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues. So when Proposition 8 appeared on the California ballot, it was an unlikely question for Google to take an official company position on.
However, while there are many objections to this proposition — further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text — it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 — we should not eliminate anyone’s fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.
Posted by Sergey Brin, Co-founder & President, Technology
I wonder if this now means that there will be a Google boycott among members of the LDS church.
The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) has just released a 42 page poll (PDF).
Frank Russo comments on what this latest PPIC poll found regarding Proposition 8:
The results here are almost a carbon copy of the Field Poll and show California voters rejecting Prop 8 which would eliminate same sex marriage rights in California by a margin of 55% to 41%. It is extremely difficult for a measure that has majority opposition in polling at this point to win.
There is a partisan divide here-and the numbers are as lopsided as they are because independents join Democrats in opposing this proposition. Democrats by a 71% to 25% margin oppose it and independents oppose it by 53% to 42%. Republicans support Prop 8 by 62% to 34%. Democratic and Republican voters have the same level of importance to the outcome here whereas it is not as important to independent voters. There is no gender gap. Evangelicals are as likely to vote in favor of Prop 8 (64%) as all others are to vote against it (63%).
And here are the findings of the latest SurveyUSA poll: Yes: 44% / No: 49%.
Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Yes on 8 campaign, endorsed previous SurveyUSA polling in widely-reported comments made just last month: “We believe polling numbers are more aligned with the recent results of the Los Angeles Times poll and SurveyUSA poll, which shows that Proposition 8 has a slight lead.”
No comment yet from Ms. Kerns on this month’s SurveyUSA poll.
No such reticence from Ken Boyd, the area director for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, who steps up to suggest a possible silver lining for the Yes on 8 side: “Just a week or two ago, we were approximately 10 percentage points behind, now we’re 5 percentage points behind. So as people gain knowledge, and understanding, especially when they understand the effects, they’ll vote ‘yes’ on Prop 8.”
Nice try, Ken. Here’s a clue just in case you truly are unaware of the major problem with your spin: suggesting a trend by comparing two different polls makes you a very poor candidate for guiding others to a greater knowledge and understanding of the real challenge facing Prop 8. If your intended audience knew anything about polling, they’d understand how misleading you’re being here, and they’d rightfully resent you for stringing them along.
In terms of the ‘effects’ you mention … Ken, I’ve noted the response from rank-and-file Mormons who’ve picked up on your messaging (i.e., that infamous ‘six consequences’ alarmist claptrap that you’ve had a hand in distributing):
Beth Swann said…
Jill, I received the same document but I have it being from Ken Boyd, an Area Director from Kerman. I will e-mail it to you since it has his contact info. on it and you can ask him questions if you like.
Jill said…
BETH…I would very much appreciate that contact info. I’m trying to get to the bottom of this mystery…”who wrote that and where did they get their information?” Protectmarriage.com did have it on their website but they have since pulled it. They said they would contact me yesterday or today and let me know why. So far I have not heard…so yes Beth I would really like to contact this Ken Boyd. Thank you Beth!
In any case, here’s my bold prediction: The tally on Nov. 4 will show less than 40% support for Prop 8 from actual voters.
And here are four (very Mormon) reasons why:
I, for one, am looking forward to hearing a lot more from thoughtful Latter Day Saints like the outspoken quartet assembled here (who practice what they preach) … and a whole lot less from “Mormons” like Ken Boyd and this clown…
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.”
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!
