The things I do for you people, getting up at the asscrack of the Lord’s Day to trek out to Brooklyn’s Crown Heights for the much-hyped Straight Pride Parade. As you can see, however, I found the corner of Flatbush and Church, the parade’s supposed 10am starting point, completely deserted. Damn, and here I wanted a Straight Pride t-shirt.
I did see a good number of cars whizzing by that were festooned with flags from Jamaica and other Caribbean nations, but those were probably just folks getting ready for tomorrow’s massive West Indian Day Parade. Just to make sure I hadn’t missed the fun, I popped into a few shops to inquire if anybody had seen a parade this morning. The manager of Raquel Shoes told me, “I’ve been here since 8:30am. It’s been totally quiet all morning.” …
I at least expected to find a couple of reporters lurking around, but the only folks on the street seemed to be morning shoppers. …
Who knows, maybe I blinked and missed a handful of haters marching up Church Avenue wearing Buju Banton t-shirts. What a laughable non-event. And that, my tender kittens, is a very good thing.
Feel free to distribute this post in its entirety, anywhere and everywhere, as long as you include a link back to The Lavender Newswire.
Chino Blanco suggested Googling “Six Consequences If Proposition 8 Fails” — “the six totally false talking points that the ‘Yes on 8′ campaign is trying to use to fire up their target voters.”
I found it, and, after I stopped laughing, grabbed it off a Wrong-Wing blog, and decided to answer each “consequence” here.
Six Consequences Big Lies If the Freedom-Haters Are Spreading About Proposition 8 Fails
1. Children in public schools will be taught that both traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are okay.
The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)
Therefore, if the definition of marriage is changed, children will be taught that marriage is a relation between any two adults. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.
This is a lie. The California Education Code will not be changed by the defeat (or passage) of Proposition 8.
The entire text of Proposition 8 (PDF) reads as follows:
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over 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 on state and local governments.
The anti-gay forces are counting on voters not to read the California Education Code for themselves — so we’ll be happy to read it for them.
The section of the California Education Code (§51890) cited defines a long list of terms as used in Chapter 5.5. Comprehensive Health Education, a.k.a. the Comprehensive Health Education Act of 1977.
Citing the need for “an adequate health education program in the public schools,” this chapter focuses on education about, and prevention of, “the abuse of alcohol, narcotics, and tobacco; emotional instability; forced marriage; self-medication; dental caries; nutritional disorders; suicide; and accidents,” as well as “fostering in students an understanding of their role in protecting the environment, and in safeguarding themselves from other health and safety dangers which may be posed by hazardous substances.”
There is only one reference to marriage in §51890, and it is this:
(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to include the following subjects: …
(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.
In addition, a section of the Code the pro-8 forces conveniently neglect to cite, §51914, specifically prohibits arbitrary changes to the comprehensive health education program without extensive input and review:
51914. No plan shall be approved by the State Board of Education unless it determines that the plan was developed with the active cooperation of parents, community, and teachers, in all stages of planning, approval, and implementation of the plan.
And: §51890 itself mandates “community participation” — defined in §51891 as “the active participation in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of comprehensive health education by parents, professional practicing health care and public safety personnel, and public and private health care and service agencies” in “all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school system”:
(3) The community actively participates in the teaching of health including classroom participation by practicing professional health and safety personnel in the community.
Yet all of the above is moot, because the California Education Code already requires schoolchildren be taught respect for all committed relationships.
You read that right. It’s in yet another chapter and section the anti-gay forces fail to cite, §51933, Chapter 5.6. California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Education Act, Article 2. Authorized Comprehensive Sexual Health Education:
51933. (a) School districts may provide comprehensive sexual health education, consisting of age-appropriate instruction, in any kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive, using instructors trained in the appropriate courses. …
Not “must,” mind you, but “may.” Note also the word “elects” in the first sentence quoted immediately below; whether or not to “offer comprehensive sexual health education” is left entirely to the discretion of the school district:
(b) A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, shall satisfy all of the following criteria:
(1) Instruction and materials shall be age appropriate.
(2) All factual information presented shall be medically accurate and objective.
(3) Instruction shall be made available on an equal basis to a pupil who is an English learner, consistent with the existing curriculum and alternative options for an English learner pupil as otherwise provided in this code.
(4) Instruction and materials shall be appropriate for use with pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities.
(5) Instruction and materials shall be accessible to pupils with disabilities, including, but not limited to, the provision of a modified curriculum, materials and instruction in alternative formats, and auxiliary aids.
(6) Instruction and materials shall encourage a pupil to communicate with his or her parents or guardians about human sexuality.
(7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.
Thus, the California Education Code will not be changed by the defeat of Proposition 8. The Code already includes the very thing the anti-gay forces are trying to make you think looms on the horizon.
On a related note, the anti-gay forces really hope you won’t read Chapter 5.6 in full, because it annihilates the argument that comprehensive sex education (including accurate information about contraceptives) cannot exist in harmony with “abstinence-only” teaching:
(8) Commencing in grade 7, instruction and materials shall teach that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only certain way to prevent unintended pregnancy, teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, and provide information about the value of abstinence while also providing medically accurate information on other methods of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. …
Dropping down past points 9 through 12(a)-(c) (which deal with accurate information about pregnancy prevention, sexually transmitted diseases, what to do with an unwanted baby, and the age-appropriateness of materials used for grades earlier than 7), we come to 12(d):
(d) If a school district elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, the school district shall comply with the following:
(1) Instruction and materials may not teach or promote religious doctrine.
(2) Instruction and materials may not reflect or promote bias against any person on the basis of any category protected by Section 220.
Note the “if” and “elects” again.
(Also note the prohibition of religionist materials — another reason the anti-gay forces don’t want you to read this chapter.)
220. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.
In other words, you can’t promote bias against anyone in public schools — including, but not limited to, gay people… and religious people.
The radical religionists really hate the fact that we’re legally protected from hatred here in California, just like they are.
They also hate the fact that California prohibits forced religious instruction on public school students — while claiming that California is forcing pro-gay “instruction” on those same students, which it doesn’t.
Also of interest is §221 (same link as the last one above), which destroys the oft-repeated lie that religious institutions will be forced to teach that “gay is OK”:
221. This article shall not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.
2. Churches will be sued if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings that are open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
This is a two-fold lie. There are two issues here: 1) allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in church-owned facilities, and 2) religious officiants performing same-sex marriages.
They want you to think your “pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi” is going to be forced to perform marriages that are in direct conflict with your church’s beliefs.
Issue 1: Same-sex marriages in church-owned facilities.
Let’s get the obvious out of the way first: It’s highly unlikely that a same-sex couple would want to get married in a facility owned by an organization hostile to equal rights — just as, say, a Muslim couple would want to be married in a place where the pastor preaches that Islam is evil. Which is probably why we’ve never heard of a Muslim couple suing a Christian church for denying access to a church hall (or a Christian couple suing a synagogue, or a Jewish couple suing a mosque, etc., etc., etc.).
Now, to the point: If the facilities are “open to the public,” then yes, the owner could be sued for refusing to allow access to same-sex couples — or anyone else for that matter.
A Press-Enterprise article from late July (linked below) sums it up:
David Cruz, a professor of law at USC, an expert on sexual-orientation law and president of the International Lesbian and Gay Law Association, said religious institutions might be required to allow their meeting rooms or halls to be used for same-sex weddings if the religious groups already rent their facilities to the public. There has never been a court ruling on the matter, so the law is unclear, he said.
If a court does rule there is a requirement, it would be based upon long-standing state law that prohibits public-accommodations discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, not on the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling, he said. A religious group that does not rent out its facilities to the public would not be affected, because the facilities would not be considered “public accommodations,” he said.
The solution: Don’t rent your church hall to the public.
The real bottom line: Whether your church gets sued for its discriminatory practices or not has absolutely nothing to do with Proposition 8.
Issue 2: Religious officiants performing same-sex marriages.
To require any church to perform any civil marriage is unconstitutional — that is, it violates the United States Constitution.
No church can be forced to perform any marriage. The Catholic church will not, and cannot be forced to, perform a marriage for a non-Catholic couple, nor for a divorced Catholic (a Catholic whose previous marriage was annulled by the church, yes, but not a civilly divorced Catholic). The same goes for every other church — and applies to secular officiants as well (i.e., an atheist officiant cannot be forced to perform a religious ceremony).
Here’s one of many examples of such empty fearmongering, and the facts that render it an utter lie:
A Sacramento-based conservative legal group arrives in Corona this week to warn local pastors that they might be sued for refusing to host same-sex weddings, and to advise them on how far they can go in supporting a ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage.
Constitutional-law experts say the state and federal constitutions’ guarantee of religious freedom clearly allows clergy to decline requests for same-sex matrimonies. Supporters of same-sex marriage accuse the group of misleading pastors to increase support for Prop. 8, the November ballot initiative that would bar same-sex marriage, and to raise money for the organization. …
[The Pacific Justice Institute] is using the specter of pastors being forced to perform same-sex weddings in its fundraising appeals.
“If you believe, as I do, that no government should be allowed to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies that contradict God’s Word, I’m asking you to say ‘I do’ by offering PJI a one-time, tax-deductible gift,” a June 25 letter says.
The letter says that same-sex couples have already threatened two pastors with lawsuits for refusing to marry them. [PJI president Brad Dacus] declined to identify the churches.
Well, that’s convenient. Why not identify them? Why not show us all proof of their “persecution”?
Shannon Price Minter, legal director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, the lead counsel in the case that led to the May 15 California Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, said any lawsuit against pastors for refusing to perform same-sex weddings would be futile. He said he strongly supports the right of clergy to decline to perform same-gender weddings.
“They’re trying to scare people,” Minter said. “There’s not a shred of truth in their assertion. It is so clearly established in law that clergy and religious organizations have absolute discretion on which marriages to perform and what is within their religious faith. That is one of the most solidly established principles in law.”
Some religions have strong restrictions on divorce, second marriages and interfaith marriages, and — just as with same-sex marriages — government cannot interfere with those teachings, Minter said.
Jennifer Rothman, an associate professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and an expert on constitutional law, said the state has always allowed clergy to choose whom to marry, and will continue to allow clergy to adhere to their religious teachings on the matter.
Of course, right-wing “scholars” — like John Eastman (see the full P-D article) — still warn that that it “it is unlikely that a court would force clergy to marry same-sex couples,” but it “isn’t impossible.” Nothing is “impossible” — but it would take a repeal of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What’s more (and before the righties start whining about “activist judges”), that little thing about “free exercise” was clearly explained in Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment — yet declared, in a broader context, that the Free Exercise Clause “withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of religion. Its purpose is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions there by civil authority.”
The only way to “force” any clergymember to do anything against the tenets of his or her church is by way of a consitutional amendment to strike the Free Exercise Clause from the First Amendment, or to repeal the First Amendment altogether.
That isn’t going to happen, and the righties know it.
The bottom line: Religionists don’t want the government running their churches (which the government can’t do anyway, and the religionists know it), yet think churches have the right to run the government.
Now, if you want a real slippery slope that will threaten religious freedom in the United States, then a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (state or federal) is the way to go.
First, forcing the government to declare which marriages are legal and which are not based on the religious ideology of any one group restricts the religious freedom of every other religious group. That means if, say, Catholics could force the government to abide by Catholic doctrine, all non-Catholic marriages would be null and void. (Sure it’s a stretch, but according to the radical righties, nothing’s “impossible”… right?)
Second, if the righties want to argue that marriage is a “sacred” religious institution, they run the risk of invalidating their own authority to perform legally-recognized marriages.
In a discussion of a 2004 proposed (and failed) “compromise” amendment that would ban equal marriage in Massachusetts while providing for same-sex civil unions, Emory University law professor John Witte pointed out that “the debate could raise questions about whether it’s appropriate for the clergy to continue to act as agents of the state in solemnizing marriages (’Under the authority vested in me…’). They could be in a difficult posture to say they can do that but can’t act as agents of the state in performing civil unions.”
If the religionists are willing to give up their right to have their church marriages legally recognized by the state, then we can talk.
3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston has already closed its doors because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
This is a multiple-pronged lie. Starting with the second sentence first:
Catholic Charities of Boston did not “close its doors” at all; it is still very much in existence. See for yourself. Its Web site boasts:
As one of the largest providers of social services in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities responds to the needs of the poor and working poor, provides supportive services to children and families, and assists refugees and immigrants as they become active participants in their communities. We offer approximately 140 programs and services in 40 locations across Eastern Massachusetts, which allows us to help nearly 200,000 people each year.
That law — passed by the the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1993 — had nothing to do with the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. (Nor did the ruling in Adoption of Tammy, in which the court ruled that a lesbian couple could adopt a child, based on the fact that “[n]othing in the provisions of the adoption statute, G. L. c. 210, precludes the joint adoption of a child by two unmarried individuals.” Not “two gay individuals,” but “two unmarried individuals.”)
Gay couples didn’t “win” the right to adopt via marriage in 2004; they were recognized as equal to all other unmarried adoptive parents, in 1993 — a decade before same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts.
What’s more: In reality, it was not pressure from the state but from the Vatican that triggered Catholic Charities’ decision to end its adoption work:
The controversy began in October when the [Boston] Globe reported that Catholic Charities had been quietly processing a small number of gay adoptions, despite Vatican statements condemning the practice. Over the last decades, the Globe reported, approximately 13 children had been placed by Catholic Charities in gay households, a fraction of the 720 children placed by the agency during that period.
Agency officials said they had been permitting gay adoptions to comply with the state’s antidiscrimination laws. But after the story was published, the state’s four bishops announced they would appoint a panel to examine whether the practice should continue. In December, the Catholic Charities board, which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions.
But, on Feb. 28, the four bishops announced a plan to seek an exemption from the antidiscrimination laws. Eight of the 42 board members quit in protest, saying the agency should welcome gays as adoptive parents.
That day, [Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities of Boston] and [Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley] met with [then-Governor Mitt Romney] in his State House office to make their case for an exemption, but Romney said he lacked the authority to do so. Hehir and O’Malley left the State House feeling that nothing could be done soon for their cause. The bishops had considered launching a court challenge, but Hehir said he and O’Malley realized it would cost “too much time and energy” — without any certainty of victory.
“It became clear our options were narrow,” Hehir said.
The most egregious abuse of [examples of the ‘collision’ of … ‘equal treatment for same-sex couples’ and ‘the freedom to exercise religious beliefs’] to undermine gay marriage is the Catholic Charities case, which involved the application of a 1989 antidiscrimination law. That dispute arose because the Catholic Church objected to complying with the law for the first time only after gay marriage was permitted in the state. It was a fortuitously timed conflict for gay-marriage opponents given that the state legislature was at that very moment considering a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
As for California, all unmarried prospective parents are subject to the Uniform Parentage Act — the scope of which is far too complex to detail here (as we always say, we’re not lawyers), but which is summarized nicely here and here.
You can read the entire California Family Code (particularly §7600-7606), or get up to speed with the HRC’s summary of California adoption law as it pertains to gay and lesbian parents:
Permits single GLBT individuals to petition to adopt? Yes.
California law states that an adult related to the child, a person named in a deceased parent’s will, a legal guardian, or a person with whom the child has been placed for adoption is permitted to petition to adopt. CAL. FAM. CODE § 8802.
Permits a same-sex couple to jointly petition to adopt? Yes.
Permits a same-sex co-parent to petition to adopt partner’s child or child of the relationship? Yes.
In 2003, the state Supreme Court affirmed that a same-sex co-parent can petition to adopt his or her partner’s child or child of the relationship. (Sharon S. v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 554 (Cal. 2003))
“Petitioner Sharon S. and her former domestic partner, Annette F., had a child by artificial insemination, and both women reared the child. Annette F. was the biological mother. When the couple parted ways, the Sharon S. petitioned for independent second-parent adoption, but the Annette F. petitioned to block the proceedings. Last month, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in favor of the Sharon S. See 73 P.3d, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 699. It held that (1) termination of a birth parent’s rights is not a prerequisite to adoption; and (2) second-parent adoptions are valid under California’s adoption laws.” [Lesbian & Gay Lawyers Association]
Registered domestic partners can use the state’s stepparent adoption laws to adopt each other’s children or children of the relationship. (CAL. FAM. CODE § 9000(b))
Details: The state regulations do not address whether sexual orientation is a considered factor in adoption decisions. CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 22, § 35181.
Bottom line: Gay couples (and singles) are already eligible to adopt in California. There’s nothing in Proposition 8 — pass or fail — that would change that, or increase the potential for lawsuits against adoption agencies (religious or secular) that violate state law by discriminating against prospective parents solely on the basis of sexual orientation.
4. Religions that sponsor private schools and which provide housing for married students will be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine, or lose tax exemptions and benefits.
This is unsubstantiated and unprecedented projection. Since the benefits of California’s domestic partnership law were expanded in 2003 (and went into effect in 2005), unmarried couples (gay and straight) registered as domestic partners gained the right to family student housing on public campuses. The question is this: Since this new benefit went into effect, has any private religious school in California been “required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine” in the past three years?
In all the research I’ve done on this subject, I have yet to find a single case of a private religious school (in California or elsewhere) being “forced” to house a legally-married same-sex couple.
As for the possibility of a religious school (or any other religious institution) losing its tax-exempt status because of discriminatory practices, that would be wonderful (there’s a good reason Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status for denying admission to applicants who dated outside their race: BJU was wrong, no matter how “deeply held” BJU’s religious beliefs, and taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize discrimination) — but in reality, the chances of that happening are remote.
To the religionists I say: Go talk to your California tax attorney if you’re worried about losing your right to leech off the taxpayers in California — or, better yet, move to a state where anti-equality discrimination is not only legal, but encouraged. Virginia is rather pretty, and well-suited to religious bigots.
Finally, you won’t lose your federal exemption — the IRS doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages any more than you do, so it doesn’t care if you discriminate against us. (You’ll have to worry about that only after we’ve achieved full marriage equality on the federal level, or when Congress finally includes “sexual orientation” in federal antidiscrimination law.)
In any case — and this is really getting old, fast — the bottom line is that Proposition 8 will have no effect one way or the other on existing state law (which already prohibits discrimination based on both sexual orientation and marital status) or federal law (which offers no protections for LGBT Americans, and does not recognize same-sex marriages).
5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages will be sued for hate speech and could be fined by the government. It has already happened in Canada, one of six countries that have legalized gay marriage.
This is a lie, combined with irrelevant fearmongering. I could sue Pat Robertson for hate speech right this minute (anybody can sue anybody for anything, especially in California), but I wouldn’t win. His hate speech (and everyone else’s) is completely protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. There are yelling-fire-in-a-theatre exceptions (e.g., inciting violence), but Fred Phelps will still be free to scream “God hates fags” all he likes.
In fact, ministers will still be free to tell their congregations how to vote on ballot initiatives like Proposition 8, without worrying about losing their federal tax-exempt status. (The only kind of politicking preachers can’t do in an official capacity is promote specific candidates. That’s why bully-pulpiteer James Dobson spun off “Focus on the Family Action” from Focus on the Family; Dobson is quite open about its purpose: “Focus on the Family Action is a new cultural action organization that is completely separate from Focus on the Family, legally. It has been created by separating out of Focus on the Family those activities which constitute lobbying under the IRS code…”)
Next, what happens in Canada is irrelevant — so irrelevant that I’m not going to bother trying to figure out which case(s) are being cited (or if they ever existed). Canadian law has zero effect on U.S. law. And, as evidenced by the United States’ overwhelming refusal to catch up with its northern neighbor in the civil-rights department, the U.S. isn’t even influenced by Canada.
But, again — no matter how many times I have to repeat it — Proposition 8 has no impact on existing hate-crimes laws (there are no specific “hate speech laws”).
6. It 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.
This is a lie, combined with unsubstantiated and unprecedented projection.
We’ll gladly get to “the money” in a moment. But first: Nobody’s redefining marriage except the anti-gay forces.
The California Constitution was interpreted correctly — and anyone who claims it wasn’t is just plain wrong. I’ve quoted Glenn Greenwald’s plain, simple, and excellent explanation of the facts before, and it’s well worth quoting again:
No rational person can criticize the Court’s decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents. Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of — and contempt for — how the law works.
As the Court made clear, whether someone believes that “marriage” should include same-sex couples is completely irrelevant. It is equally irrelevant whether one believes that the U.S. Constitution can be read to require same-sex marriages. There is one issue, and only one issue, that matters here: are the provisions of the California State Constitution, in light of how they have been interpreted by that state’s Supreme Court in prior decisions, violated by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal institution of “marriage”?
To be able to answer that question, one must have read and understood the key cases on which the Court relied, such as Perez v. Sharp (1948), Brown v. Merlo (1973) and numerous others. For reasons I’ve written about before, anyone who criticizes the Court’s decision without reference to California constitutional law is engaged in rank sophistry or, to use a more familiar term, pure “judicial activism” (i.e., judging a constitutional question based on one’s preferred outcome rather than the requirements of binding constitutional law). Put another way, those who criticize the Court here of “judicial activism” without bothering to familiarize themselves with relevant California constitutional law are themselves engaged in the purest, and lowest, form of “judicial activism.”
Second, this “activist judges” line as the anti-gay crusaders use it is utterly meaningless, and always has been. Circuit and federal-court judges are appointed by officials elected by the majority of voters to represent the people. They are representing the people.
Ditto state legislatures.
Greenwald:
Equally misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges “overriding” the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their “marriage” laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed “it is up to the state Supreme Court” to decide the issue.
As Greg said recently (regarding a survey gauging the mood of California voters): “If you don’t trust your representative, then find someone else and vote them to represent (notice the similarity between the words) your interests!”
If you want an example of a real activist judge, let’s talk about Roy Moore.
Third: The California marriage ruling was not made by a bunch of “activist judges,” but by an overwhelmingly conservative court — which did its duty properly, without attempting to inject the personal ideology of any of its members into its majority opinion.
Frank D. Russo, in discussing Republican legislator Robert Villines’ astoundingly ignorant reaction to the ruling — “I am very disappointed that the California Supreme Court, by the narrowest of margins, would allow their own personal partisan views to get in the way of their duty to uphold the rule of law by thwarting the will of the overwhelming majority of Californians who voted in support of Proposition 22. … I hope that once this constitutional amendment becomes law in November, the Supreme Court will resume its appropriate role of interpreting the law, and stop legislating from the bench” — blows Villines (and the “activist judges” idiocy) out of the water:
Since 6 of the 7 Justices are Republicans, appointed by Republican governors — including 3 of the 4 in the majority, this is either ignorant or just demagoguery. What is the partisan agenda of the Republican Chief Justice [Ronald] George who wrote the court’s decision and who was appointed by Republican Pete Wilson? Or that of Kathryn Werdegar, another registered Republican, also appointed by Wilson? Or that Republican Justice Joyce Kennard, appointed by that Republican Governor George Deukmejian? Or are these remarks directed at the sole Democrat on the Court, Carlos Moreno who voted with his three Republican colleagues for the decision?
The Court was doing its job in our system of government. They were interpreting the California Constitution. They had no more choice to decide this case the opposite way — or to duck it (judicial restraint as Dan Weintraub characterized one of the dissenters in this morning’s Bee) than they could have or should have in deciding that California’s laws 60 years ago against interracial marriage were unconstitutional or throwing out the repeal of the Rumford Fair Housing Law that the voters approved in a ballot referendum in the 1960s.
The fact that Proposition 22, passed in 2000 by 61% to 39% is not controlling as to the Court’s proper decision on the constitutional questions the court had to decide this last week. It wasn’t when the California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 14 to make it legal to discriminate on the basis of race in deciding who to sell one’s house to — a very emotional and politically risky move for the court back then — for those who remember.
It’s a basic principle of law that when the state’s constitution conflicts with a statute — even one passed by the voters — that the constitution trumps the statute. Proposition 22 was a statute and the court would be shirking its duty if it followed an unconstitutional statute just for political reasons or expediency.
Maybe Villines and company are trying to make this into a partisan political issue — to throw red meat out to their base and whip up the vote in November. He probably spoke before reading the decision — as have most of those expressing an opinion — but at least he should get his facts right. And what he is pushing is not particularly the kind of rebranding our Republican Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has in mind for his party. He is urging voters to reject any ballot proposition to overturn the Court’s decision. And he supports the Court. A position I believe most Californians will take in November.
As one of Russo’s readers commented: “When it’s a decision people like, they say the court is doing the right thing. When it’s a decision they do not like, suddenly it’s judicial activism from the bench.”
Fourth: Anyone who’s worried about lawsuits must be thinking of filing his own, since there is no historical precedent that the legalization of same-sex marriage has ever caused a “cascade” of any negative consequence — other than hysterical fearmongering from the anti-gay brigades.
Since the anti-gay folks want you to believe that using Canada as an example is relevant, let’s use a more realistic example, closer to home: Massachusetts. Has there been “a cascade of lawsuits” against religious institutions since marriage equality was legalized in 2004?
Well? Has there?
I won’t hold my breath waiting for someone to show me this “cascade.”
Fifth: If you’re worried about “your money, your church contributions – that will have to be spent on legal fees,” then perhaps it’s time to find a new church, one that won’t be using your tithing to file any frivolous lawsuits.
Finally, we’ll show you the money: The fiscal-impact estimate of Proposition 8 is clear. Passing Prop 8 would initially result in “potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments.”
On the other hand, defeating Prop 8 will save you money. Every tax dollar that flows into Sacramento from sources other than your income is one dollar less you have to pay in taxes used to run the state’s business.
Aside from the additional revenue from sales taxes, same-sex marriage is a boon to business and employment (you hear me? I said “jobs!”) — and our critically fragile economy needs the regular and ongoing adrenalin injections same-sex weddings provide.
We’re not talking millions here — we’re talking billions.
You can read lots of different articles about all that nice green stuff pouring into California’s coffers — here are just a few to get you started:
Gay marriage a gift to California’s economy Business is up for hotels, bakers and photographers as same-sex couples prepare to wed. Alana Semuels, Los Angles Times, June 2, 2008
But I like the way Allan Acevedo, a sophomore at San Diego State, says it:
For many people who do not support marriage equality, one factor might help change their minds. In a speech given in San Francisco, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger stated that he hoped the newly attained rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community would lead to an economic boom to California’s troubled economy. A recent study issued by the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law at UCLA estimated that gay and lesbian couples would spend close to $684 million in the next three years on wedding expenditures such as cakes, photographers, invitations, dresses, limo rentals, hotels and more.
Researchers estimate that more than half of California’s 100,000 same-sex couples will exchange vows during the next three years. Unlike Massachusetts, the only other state that issues same-sex marriage licenses, there is no residency prerequisite in order to be issued a license.* That means out-of-state dollars will be flowing into the California economy, which has in effect created a monopoly on same-sex marriages, an ideal economic condition for the state. Added on to this, New York has recently announced that it will recognize all out-of-state marriage licenses, further encouraging couples to take the plunge.
It’s estimated that 68,000 out-of-state couples will come to California specifically to wed. The researchers state that same-sex weddings will generate $64 million in tax revenues for the state, $9 million in marriage-license fees from all the counties in the state and create and sustain about 2,200 jobs. By some estimates, weddings and commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples generate $1 billion a year in revenue. PlanetOut, a media and entertainment company that conducts surveys, states Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender consumers earn 20 percent more than their straight counterparts on average, and spend about 10 percent more on nuptials.
These are no small numbers. Even conservatives who oppose marriage equality should stop and consider these figures when heading to the polls on November 4. …
Arguments focusing on fairness and equality might not tug on your heartstrings, but this estimated economic boost might reach your purse strings. Voting “no” on this unjust initiative will mean more than improving an unstable economy, it will mean furthering our society in allocating freedom to all facets of our civilization. Come November vote “no” on limiting marriage equality. It seems like a win-win situation to me.
(You want to know how much we spent on our wedding? Well, I won’t tell you, because it’s nobody else’s business — but I will say it was considerably more than we ever imagined it would be. Even “off the books” expenses were significant; for example, it was late into our reception when it dawned on me that we hadn’t thought about tipping the wait staff — so I emptied the contents of my wallet into the hands of a grateful [and gracious] banquet captain. While we didn’t come anywhere near the $35,000-average mark estimated by various observers, I know that if all gay couples spent what we did, we could singlehandedly bail California out of its economic crisis, with enough left over to fix all the potholes on the Bayshore Freeway.)
Since the anti-gay forces have proved their ignorance, and in many cases their pathetic lack of reading comprehension, let’s end this in a way they’ll be sure to understand: with the Bible.
It would be easy to merely repeat the 9th Commandment — “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Ex. 20:16) — but there’s another, far more appropriate “false witness” passage I like even better… and I’d like to send it to the anti-gay brigades on a great, big, gay greeting card:
Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.
Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:
Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause.
. . .
Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause.
Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.
. . .
Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
— Exodus 23:1-3,6-7,9
* Massachusetts is in the final stages of repealing its 1913 law prohibiting the marriage of nonresident same-sex couples.
Statement of NOW PAC Chair Kim Gandy on the Selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s Vice Presidential Pick
Sen. John McCain’s choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate is a cynical effort to appeal to disappointed Hillary Clinton voters and get them to vote, ultimately, against their own self-interest.
Gov. Palin may be the second woman vice-presidential candidate on a major party ticket, but she is not the right woman. Sadly, she is a woman who opposes women’s rights, just like John McCain.
The fact that Palin is a mother of five who has a 4-month-old baby, a woman who is juggling work and family responsibilities, will speak to many women. But will Palin speak FOR women? Based on her record and her stated positions, the answer is clearly No.
In a gubernatorial debate, Palin stated emphatically that her opposition to abortion was so great, so total, that even if her teenage daughter was impregnated by a rapist, she would “choose life” — meaning apparently that she would not permit her daughter to have an abortion.
Palin also had to withdraw her appointment of a top public safety commissioner who had been reprimanded for sexual harassment, although Palin had been warned about his background through letters by the sexual harassment complainant.
What McCain does not understand is that women supported Hillary Clinton not just because she was a woman, but because she was a champion on their issues. They will surely not find Sarah Palin to be an advocate for women.
Sen. Joe Biden is the VP candidate who appeals to women, with his authorship and championing of landmark domestic violence legislation, support for pay equity, and advocacy for women around the world.
Finally, as the chair of NOW’s Political Action Committee, I am frequently asked whether NOW supports women candidates just because they are women. This gives me an opportunity to once again answer that question with an emphatic ‘No.’ We recognize the importance of having women’s rights supporters at every level but, like Sarah Palin, not every woman supports women’s rights.
Sapph says: And, in case you couldn’t guess, this… thing hates gays, too.
We’ll go nuclear on her homophobic ass later. Suffice to say, Sarah Palin is just as hate-filled and ripe for ridicule as her new boss.
As I wrote earlier today, Dougie: “You could have just shut up, [sat] back, and left us alone, but noooooooo, you had to stick your nose (and your money) into an issue that never had any effect on you, your family, or your hotels. Now you’re involved, Dougie, and you (and your employees, and your vendors, and everybody else who depends on you to make a living) have no one to blame but yourself.”
Officials at the Manchester Financial Group have argued for weeks that a boycott by gay rights and union groups hasn’t hurt business at its two San Diego hotels, the Manchester Grand Hyatt and The Grand Del Mar.
But a top company official, in an e-mail obtained by The San Diego Union-Tribune, painted a different picture, saying the boycott could have dire consequences for hotel owner Doug Manchester that could cost him millions of dollars in lost business.
In a July 29 e-mail to Manchester, Paul Wilkins, chief financial officer for the group, said he believed “this boycott effort will cost you millions of dollars of lost revenue and possibly tens of millions of dollars in lost value for both the Manchester Grand Hyatt and The Grand Del Mar.”
Wilkins, who did not return several phone calls seeking comment, also warned about the dangers of alienating the gay community, which he called a “large and very affluent market segment.”
Further, he said The Grand Del Mar “is still struggling financially” 10 months after opening and the “absolute last thing The Grand needs right now is a boycott.” …
Since the boycott began, several groups, including the county retirement board and the Association of American Law Schools, canceled events at the Manchester Hyatt, one of the largest hotels on the West Coast. …
A prominent developer, Manchester has been a generous political contributor. State records show that in 2006 he gave about $147,000 to a variety of largely Republican causes. …
In a July interview, Manchester said he does not intend to give any more money to Proposition 8.
Yesterday, Manchester said he was rejecting Wilkins’ recommendations in the e-mail that Manchester try to defuse the controversy by asking for his $125,000 donation to be returned or by making an offsetting donation to the campaign against Proposition 8. …
Wilkins said that the controversy could prompt action from the Hyatt Corp., which manages the Manchester Grand Hyatt. He noted that there have been calls to extend the boycott to all Hyatt hotels and for the company to end its contract with Manchester. …
The campaign against Manchester’s business represents a rare use of boycotts in California’s expensive ballot battles.
Religious conservatives have used boycotts during the past decade against corporate giants that they believe are becoming too cozy with the gay and lesbian community, including Ford, Disney and McDonald’s.*
Some analysts say gays and lesbians are a critical market for high-end hotels. …
One San Diego hotel company, the Evans Hotels, which operates The Lodge at Torrey Pines … has been donating a percentage of its sales from same-sex weddings to help defeat Proposition 8, said Bill Evans, director of operations for Evans Hotels. …
More at the link, and it’s all quite encouraging. (The comments on this article, by the way, have been freeped by a bunch of pot-stirrers yammering on about a “cure” for homosexuality. What they need is a cure for compulsive assholism.)
Mind you, we’re not above feeling some good, old-fashioned Schadenfreude (in lieu of Manchester becoming an enlightened ally, which is never going to happen) — but, all emotion aside, Manchester is not going to donate any more money to Proposition 8. That, my friends, is a victory in itself — although no reason to take the pressure off Manchester. He will continue contributing to anti-gay causes (just look at his hard-right Republican donations, here, and here), but at least we’ve kept him from any further funding of the most immediate threat to our lives.
Whether he says his decision to donate nothing further to Prop 8 is or isn’t because of the boycott doesn’t matter. Doug Manchester is right in the middle of our radar screen, and he knows it; withholding money Manchester will use against us is the only way to stop his assault on our our families.
And who knows? Maybe one day he’ll come around and see just how un-Christlike he’s being.
Or: Just how A) stupid are creationists, and B) behind-the-times are freepers? Answer: Very, and very.
There’s not a thing we can say about this delusion from the “young earth” idiots that Ed Brayton hasn’t said already (he links to the freeper thread mentioned, which we won’t do):
You have to see this thread at Free Republic about a school in Malta called the Accelerated Christian Academy that teaches young earth creationism. Accelerated, you say? Well of course. Just look at what their director says is taught:
But the curriculum of the Accelerated Christian Academy in Mosta is not exactly free of such fanciful reinventions of history. Fenech reiterates the basic Evangelist tenet that the entire universe was created in 4004 BC… and this time, he also supplies “proof”. “When man landed on the moon (in 1969), they expected the landing module to sink in a deep layer of dust. But the layer was only a few inches deep. This proves that the universe is still young!”
. . .
But my favorite part of the article is when Fenech, the head of this “accelerated” school, says that the dinosaurs were alive with human beings and helped the Egyptians build the pyramids. No, seriously:
This is the word of Vince Fenech, Evangelist pastor and director of a fully licensed, State-approved Creationist institution which admits children aged between four and 18. “Of course the ‘dinoceros’ existed (as Fenech pronounces the word). It is mentioned in the Book of Job. They were used to help build the pyramids,” he says, adding that this latter observation is only “his personal belief”, and that it does not form part of the school’s curriculum.
. . .
Please don’t forget to read the comments. I love the argument about how ancient drawings that look like dinosaurs proved they must have lived with dinosaurs. Yet we don’t live with dinosaurs today and we draw pictures of them all the time. Amusing.
Well, the freepers always have been a day late and a dollar short. They probably won’t notice The Rapture has happened until after one of their co-horts posts a year-old headline about it.
Section 28.002(a) of the Education Code defines the required foundation and enrichment curriculum for school districts and charter schools but does not identify courses that school districts must offer. Education Code subsection 28.002(a)(2)(H) provides that the enrichment curriculum will include “religious literature, including the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament, and its impact on history and literature,” but the Legislature did not mandate that this curriculum instruction be provided in independent courses. The State Board of Education, however, may provide for enrichment curriculum offerings in school districts by rule.
In furtherance of the enrichment curriculum requirement concerning “religious literature, including the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament, and its impact on history and literature,” section 28.011 of the Education Code authorizes but does not require school districts and charter schools to offer elective courses on the Hebrew Scriptures and its impact or on the New Testament and its impact. Such discretion does not, however, mean that school districts or charter schools are not required to comply with the curriculum requirements in subsection 28.002(a)(2).
If a school district or charter school chooses to offer a course authorized by section 28.011 and fewer than fifteen students at a campus register to enroll in the course, the district or charter school is not required to provide the course at that campus for that semester, but that does not mean that the school is not required to comply with the curriculum requirements in subsection 28.002(a)(2).
Call me cold — I don’t care — but nothing about the Democratic National Convention has left me more un-moved than the “real people” speeches.
A Southerner whose husband got sick, and they lost everything… A man from Indiana who worked in a plant since 1973 until it closed in 2004…
Lifelong Republicans, and now they’re voting for Barack Obama.
Heartwarming, huh? They’ve finally seen the light, right?
Nuh-uh.
These “lifelong Republicans” are voting Democratic only because the consequences of voting Republican finally hit them where it hurts: in the wallet.
Ya think they’d go Dem if they still had their jobs and their health insurance?
Ya think they ever gave a damn about anybody else when they were voting into power the very people who finally destroyed their lives — after destroying ours?
Sorry, Pamela Cash-Roper from North Carolina and Whateveryournameis from Indiana, but you get no gold stars here — and no sympathy for your tortured states of existence now.
If you would have recognized what you were doing to the rest of our nation when you kept voting for such evil emperors as Reagan and Bush before you lost everything, we’d be more than willing to extend you every ounce of generous-to-a-fault compassion we liberals are so well known for.
But you didn’t. In fact, I bet you enjoyed sticking it to anybody who wasn’t like you: straight, white, Christian, and Republican.
I bet you felt your hearts race with excitement and swell with pride as our tanks rolled into Baghdad in 2003.
I bet you bought into all the BushCo lies about weapons of mass destruction, and how Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
I bet you didn’t care how many brown babies we blew to bits, because “we’re fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here.”
I bet you commiserated with one another in your churches about stopping The Homosexual Agenda — and probably still do.
I bet you cheered the passage of draconian anti-gay rights measures in your own states.
I bet you felt awfully smug when one of those formerly well-off Californians (like me) was inches from the poorhouse when the bottom fell out of Silicon Valley.
I bet you spat with disdain at the less fortunate, who were just too damned lazy to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
I bet a lot of things.
Am I making too many assumptions about your lives, Pam and Whateveryournameis? No, I’m not. I know all I need to know: You are Republicans who didn’t wake up until you became the victims of your own reckless, selfish interests.
You didn’t care how much you hurt the rest of us.
Now you care only because you hurt.
You spend the next forty or fifty years of your lives making up for the damage you helped wreak on our nation and on the world, and maybe I can see my way clear to extending a little sympathy to you.
Right now, all I’m experiencing is a grim Schadenfreude.
July Field Poll: 51% (good guys) oppose Prop 8; 42% (bad guys) support
August PPIC Survey: 54% oppose; 40% support
Ban on Gay Marriage Trails Voters Split on Teen Abortion Constraints, Redistricting
Economic Angst, a Partisan Divide, Softening Support for Obama Mark Start of Election Season
SAN FRANCISCO — August 27 — A majority of California’s likely voters oppose Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that would eliminate gay marriage, according to a statewide survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) with funding from The James Irvine Foundation. Likely voters are divided on two other closely watched measures — one that would require a parent to be notified before a teenager has an abortion and one that would take the power to draw legislative district lines away from the legislature.
As the fall campaign season begins, Californians are united in their pessimism about the direction of the state and nation and in their worries about the economy. But they are split sharply on key issues ranging from the state budget to health care and the war in Iraq. Their views on the three state ballot issues — Propositions 4, 8, and 11 — reveal the fault lines among voters.
Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to eliminate same-sex marriage, is favored by 40 percent and opposed by 54 percent of the state’s likely voters. Democratic (66%) and independent likely voters (59%) are against it, and Republican likely voters are in favor (60%). The last time voters decided this issue — in 2000 — they approved a ban on same-sex marriages by a wide margin (61% yes, 39% no). After the state Supreme Court ruled that ban unconstitutional, supporters of Proposition 8 qualified the initiative for the 2008 ballot.
Opposition to Proposition 8 this year is not an indication of a dramatic shift in voters’ opinions. Asked whether they favor letting gay and lesbian couples marry, likely voters are evenly split (47% in favor, 47% opposed) and have been since August 2005. Also playing a role in the November outcome is how strongly voters feel about the issue. A majority of likely voters (57%) in favor of Proposition 8 say it is a very important issue to them, while less than half (44%) of those opposed to the measure consider it a very important issue.
“It’s early in the campaign season, and in the end, the vote on this measure, like the other two, could be hard to predict,” says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO. “Overall views on gay marriage have not budged in a year. Californians who plan to vote for Proposition 8 appear to hold that view with greater intensity than the opposition — which means they are very motivated to vote.”
PROPOSITION 4 REVEALS PARTISAN SPLIT, PROPOSITION 11 LAGS AMONG ALL GROUPS
Likely voters are divided over Proposition 4, which would amend the state Constitution to require that a parent be notified at least 48 hours before a minor has an abortion: 47 percent are in favor and 44 percent are opposed. Most Republicans (62%) favor the initiative, most Democrats (56%) are opposed, and independents are divided (48% yes, 44% no). Californians defeated a similar measure in 2005 (47% yes, 53% no) and in 2006 (46% yes, 54% no). These views on Proposition 4’s parental notification requirement do not signal a shift in opinion on abortion: Seven in 10 likely voters (71%) think the government should not interfere with a women’s access to abortion, similar to their response in February 2004 (74%).
Proposition 11, which would give a commission of registered voters the authority to determine state legislative districts, has split California’s likely voters as well (39% yes, 36% no, 25% undecided). Republicans (47%) are somewhat more likely than independents (39%) and far more likely than Democrats (31%) to support the measure, which is championed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. In 2005, a measure that would have turned redistricting over to a panel of retired judges was trounced (40% yes, 60% no).
Likely voters’ apparent lack of support for Proposition 11 does not indicate satisfaction with the current system: Seven in 10 say the redistricting process needs major (42%) or minor (27%) changes, and more than half (56%) say state legislators would more effectively represent their districts if an independent commission of citizens redrew district lines.
VOTERS PREDICT MORE CLOUDS OVER CALIFORNIA
Worried about the state’s future and distrustful of their leaders in Sacramento, Californians are in a grim mood. A record-high percentage of likely voters (39%) name jobs and the economy as the most important issue facing the state. Other concerns expressed by residents include the state budget situation (14%), education (7%), immigration (7%), and gas prices (5%). Most likely voters (75%) say California is already in an economic recession, and most (68%) say the state is headed in the wrong direction.
With the state’s leaders locked in a stalemate over an overdue budget, the governor’s approval rating has dropped among likely voters from 49 percent in July to 43 percent. The legislature fares even worse, with only 20 percent of likely voters approving of the lawmakers’ performance.
Most likely voters (84%) consider the budget impasse a big problem —the highest percentage since May 2004, when voters agreed to close the state’s budget gap by borrowing money in a multibillion-dollar bond sale. How would they deal with the budget shortfall this year? A plurality (44%) opts for a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Fewer (38%) would fill the gap mostly by cutting spending, and far fewer would do so mostly by increasing taxes (8%) or by borrowing money and running a deficit (4%).
OBAMA’S LEAD SHRINKS, PARTICULARLY AMONG INEDPENDENTS
The PPIC survey — taken before the conventions and announcements of vice presidential candidates — finds that Sen. Barack Obama’s lead over Sen. John McCain among likely voters (48% Obama, 39% McCain) has declined by 6 points since July (50% Obama, 35% McCain).
The most significant shift is among independent likely voters, with Obama’s share of their vote dropping 9 points (from 57% to 48%), while McCain’s share has increased 12 points (21% to 33%). Obama has the overwhelming support of Democratic likely voters (81%), and McCain’s support among Republicans is similarly strong (77%). Among other groups, female likely voters prefer Obama to McCain (53% to 32%), while men are divided (42% Obama, 46% McCain). Latino likely voters overwhelmingly prefer Obama (71% Obama, 16% McCain), and whites prefer McCain (38% Obama, 47% McCain). Likely voters under age 35 strongly favor Obama over McCain (65% Obama, 21% McCain), while support among likely voters age 55 and older is divided (43% Obama, 45% McCain).
In a worrisome sign for both candidates, likely voters are not especially satisfied with their choices for president. Just 48 percent say they are satisfied with their choices, and 49 percent are not. Now that the field has been winnowed, satisfaction with the candidates is much lower than it was during the primary season in January, when 64 percent were satisfied and 31 percent were not. Across parties today, more Democrats are satisfied (68%) than independents (40%) or Republicans (35%).
VOTERS TO CANDIDATES: IT’S THE ECONOMY, SENATOR
When asked what they would like the presidential candidates to talk about, the issue that California’s likely voters mention most often is the economy (34%), followed by the war in Iraq (12%), energy (8%), and foreign policy, health care, and immigration (6% each). The economy tops the list of issues among registered voters regardless of party (38% Democrats, 35% independents, 32% Republicans). It is also the top issue among Latinos (39%), followed by the war in Iraq (15%) and immigration (8%).
While united in their concern about the economy, California’s registered voters are split along partisan lines in their opinions about the government’s role in regulating it. In the aftermath of the subprime mortgage collapse, solid majorities of Democrats (67%) and independents (58%) think government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest, while less than half (41%) of Republicans hold this view.
Similar divisions show up on other issues likely to be discussed in the presidential campaign:
• War in Iraq: More than four in 10 likely voters (45%) say things are going somewhat well or very well for the United States in Iraq, a 26 point improvement since June 2007. But there are strong divisions across party lines in the views of registered voters: While 71 percent of Republicans feel this way, only 39 percent of independents and 20 percent of Democrats do. There are also vast partisan differences among registered voters about when to bring the troops home. While 76 percent of Democrats think the troops should be brought home as soon as possible, just 24 percent of Republicans share this view. Seventy-three percent of Republicans think the U.S. should keep troops in Iraq until the situation is stabilized, compared to 20 percent of Democrats.
• U.S. security: Half of likely voters (51%) doubt the positive effects of the Iraq war on the long-term security of the United States. But among registered voters, Democrats (68%) and independents (55%) are far more likely to hold this view than Republicans (27%).
• Immigration: California’s likely voters are divided in their perceptions of whether immigrants are a benefit (48%) or burden (45%) to the state. Once more, a closer look reveals a partisan split among registered voters, with 63 percent of Democrats viewing immigrants as a benefit and 66 percent of Republicans viewing them as a burden. Independents are more likely to say immigrants are a benefit (53%) than a burden (38%). When asked their views about immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for at least two years, 65 percent of likely voters say they should be given a chance to keep their jobs and apply for legal status, while 31 percent say they should be deported. Solid majorities of Democrats (77%) and independents (63%) favor a pathway to citizenship for immigrants, while Republicans are split (49% favor a pathway to citizenship, 45% favor deportation).
• Health care: A majority of likely voters (54%) favor a universal health care system run by the government and financed by taxpayers, compared to nearly four in 10 (39%) who prefer the current system. Among registered voters, Democrats (76%) and independents (62%) are more likely than Republicans (31%) to favor universal health care. Just over half of likely voters (54%) would be willing to pay higher health insurance premiums or taxes to increase the number of Americans who have health insurance. Among political groups of registered voters, most Democrats (66%) and independents (59%) would be willing to pay more, while most Republicans (59%) would not.
MORE KEY FINDINGS:
Californians say state government wastes a lot of money – Page 18
Six in 10 likely voters (63%) say the state government wastes a lot of the money they pay in taxes.
Approval of Congress drops to record low – Page 15
Approval rating of Congress hits a new low of 22 percent, while President Bush’s approval rating dips to 27 percent among likely voters, near his all-time low of 25 percent in July 2007.
Homeland security seven years after 9/11 – Page 21
A quarter of likely voters (24%) say terrorism and homeland security are big problems in California, nearly identical to perceptions before the last presidential election in 2004 and somewhat lower than the percentage in 2001 in the aftermath of September 11th.
ABOUT THE SURVEY
This survey is the 30th in the Californians and Their Government series and is supported with funding from The James Irvine Foundation. It seeks to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussion on state and national issues and the November general election. This is the 89th PPIC Statewide Survey in a series that has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 189,000 Californians. Findings are based on a telephone survey of 2,001 California adult residents interviewed from August 12–19, 2008. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2% and for the 1,047 likely voters is +/- 3%. For more information on methodology, see page 25.
Mark Baldassare is president and CEO of PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has directed since 1998.
PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research on major economic, social, and political issues. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office.
And here’s LCR’s* commercial that’s been making the rounds (’though I haven’t seen it on TV in my neck of the woods; guess there’s no reason to waste precious ad dollars preaching to the choir):
* Just occurred to me that while “Let California Ring” has a nice, er, ring to it, the initials “LCR” leave a bad taste in my mouth; that’s how the Log Cabin Republicans refer to themselves.
Good on Newsweek. There are still far too many people (especially on the so-called Left) who stick their fingers in their ears and go “Lalalalalalala!” when it comes to the government-sanctioned slaughter of our Middle Eastern brothers and sisters.
Nobody wants to talk about gays in Iraq, much less who is killing them.
When militiamen from the Mahdi Army came by the compact, two-story stone home in the Doura neighborhood of Baghdad, they weren’t looking for Sunnis to harass. They were hunting gays. “Bring us your son’s cell phone,” one ordered the middle-aged man who came to the gate. … This time they left, but vowed to come back if they found any evidence he was gay — or was talking to undesirable foreigners. Now that Iraq’s sectarian war has cooled off, it’s open season on homosexuals and others who infuriate religious hardliners. …
Iraqi authorities scoffed at the subject [of gays in Iraq] — when not scolding a reporter for even asking about it. …
As with a number of Muslim societies where homosexuality is officially nonexistent but widely practiced, the policy in Iraq during Saddam Hussein’s rule was “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But that has changed. Iraqi LGBT, the London NGO that Nadir works for, says more than 430 gay men have been murdered in Iraq since 2003. …
The only recourse for Iraqi gays seems to come from activists abroad. Iraqi LGBT, which was founded to defend the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Iraqis, looks after about 40 young men between the ages of 14 and 28 in several Baghdad safe houses. There they are fed, can watch TV, hang out and sleep in cramped quarters, their beds inches apart. They stay away from neighbors and rarely leave their immediate area. …
Saif, one of the older residents at an Iraqi LGBT house, recalls Saddam’s repressive but secular regime wistfully. “Those were the most beautiful days of our lives,” he says. “The fall [of Saddam] was the worst thing to happen.”
Most people seem to prefer that the subject just go away. A written request for an interview at the Legal Section of the Ministry of Human Rights was greeted with a suggestion to delete the word “gays.” A sympathetic senior government official warned that a direct request to talk to a minister about gays could result in a short conversation. “I would ask about women, displaced people, children and others before you get to that,” he offered. …
Even relatively liberal people in Iraq seem to have harsh attitudes toward this subject. “These people are not welcome in the society because they are against the social, natural and religious rules,” said one well-educated Iraqi who did not want to be identified more closely. A Baghdad executive said religion and tradition have made the overwhelming majority of Iraqis hostile to homosexuals. “Nobody is interested in talking about this at all,” he says with a grim chuckle. …
The Catholic Church is under growing pressure to abandon the “homophobic” exhumation and reburial of the body of one its most famous cardinals, in defiance of his wish to lie for eternity next to the man he loved.
Gay rights campaigners have accused the Vatican — which has ordered the disinterment in the first step towards beatification — of attempting to cover up the sexuality of Cardinal John Henry Newman, who died in 1890.
Opposition to the reburial among some British Roman Catholics has been bolstered by a new poll organised by The Church Times which shows that a majority of Anglicans are now against the separation of Cardinal Newman, a former Anglican clergyman, and Father Ambrose St John who lived together as “husband and wife” for most of their late adult lives.
Yesterday, the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell told The Independent: “The Vatican’s decision to move Cardinal Newman’s body from its resting place is an act of grave robbery and religious desecration. It violates Newman’s repeated wish to be buried for eternity with his life-long partner Ambrose St John.
“They have been together for more than 100 years and the Vatican wants to disturb that peace to cover up the fact that Cardinal Newman loved a man. It’s shameful, dishonourable betrayal of Newman by the gay-hating Catholic Church.”
When William Bolthouse, a California philanthropist, donated $100,000 in March to support a proposition to ban gay marriage in California, calls and emails poured in — not to Mr. Bolthouse, but to the corporate offices of a company that bears his name — even though he sold it three years earlier.
“It wasn’t us, it’s not our fault,” says Jeffrey Dunn, now the chief executive of Bolthouse Farms, whose juice bottles are sold at upscale markets such as Whole Foods.
Oh, let me call the wahhhhhmbulance for you, Jeff. As Alex Blaze (who did the initial research) summarized:
“The [Bolthouse] Foundation gets its money from William Bolthouse, and William Bolthouse’s philosophy, mission, even members of his family, still run the Company. Family members are on both sides of that aisle. The Foundation is looking out for the Company’s interests. The money that funds the Foundation originally came from the Company and may continue via other family member’s private donations that still work for the Company. They are not completely independent entities.”
The bottom line (literally) is this: Every time somebody buys a Bolthouse product, money flows to the Bolthouse Foundation, which in turn funds the anti-gay agenda.
Care to rebut that, Mr. Dunn?
Bolthouse Farms is the latest target in what has become an increasingly bitter political fight in California. As gay-rights activists attempt to defeat the upcoming ballot initiative, called Proposition 8, they are going after not just individuals, but also companies to which they are connected, however tenuously.
“Mr. Bolthouse has said, ‘I’m not connected to Bolthouse Farms at all.’ But we don’t accept that,” says Fred Karger, who runs Californians Against Hate, a new gay-rights group that is leading the charge to identify and publicize corporate connections to significant donors. He notes that Mr. Bolthouse’s son-in-law is chairman of the company and that Bolthouse Farms markets itself as a fourth-generation company.
Next week, Californians Against Hate is planning to push its tactic further by publishing a “Dishonor Roll,” a list of individual and corporate donors who give $5,000 or more to groups campaigning on behalf of Proposition 8. The list will include the donor’s name, employer and the corporate logo of that employer — even if the company itself didn’t donate to the Proposition 8 fight.
Mr. Karger said the tactic isn’t intended to keep individuals or companies from donating, but is meant to educate the public so consumers can make informed choices. He said including corporate logos of businesses whose employees donate is fair game, since that information is publicly available on government Web sites that track donors. “Our larger message is to other business people,” Mr. Karger says. “It’s a free country, you can give as much money to this campaign, but we are going to publicize that and people can make a decision on whether or not they want to support those businesses.”
Ready for the funny part? No, really, this is freaking hilarious:
Some Proposition 8 supporters see the effort as crossing a line.
Bolthouse’s Dunn also says Bolthouse Farms “has made an effort to correct wrong information on blogs that said Mr. Bolthouse still owned a large portion of the company.” If Bolthouse still owns one share of Bolthouse Farms, that’s one share too many. And if Bolthouse divested himself of all interests, I’d like to see proof that Bolthouse doesn’t benefit from the company. Does, for instance, the old man still get a nice, fat pension from Bolthouse Farms? I bet he does. And that still means that a chunk of every dollar the company makes is money being used against the rights of gay and lesbian Californians.
Anything to say to that, Mr. Dunn?
The article goes on to quote Terry Caster, owner of A-1 Storage, and Dunn as saying the effort hasn’t hurt business. Well, of course they’re going to say that — but if they weren’t worried, they wouldn’t be talking to the Wall Street Journal about it, would they?
Meanwhile, Doug Manchester is a bit more candid, admitting that the boycott of his San Diego hotels has indeed impacted business. (This bit alone is worth hitting the WSJ article for a full read.)
Still, Doug the Clueless says he’s “saddened by all the divisive nature of the movement.” Well, who made it “divisive,” Dougie? You could have just shut up, sit back, and left us alone, but noooooooo, you had to stick your nose (and your money) into an issue that never had any effect on you, your family, or your hotels. Now you’re involved, Dougie, and you (and your employees, and your vendors, and everybody else who depends on you to make a living) have no one to blame but yourself.
Also worth the full read is the idea that gay boycotters may not make the distinction between businesses run by anti-gay crusaders, and their parent corporations, which may or may not take a stand on a given issue. While Hyatt Corporation (the Hyatt name is on one of Manchester’s hotels) said it doesn’t “have a position” on Proposition 8, Hyatt has “a really strong, long track record of inclusiveness in terms of the way we welcome our guests and the way we treat our employees. Doug Manchester … in no way speaks for Hyatt.”
But:
That distinction may be harder to make as gay-rights groups offer fuller public profiles of private donors. Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for ProtectMarriage.com, the largest fund-raiser for the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, says she expects it will become more difficult to entice corporations to contribute to her cause.
“The moment [Mr. Manchester] wrote the check, he found himself to be the target of numerous boycotts and protests,” she said. “Our side has a significant challenge in that.”
Good.
While it’s reasonable to question the fairness of punishing a parent corporation for the actions of one of its franchisees, the fact remains that there is a relationship between the two which benefits both parties. It’s regrettable that Hyatt Corp. may have to suffer for the actions of Doug Manchester, but in every war, there is always collateral damage.
We suggest that parent corporations which don’t want to be tagged as anti-gay reassess their relationships with franchisees and affiliates, and sever those relationships giving the parent a bad name.
In a first-person account of his time as a prisoner of war in North Viet Nam, John McCain, writing in US News and World Report in 1973, said of those who tortured him: “Some guards would just come in and do their job. When they were told to beat you they would come in and do it. Some seemed to get a big bang out of it. A lot of them were homosexual, although never toward us. Some, who were pretty damned sadistic, seemed to get a big thrill out of the beatings.”
The 12,000-word account that McCain published has also caught the attention of some bloggers, who are questioning the Republican’s account of a guard drawing the sign of the cross in the sand. McCain repeated the anecdote during his appearance this past weekend on the forum hosted by evangelical Pastor Rick Warren, saying it led to a moment of “just two Christians worshipping together.” Andrew Sullivan, a supporter of Senator Barack Obama, posted several entries questioning when McCain first related the story and concluding it was no earlier than 1999. …
More at the link about McCain’s Fairy Tale of the Cross.
This makes me sick — not the sentence (AFAIC, anybody who mixes sex with children, on the ‘Net or IRL, should be locked up, perhaps forever, as this sort of addiction seems to defy rehabilitation), but that a quick-smart, funny, genuine lefty I really used to like, respect, and admire turned out to be a such a sick bastard. Guess one just never knows…
Bernie Ward, one of the Bay Area’s most prominent radio talk show hosts for 15 years, was sentenced to more than seven years in prison by a federal judge today for distributing child pornography on the Internet.
Ward, 57, pleaded guilty to the felony charge in May and admitted sending between 15 and 150 pornographic images by e-mail, which he maintained were for a research project. …
Noting Ward’s background as a former Roman Catholic priest who discussed child molestation in the church on his radio programs, the judge said he was troubled that Ward didn’t “seek treatment, seek help” when he “encountered his own predilection” for child pornography. …
Ward spent 24 years with KGO-AM in San Francisco, first as a reporter and later as the host of a talk show on news and politics that ran three hours every weeknight. A former Roman Catholic priest, he also hosted “God Talk,” a Sunday morning program that discussed religious issues.
The station, which nicknamed him “the lion of the left” for his outspoken manner and liberal views, fired him in December after his federal grand jury indictment was unsealed.
Ward was charged after a woman in Oakdale (Stanislaus County) contacted police in 2005 and said an ex-priest, later identified as Ward, had been having sex chats with her by e-mail and had sent her a photo showing child pornography. …
Ward has said he downloaded the images as part of his research for a proposed book on hypocrisy among Americans who preach morality. …
Sorry, Bernie, but that’s not how you expose the hypocrisy of the morality police; this is.
Ward holds a master’s degree in theology and spent two years in the priesthood before leaving to get married. He worked for three years as a legislative assistant for then-Rep. Barbara Boxer, D-San Francisco, before joining KGO in 1985. He became a talk show host in 1992.
I’m at a complete loss for words. I’ll try to gather some thoughts later, but right now, I’m just too devastated… while overjoyed that Del and Phyllis were finally married, legally, just two months ago.
Community Mourns Loss of Beloved Civil Rights Leader Del Martin, 87
Statement by Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors
SAN FRANCISCO — August 27 — Today, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community lost an iconic leader and a beloved friend. Del Martin, 87, passed away in San Francisco with Phyllis Lyon, her lifelong partner and spouse, by her side. Martin was one of the nation’s first and most visible lesbian rights activists who dedicated her life to combating homophobia, sexism, violence and racism. Martin’s many contributions to the LGBT movement will resonate for decades to come.
Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were married in California on June 16, 2008 after 55 years together.
“We are saddened to lose such a wonderful friend to our community and our love goes out to Phyllis and her family during this most difficult time,” said EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors. “We would not be at this incredible moment in history, where all couples have equal rights under California law, if it had not been for Del’s lifetime of courage and leadership. Our community will forever honor her life and legacy.”
EQCA honored Del and Phyllis with the Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon Marriage Equality Award in 2003, an award the organization gives every year in their honor.
Gifts in lieu of flowers can be made to honor Del’s life and commitment and to defeat the California marriage ban through the National Center for Lesbian Rights NO on 8 committee at www.nclrights.org/NoOn8.
But, wait! Brace yourself for some shockingly good news: A spokesperson for U.S. Immigration — no friend to ‘mos — said the homophobic security guard was “out of line,” and has complained to his company about his “inappropriate and unacceptable” behavior! Will wonders never cease?
VAN NUYS — A routine trip to the Social Security office Monday turned into 30 minutes of shock, disbelief and irritation for Lapriss Gilbert, who was forced to leave the federal building by a guard who objected to her “lesbian.com” T-shirt.
As she headed for a line to pick up a Social Security card for her son, Gilbert was stopped by a guard who said her T-shirt, naming an educational and resource Web site for gay women, was offensive.
She said the guard, who works for a private company hired by the Department of Homeland Security, demanded that she leave the building or face arrest. …
Lori Haley, a federal spokeswoman for the office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement — which is under the Homeland Security umbrella — said the guard was out of line.
“We believe that the actions of the contract security guard were inappropriate and unacceptable — we have notified his company, Paragon, of our position in the matter,” Haley said. …
[Gilbert’s mother, Tanya Gilbert] said she plans to contact her attorney today to file a lawsuit against the Paragon Security Company. …
When the mother arrived, she called the LAPD to protest her daughter’s removal. But before four Los Angeles police officers arrived with at least one federal agent, Lapriss was told she could come back into the building and was escorted to the front of the line by another Paragon security guard. …
In a statement to police, [witness Paul Dumont] said the guard’s “loud, unreasonable, aggressive and angry approach to the situation almost caused chaos.” …
We’re not lawyers, but we think the Gilberts should still file suit; it sounds to us like the guard clearly violated Gilbert’s First Amendment rights.
New Yorkers, what are you planning for a protest? There’s virtually no news, even in the LGBT media, on this disgusting display of anti-gay aggression. Are you going to let this happen without showing up, or at least speaking up?
If the above link isn’t enough to make you sick to your stomach, here’s an August 19th press release from the gay-haters themselves:
Reggae and Dancehall Music Defend Itself Against the Homosexual Community
TCOOO, the reggae label for artists such as Massicker, Jango Fresh, Boom Viniyard and Stapler will be holding a straight pride parade in New York City on August 31, 2008. The label hopes that this parade and more to follow will rid Reggae of the negative “murder music” label that, according to the TCOOO label, has been given to the music by gay right activists such as Peter Tatchell.
New York, NY (PRWEB) August 19, 2008 — With the straight pride parade in New York City only two weeks away, Reggae continues to defend itself against the recent boycotts of the music. The main purpose of the parade is to get rid of some of the negative stereotypes that, according to the TCOOO label, has been attributed to not only the Reggae community, but to Jamaica and Jamaicans in general.
Some Reggae artists believe that reggae music has been unfairly targeted. Stapler from the TCOOO label and the artist behind “Hit them hard,” the song at the root of the straight pride parade, believes the gay community targets Reggae because 99 percent of the artists are African American.
Yeah, pull the racism card, Stapler. It couldn’t possibly be that it’s not your skin color, but your deep-rooted, activist aggression and violent hate speech that bothers us, could it?
“Eminem dissed them and they protested a little, then Eminem performed on stage with Elton John and all was forgiven,” said Stapler. “Beenie man went on the Ru-Paul show so why are gays still bent on destroying Reggae music?”
Hey, Stapler: Better you should ask why reggae artists are bent on destroying gay people. You stop inciting violence against us, and we’ll leave you alone. You actively work against anti-gay violence, and we might even consider buying your records again.
Massicker from the TCOOO label took it a step further, saying, “Look at the Reggae artists that they target. They go after Buju Banton and Sizzla, but they don’t bother a Sean Paul or a Damian Marley. When Damian Marley said, ‘Funny man get drop like a bad habit,’ what do they think a funnyman is? A funnyman is a homosexual, so are they afraid to challenge a Marley, or is he not Black enough for the homosexual community to try and destroy?”
Get off your cross, Massicker — your fellow gay-bashers need the nails.
As far as Sean Paul and Damian Marley: Who the hell are they? If they were as high-profile as Sizzla and Elephant Man (and espoused hatred against gay people), we’d say something about them, too.
TCOOO maintains that the label just wants to make music for Reggae fans worldwide and doesn’t have the time for any negativity. The label’s song “Hit them hard” by artist Stapler was banned by numerous radio stations after climbing to the top ten on numerous Reggae charts for what some claim was anti-gay content. Both the label and Stapler deny the claim, saying that the song is really a pro-family song.
Then the label and Stapler are clearly delusional — or just plain stupid, or just plain liars, or just plain milking this controversy for all its worth with clearly inflammatory statements because all publicity is good publicity. Yes, I believe that’s it exactly.
The Straight Pride Parade will take place in Brooklyn, New York along Church avenue on August 31, 2008 form 10AM to 6PM. Information about the parade can be found at TCOOO’s websites at www.tcooo.imeem.com.
“Hit Them Hard” lyrics by the artist Stapler:
“Jah Jah gonna hit them hard All the men who visit men backyard Leaving all the women to starve One thunder ball and all of them pause
Hand in hand with my lady Hug her and kiss her cause she carried my baby But some boys moving shady While am chilling on the ends making sweet love to Sadie All I know am here to produce and all the ladies you are my friends From the past, the present, the future my girl, love and respect to the end
Jah Jah gonna hit them hard All the men who visit men backyard Leaving all the women to starve One thunder ball and all of them pause
Remember you are a King, what happened to your queen The youths need a role model to instill self esteem So live your life clean and you will see what I mean
Jah Jah gonna hit them hard All the men who visit men backyard Leaving all the women to starve One thunder ball and all of them pause
The world is spinning and everything in it Mankind lose their way, some gone past their limit Am here to advice and to be a critic Be careful of the lifestyle you choose to exhibit Children live what they learn Aren’t you concerned of your choices in society We need to preserve the value of a male and a female in every family”
Arkansas Secretary of State Charlie Daniels certified the proposed act aimed at effectively banning gays and lesbians from becoming foster or adoptive parents clearing it to appear on the fall ballot in Arkansas. The Arkansas Family Council Action Committee submitted 96,911 valid signatures of registered voters, more than the 61,974 valid signatures needed. The measure is very similar to a bill that went through the Arkansas legislature in 2007. Senate bill 959 was passed in the state Senate only to die later in the Arkansas House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee.
The proposed act would prohibit a child from being adopted or placed in a foster home in which a would-be parent is “cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of a marriage which is valid under the constitution and laws of this state.” The measure would take the place of current state policy that bars unmarried couples living together from serving as foster parents that the state Supreme Court struck down last year. While the current state policy doesn’t apply to adoptions, the proposed act would extend the ban to bar unmarried couples from adopting as well. Utah is the only other state currently with such a ban.
If the proposed act passes in November, a parent who wants their child to be raised by a particular family member or close family friend in the event of the parent’s death has no certainty that those wishes would be carried out. If the family member is cohabitating, the child will not be placed with that known, trusted adult. A child in foster care living with the aunt and her boyfriend of 20 years would have to be taken out of the family and placed with strangers no matter how bonded the child was to his aunt or how well he was thriving in her care. A child with serious medical needs could not be placed in foster care or adoption with a doctor who lives with an unmarried partner even if that doctor is the only person willing and able to take care of the child.
Rita Sklar, executive director of the Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that several organizations, including the ACLU, the Arkansas chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, among others, have formed a committee called Arkansas Families First to oppose the Family Council’s proposal. ‘This is such a heinous law for the children who need loving parents,’ Arkansas Families First spokeswoman Debbie Willhite said, adding that the measure would reduce the number of people eligible to adopt or foster children in the state.
Aimee Berry, executive director of the Arkansas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said, “We want to make sure that every ‘i’ is dotted and ‘t’ is crossed because this would be such a bad thing for children that we just can’t leave any stone unturned.” Berry said the state should be expanding the pool of prospective parents rather than shrinking it. “We need to be looking at ways to increase the number of foster homes and adoptive homes and not discriminate on sexual orientation or marital status,” she said. She said decisions on who can or cannot adopt should be left up to those trained to do so, such as social workers and juvenile judges.
A statement released by the Arkansas Advocates for Children & Families supported “the need, as is the consensus among other state child welfare agencies and the Child Welfare League of America, that the Division of Children and Family Services, Arkansas Department of Human Services, should have the responsibility and flexibility to decide which foster and adoptive homes are most appropriate for each child’s placement on a case-by-case basis.” According to the statistical report for the Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services, in 2006 there were 6,835 children in foster care in Arkansas.
The measure faces the threat of a lawsuit from groups who say that it unfairly discriminates against unmarried couples and limits the number of foster and adoptive homes available for children. Arkansas Families First is campaigning against the measure and has said it plans to file a lawsuit to keep it from appearing on the November ballot. The suit would argue the proposal’s ballot title is misleading, the proposal is unconstitutional, and its petition lacks the required number of registered voter signatures, Willhite said. The group has found signatures that should have been rejected by the state as invalid and that the group also plans to challenge the constitutionality of the measure. ‘We’re going to work very hard to defeat this because it is just bad policy for children,’ Willhite said. Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel opposes the proposed measure but said last week that he believed it could survive a legal challenge.
The Family Council campaign started as a response to a 2006 Arkansas Supreme Court decision striking down a state policy that specifically banned gays and lesbians from becoming foster parents. In that 7-0 decision, the court struck down the policy saying, ‘There is no correlation between the health, welfare and safety of foster children and the blanket exclusion of any individual who is a homosexual or who resides in a household with a homosexual.’ The court went on to note that the Child Welfare Agency Review Board, which established the policy, was motivated “not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather [was] based upon the board’s views of morality and its bias against homosexuals.”
“Arkansas needs to affirm the importance of married mothers and fathers,” Family Council President Jerry Cox said. “We need to publicly affirm the gold standard of rearing children whenever we can. The state standard should be as close to that gold standard of married mom and dad homes as possible.” Cox said the Family Council will rely on support from the same network of churches that helped it pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in 2004. That amendment passed with 75 percent of the vote.
According to a 2005 poll of 800 people conducted by the University of Arkansas, 65% said they approved of allowing a lesbian or gay man to adopt a child if the court found that person fit in all other ways to become an adoptive parent.
Phoenix New Times: “J.T. Ready, the Ernst Roehm of the East Valley, second from right, at a neo-Nazi rally in Omaha earlier this month [September, 2007].”
With at least one suspected plot against Barack Obama’s life foiled this week, the Southern Poverty Law Center gauges the mood of American neo-Nazis, who “reacted overwhelmingly with suspicion that they were being set up by the federal government to take the fall.” I don’t want to reproduce the revolting, violent, racist remarks quoted in the SPLC’s article, but you should read the piece, if only as a reminder that Adolf Hitler is alive and well and living in the United States of America.
Meanwhile, one Arizona Republican with half a clue (despite his deliciously-ironic name of “Flake,” and a headline that would be hilarious were the subject matter not so deadly serious) has figured out that connections to the neo-Nazis aren’t good for party business.
But before you take Flake’s worries about “the name and reputation of the Republican Party” at face value, you should ask whether Flake would care so much if he wasn’t using the issue to help get his own brother-in-law elected to office:
Three Republican congressmen took time this week — amid a pivotal presidential campaign and on the doorstep of their national convention — to demand removal of a minor functionary on the very lowest rung of the party’s ladder. …
[U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.], along with Reps. John Shadegg and Trent Franks, sent a letter Tuesday to Tom Husband, Maricopa County Republican chairman, demanding that J.T. Ready be removed as a precinct committeeman in legislative District 18 because of his ties to the neo-Nazi movement.
That district, in west Mesa, is home to one of the state’s most bitter primary election battles. It pits state Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, a nationally known advocate of strict immigration enforcement, against Kevin Gibbons, a Mesa immigration lawyer who is Flake’s brother-in-law. …
Pearce’s opponents have made hay lately over his alleged affiliation with Ready, who also is a staunch foe of illegal immigration and is openly aligned with White supremacist and neo-Nazi elements. …
A campaign mailer sent by a group calling itself Mesa Deserves Better contains a picture of Pearce with Ready at the rally under the headline, “You wouldn’t associate with neo-Nazis, but Russell Pearce does.” …
In May of [2007], Ready was on the warpath against Matt Browning, a Mesa police detective who had spent years investigating racist hate groups.
In a presentation at the Capitol in early 2007, Browning said some extreme anti-immigration activists were little more than terrorists.
Ready responded with an e-mail campaign accusing Browning of slander. “All border activists, constitutional study groups, and tax protestors, and especially any White Heritage Club members, have been labeled as ‘domestic terrorists,’ ” Ready’s e-mail said.
Bill Straus, executive director of the Arizona chapter of the Anti-Defamation League, said at that time that his group had been monitoring Ready. “We were an organization that first spotlighted the fact that he attended an event held by the National Vanguard, a neo-Nazi organization, here,” Straus said on May 4, 2007. …
The three congressmen said in their letter that Ready’s neo-Nazi activities have continued since then. They said he attended a neo-Nazi gathering in Omaha in September 2007 and distributed racist and anti-Semitic literature at a county party meeting in January.
The congressmen spoke out only now, Flake said, because they did not realize until recently that Ready was an elected Republican official. …
Lots more at the link.
And you have to ask: What were Mesa voters thinking when they elected such a blatant hatemonger to represent them? You’d think if their thing is just garden-variety xenophobia, they could have at least chosen a Repug without such a visible white sheet.
So, take a screenshot of this post; it’s one of those rare moments I’ll say he’s right (and not just “Right”).
In discussing the 2008 Democratic and Republican campaign platforms, Crain is the one of the very few gay bloggers I’ve seen so far who hasn’t waxed poetic over the oh-so-”inclusive” Democratic platform, instead calling it like it is: another crumb to the queers, which doesn’t amount to… well, anything more than a crumb.
Granted, Crain is a conservative, so he’s going to be far more critical of the Dems — but does it always take a conservative to show us where our own house needs cleaning?
Four years ago, the [Democratic] party platform read like a good GOP plank would this year: “repudiating” Bush’s marriage amendment and saying the states should decide. But the platform was silent on civil unions as an alternative, much less advocating the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act — even though John Kerry, the nominee, had voted against it back in 1996.
Barack Obama made a point of distinguishing himself from Hillary Clinton by favoring DOMA’s full repeal, so the platform should make that explicit. Much more important, however, would be a plank that specifically lays out what the Democratic nominee has said repeatedly about gay relationships — whether recognized by the states through marriage, civil unions or not at all — being afforded fully equal treatment to heterosexual marriage under federal law.
For this gay American, stuck living in exile because of unequal immigration rights, the plank would include specific support for the Uniting American Families Act, which allows us to sponsor our partners for residence the same way heterosexuals do in the U.S. — and as both gay and straight citizens can in Canada, Australia,* Brazil and almost all of Western Europe.
Trans activists will also be pressing hard for including their agenda in the Democratic platform, since they were turned away by the Kerry camp four years ago. This time, with lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin on the platform committee, they’re likely to get a much more welcome reception.
Even so, any trans rights plank should avoid taking sides in the bitter fight last fall over whether gay measures like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should only be adopted if the votes are there for “gender identity” as well.
Heading into the Democratic National Convention … the LGBT community is confronted with two stark ironies:
One: Under the presidential nominee who has uttered the words “gays and lesbians” in a supportive way more than any other candidate on the campaign trail, the Democratic Party has completely eliminated those words from its platform.
And two: A long line of LGBT leaders have only praise for the platform that dares not speak their name.
That’s right: The 54-page Democratic platform for 2008 does not mention the words “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual,” or “transgender” even once.
And yet Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin), a lesbian and a champion of inclusion, calls it “by far the most pro-equality platform in Democratic history” and one that “makes very clear our party rejects discrimination … including, very explicitly, discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”
True … But the 2008 platform is the first time since 1992, when the party first included the word “gay,” that the document has omitted explicit mention of the words or any identifiable acronym for the LGBT community. …
The 2000 and 2004 platforms promised the party’s support for full inclusion of “gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation,” compared to the 2008 platform, which supports “all families.” …
And unlike the 2004 platform, the 2008 platform promises Democrats “will fight to end discrimination based on race … sexual orientation, gender identity … in every corner of our country, because that’s the America we believe in.”
But the 2008 document also includes a new section, “Fatherhood,” that reads more like a platform statement from the Republican Party. The section claims that “Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and are more likely to commit crime, drop out of school, abuse drugs and end up in prison.” The sweeping nature of the statement, while perhaps true of families headed by heterosexual couples, is not supported by research that has examined the well-being of children in families headed by lesbian couples. …
Yes, by comparison to the Republican platform, the Democratic platform is fabulous.
But it’s not good enough.
* That Australia has fully-inclusive same-sex immigration should instill deep shame in the United States; Australia also has the sort of federal, constitutional ban on same-sex marriage the Repugs yearn for here — yet (and even with its long history of treating immigrants as criminals) still manages to recognize the validity of de facto same-sex unions between its own citizens and their foreign-born partners. Meanwhile, we can’t even get the UAFA passed.
The only time I ever felt anything other than utter contempt for Ronald Reagan came long after he was out of office, and was completely consumed by the ravages of Alzheimer’s disease. (We who survived his horrible eight-year reign were questioning his mental health before the end of his first term; while late-night talk-show hosts were cracking jokes about his obviously addled brain, those of us actually paying attention were alarmed as hell by the idea of a seriously demented POTUS with his finger over the button.)
Now it’s no secret that former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher — perhaps Reagan’s closest friend (and ideological twin) — is apparently in the last stages of the cruel disease herself:
Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is so badly affected by dementia that she forgets husband Denis is dead.
In a poignant account, her daughter Carol describes how she has to keep reminding Mrs T he is no longer around. …
Carol reveals that she first noticed her mother’s memory was going eight years ago. They had been discussing the war in Bosnia over lunch when Baroness Thatcher became confused and started talking about the Falklands. …
Since then, the condition of Lady Thatcher, 82, has worsened. …
Green leaders seek end to presidential debates limited by arbitrary two-party criteria
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Green Party leaders called for the organizers of the September 18 presidential debate in New Orleans to admit other candidates along with the Democratic and Republican nominees, including Green nominee Cynthia McKinney.
The debate sponsors, Google and You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch…), require a 15% showing in three national polls to determine which candidates may participate in the debate.
“Cynthia McKinney deserves a place in the New Orleans debate. Any presidential candidate who has qualified for enough ballot lines to achieve the necessary electoral votes to win to be elected — regardless of poll numbers — has earned a place in the debates. The 15% threshold is being used to exclude all candidates outside of the corporate party nominees, John McCain and Barack Obama,” said Cliff Thornton, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States.
“Ms. McKinney is more than just the candidate of a viable and growing party. She has played a special role in the movement to help survivors of the 2005 hurricane disaster in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region. No other presidential candidate can talk about the needs of those who’ve been displaced or otherwise affected by Katrina the way Ms. McKinney can. Their concerns will be missing from the debate if Cynthia McKinney isn’t invited,” added Mr. Thornton.
Cynthia McKinney will appear on enough state ballots for an Electoral College victory, should she win in all these states. For the same reason, Greens also support the inclusion of independent candidate Ralph Nader, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, and Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin in the New Orleans debate.
Green Party leaders said that, since pollsters are generally omitting Ms. McKinney in their research, the poll numbers are showing dishonest and manipulated results, with the McKinney-Clemente campaign effectively censored from major media coverage of the race.
“Voters deserve to know about all the names they’ll see on the ballot on Election Day, and to know which candidate best represents one’s interests and ideals. It’s time to end debates limited to candidates approved by sponsoring corporations and pollsters,” said Green Party co-chair Sanda Everette.
Greens are appealing to New Orleans area community organizations as well as women’s, student, and human rights groups to join the demand for Cynthia McKinney’s inclusion in the New Orleans debate.
Greens note that Ms. McKinney, a member of the US House (Dem-Ga.) at the time of the hurricane, has been intimately involved in the post-Katrina survivors’ issues, and that she:
• Joined the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, despite the Democratic Party leadership’s call for Democratic members to boycott the committee.
• Led a congressional delegation to the site of the devastation, arranged for survivors to testify before the Commission, and inserted a 75-page supplement in the Final Report of the Katrina Commission exposing many problems not otherwise addressed.
• Introduced the first legislation concerning the clean-up toxicity in the region and restoring the homes of displaced residents.
• Tracked hundreds of bills and worked closely with other members of Congress on drafting combined legislation that addressed many survivor issues.
Led a march across the bridge to Gretna, Louisiana, with people displaced by Katrina who had been refused passage during the hurricane; introduced a bill to deny funding to the Gretna police department because of its role in turning away thousands of hurricane survivors, mostly African Americans, at the Crescent City Connection bridge. Ms. McKinney was the only member of Congress to join the November 7, 2005 march.
• Continues to works actively with the Reconstruction Party, a local political party in New Orleans, and in support of displaced residents’ right of return and other survivor issues.
It seems eight-gold-medal winner Michael Phelps is estranged from his dad. That’s too bad — but here’s what’s really too bad: Mike’s father is named Fred. Fred Phelps.
You know, no matter how proud I might be of my family, if my dearly departed dad had been named, say, George Bush, I’d not only change my own name, but get a posthumous name change for my old man, too.
Speaking of the MSM’s obsession with delving into the personal lives of Olympic stars, why is NBC ignoring Aussie diver Matthew Mitcham’s sexual orientation? Observes Outsports:
The only openly gay male athlete in Beijing pulled off one of the great upsets at the Olympics in a spectacular fashion. If he had had cancer, or if his parents had been killed in a car crash when he was 2, or if he had just proposed to his girlfriend, they would have mentioned it. But they never showed him hugging his boyfriend, never mentioned it. They referred to “personal problems,” but I’m afraid they decided Matthew’s sexuality was off limits. A real shame.
While there are plenty of reasons to praise, condemn, or experience complete indifference* at Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as running mate, shameless schmuck Bill Kristol wins the Most Transparent Horse-Puckey of the Day Award: He’s pretending that he gives a hoot about “gender equity.” Per Media Matters:
Bill Kristol characterized Sen. Barack Obama’s selection of Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate as “Obama’s imposition of a glass ceiling.” But Kristol showed little concern for “gender equity” in the Democratic Party when he said during the primary that “[w]hite women are a problem” and attributed Sen. Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire primary victory to her “pretend[ing] to cry.” …
Details at the link.
* “Complete indifference” is my own (non-)reaction.
Or: Yet Another Example of the Myriad Reasons “Faith-Based Funding” Must Be Eliminated:
Fundamentalist Group Drops Public Funding Windfall After Americans United Protest
Kentucky Arm of ‘Teen Challenge’ Gives Up $50,000 Federal Grant
A fundamentalist Christian group that claims to help young people overcome drug and alcohol addiction through Bible study and prayer has given up a federal grant after Americans United for Separation of Church and State protested the funding.
Attorneys with Americans United wrote a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in June, noting that a $50,000 grant to Teen Challenge of Kentucky raised serious constitutional issues. The money was allocated through the Compassion Capital Fund, a special program created as part of President George W. Bush’s “faith-based” initiative.
Teen Challenge, Americans United pointed out, requires participants to take part in prayer, worship, Bible study and other religious activities. Program participants must sign a “Civil Rights Waiver” in which each surrenders the right to “exercis[e] the religion of my choice.”
Applicants for the program are required to describe their Christian faith and agree to conduct themselves in a “Christ-like manner.” The organization vows to offer “deliverance from addiction through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and practical application of Biblical principles.”
Public funding of such sectarian activities, Americans United asserted, would clearly violate the First Amendment.
In response to Americans United’s letter, an official with HHS wrote to say that Teen Challenge “voluntarily terminated” its participation in the program.
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, said he was pleased with the outcome but noted that Teen Challenge should never have received public funds in the first place.
“Teen Challenge boasts about its program being saturated with fundamentalist Christianity and makes it clear that required participation in religious activities is key to its approach,” Lynn said. “I cannot imagine a worse candidate for tax funding.
“Bush administration officials have claimed that they do not fund religious activities, but this grant suggests otherwise,” he continued. “Apparently their policy is to do it until they get caught.”
Lynn noted that while Teen Challenge and other fundamentalist “faith-based” groups often claim high rates of success, no empirical data backs up the claim.
“Tax funds were being funneled to this organization even though it openly boasts about its religious content, and there’s no evidence its approach even works,” Lynn said. “This incident is a perfect example of what’s so wrong with faith-based initiatives.”
AU Senior Litigation Counsel Alex Luchenitser, who handled the AU complaint about the funding, said, “This was a clear example of unconstitutional support of religious coercion and discrimination. I’m glad we were able to bring the matter to an appropriate conclusion.”
Tweet This Post! 
Green leaders seek end to presidential debates limited by arbitrary two-party criteria
