Gay marriage looking safe in CA

[Rick Munroe]

By all means, Steven K. and the rest of us should continue donating time and money, but the latest Field Poll has really great news.

 

Field (PDF). 7/8-14. Likely voters. MoE 3.9% (5/17-26)

 

Proposition 8 is the “Limit on Marriage Constitutional Amendment.” It amends the California constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. If the election were being held today, would you vote YES or NO on Proposition 8, the Limit on Marriage Constitutional Amendment?

 

Yes 42 (43)

No 51 (51)

 

[blockquote]There is no more accurate poll in California than Field, so these are good numbers. The fact that the "no" vote (always an advantage in these initiatives) is already over 50 percent virtually ensures that as long as the "no" camp runs a vigorous campaign, this hateful ballot initiative will be defeated. Fact is, same-sex marriages are taking place up and down the Golden State, and there has been one large collective shrug from the broader public. It's just not as scary as the haters would have us believe. Rather, it's kind of inspiring.

 

--kos, Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 04:50:20 PM EDT

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/24/123748/870/43/556266[/blockquote]

[ariadne1880]

Can't you take this polemical garbage to the political forum?

 

You are just a little too obsessed with this subject ... makes one wonder if your 3 incher gets itself all the way up.

[Rick Munroe]

Take a look at Steven Kesslar's thread in The Deli (not the Politics forum) and you'll find that you are very much in the minority in your thinking that gay marriage is "garbage":

http://mc.daddysreviews.com/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=7&topic_id=81103&mesg_id=81103&page=

 

As for my "obsession with this subject," well, all I will say is that some of us are "obsessed" with gay rights and some of us are "obsessed" with the glimpses of celebrities' bodies that we can see in Times ads and reality shows. It takes all kinds.

[Guest TBinCHI]

>Take a look at Steven Kesslar's thread in The Deli (not the

>Politics forum) and you'll find that you are very much in the

>minority in your thinking that gay marriage is

>"garbage":

 

Come now Rick, be fair. He didn't call it "garbage", he called it "polemical garbage." If you are going to feed the trolls, at least feed them the proper diet!

[Rick Munroe]

But...I'm too stupid to even know what "polemical" means!

[+ glutes]

Long way to November...

 

Same-sex marriage foes warn of kindergarten lessons on gay matrimony

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

 

Thursday, July 24, 2008

(07-24) 17:53 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Backers of a November initiative to ban same-sex marriage in California plan to tell voters in the state ballot pamphlet that the constitutional amendment would protect children as young as kindergarten age from being taught in school about the virtues of gay and lesbian matrimony.

 

"If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage," supporters of Proposition 8 said in ballot arguments that went on public display this week at the secretary of state's office.

 

It's all nonsense and scare tactics, opponents of the measure said Thursday. Steve Smith, strategist for the No on 8 campaign, said opponents of the measure will decide by next week whether to sue, which is the only way a ballot argument can be changed before the election.

 

The argument represents an attempt by opponents of same-sex marriage to open a new front in the Prop. 8 campaign, although the interplay between gay rights and educational standards in California has surfaced before. Religious conservatives have sued in federal court to overturn a state law that took effect this year prohibiting public schools from discriminating because of sexual orientation or identity.

 

Prop. 8 would reverse a May 15 ruling by the state Supreme Court that struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage. The initiative would amend the state Constitution to declare that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

 

Neither the ruling nor the ballot measure mentions education. But Yes on 8 campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Kerns said Thursday that the court decision would make instruction on same-sex marriage mandatory under a state law that requires public schools to offer comprehensive health education programs from kindergarten through high school.

 

Quoting the law, she said those programs must provide instruction on "the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage." That means students at every grade level must now be taught that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite-sex marriage, Kerns said.

 

In the ballot arguments, Prop. 8 supporters declared, "We should not accept a court decision that results in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn't be forced on us against our will."

 

The text of the education law, however, doesn't specify that health education programs at every grade level must include marriage, or that same-sex marriage must be discussed at all. State law also allows parents to remove children from any health class that violates the parents' religious beliefs.

 

An opponent of Prop. 8, attorney Shannon Minter, who represented same-sex couples in the state Supreme Court case, said California law requires only that students be taught at some point before high school graduation about the legal and financial aspects of marriage.

 

The state Department of Education recommends that marriage be discussed in high school, but each school district designs its own program, with parental input, said Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

 

"This is a pure fabrication," he said of the Yes on 8 ballot argument. "They are trying to inflame people by making up these falsehoods about kids."

 

The Yes on 8 argument steers clear of moral and religious issues - it asserts, in fact, that the ballot measure "is not an attack on the gay lifestyle" - and instead condemns "the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who overturned the will of the people."

 

That was a reference to a 2000 ballot measure, passed by a 61 percent majority but struck down by the court. Drafted as a statute rather than a constitutional amendment, the 2000 initiative reaffirmed the state's previous ban on same-sex marriage.

 

"While gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else," the Prop. 8 supporters say.

 

The No on 8 argument also seeks to defuse religious and political controversies over gay rights and presents the issue as one of fairness and freedom from government intrusion.

 

"The government has no business telling people who can and cannot get married," opponents of the measure declare. "Regardless of how anyone feels about marriage for gay and lesbian couples, people should not be singled out for unfair treatment under the laws of our state."

 

The ballot pamphlet also includes a cost assessment of the measure by the Legislature's nonpartisan fiscal analyst, Elizabeth Hill. She said Prop. 8 could cost state and local governments several tens of millions of dollars in sales tax revenue from same-sex weddings over the next few years but would have little financial effect on governments in the long run.

[Guest]

I wouldn't celebrate just yet. If there's anything that gets fundamentalists and conservatives out of their trailer parks and church pews, it's a gay marriage initiative. While those opposed to gay marriage may be in a minority, wild horses wouldn't keep these opponents away from the polls. Voter turnout will be a major factor.

[+ Lucky]

Gay divorce is in trouble though. States that don't allow gay marriage also don't allow gay divorce. So,if you marry and then move to one of those states, well, here's an LA Times article that explains the problems:

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaydivorce25-2008jul25,0,515161.story

[Epigonos]

Unfortunately Unicorn is absolutely correct. What the anti Proposition 8 people MUST do is organize an outstanding get-out-the-vote campaign. That type of program is difficult, expensive, and time consuming BUT it can be done if it is started early. Car pools MUST be established to shuttle non-drivers to their polling places. Telephone banks MUST be established in order to develop accurate lists of supporters. One mistake that campaigns frequently make is to try to convince un-decidedes and opponents. During the first contact call all that should be done is to identify supporters and get off the telephone as quickly as possible with opponents and un-decidedes. It requires way too much time to attempt to convince the un-decidedes and many of them will turn out to be opponents anyway. With a good list of supporters on election day all the campaign need do is call ALL supporters and provide those without transportation with a ride to the polls.

Rick you are incorrect about one thing; the old cliché “it takes all kinds” is wrong. It really doesn’t take all kinds there just ARE all kinds and at times like this that is unfortunate.

[JamesK840]

>I wouldn't celebrate just yet. If there's anything that gets

>fundamentalists and conservatives out of their trailer parks

>and church pews, it's a gay marriage initiative. While those

>opposed to gay marriage may be in a minority, wild horses

>wouldn't keep these opponents away from the polls. Voter

>turnout will be a major factor.

 

And I'd find that worrisome, IF the initiative was for a primary or midterm... but I don't think there is likely to be any shortage of progressive and liberal voters this November. Combined with the deep conservatives' apathy for their own nominee I'm pretty hopeful.

 

In the past I've been deeply annoyed by the people pushing this issue, doing so at the expense of everything else--and getting nowhere. But this time around I don't think the timing could be better.

[jackhammer91406]

Lucky,

I read that this morning. Real eye opener.

 

Speaking of...welcome back... I trust you enjoyed your vacation from this hurly burly. I was just speaking about you in a thread a few weeks back.

 

Really has been the same old same old except with you gone it didn't quite feel the same. Just a few new faces.

 

Anyway, welcome back.

[+ glutes]

I 2nd the motion, Welcome Back Lucky!

[+ glutes]

I 2nd the motion, Welcome Back Lucky!

[+ Lucky]

Thanks glutes andjackhammer. I was tryingto slip in quietly...you know, not being the kind that needs a lot of attention.

[+ Lucky]

Thanks glutes andjackhammer. I was tryingto slip in quietly...you know, not being the kind that needs a lot of attention.

[Rick Munroe]

>Rick you are incorrect about one thing; the old cliché “it

>takes all kinds” is wrong. It really doesn’t take all kinds

>there just ARE all kinds and at times like this that is

>unfortunate.

 

I like that; I'm going to use it from now on. "There are all kinds."

[Guest andrewd]

Received this letter this morning from EQCA & thought I would share it. Puts what this proposition and it's verbiage is attempting to do in a rawer, harsher light and exposes it for what it truly is:

 

 

"I’d like to share some good news about Proposition 8! This week, the California Attorney General’s office announced changes to the title and summary of the proposition. Here’s what voters will read in November:

 

Proposition 8

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.

INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

 

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

 

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

 

Although the changes to the proposed amendment are subject to legal challenge, this summary accurately describes what the proposition will do. Prop. 8 would eliminate a constitutional right guaranteed to same-gender couples and would decrease revenues coming in to the state from marriages between same-gender couples.

 

Thank you for joining us in voting NO on 8. Keep an eye on your inbox for more Prop. 8 news as it develops."

 

Warmly,

 

Geoff Kors

Executive Director

Equality California

[Rick Munroe]

>Here’s

>what voters will read in November:

>

>Proposition 8

>ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.

 

That is so cool. The voters will actually know what they're voting for, instead of disguising it in the typical "protect marriage" language. Good news, Andrew...