Foes of gay-marriage ban say poll shows Prop. 8 leading
The campaign says it is being outspent and urges more donations. Both sides ramp up outreach to Latinos.
By Jessica Garrison, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 8, 2008
Opponents of a campaign to ban same-sex marriage in California said Tuesday that a new poll shows them in danger of losing — unless people step forward with more contributions to pay for No on 8 television commercials.
The opposition has enjoyed a healthy lead in several surveys taken by polling organizations that do not have a stake in the campaign. But officials with the No on 8 campaign held a conference call with reporters Tuesday to announce that their own poll showed the measure would pass by four points. Opponents attributed the result to fewer television ads, which is, in turn, a result of the No on 8 campaign falling behind in fundraising.
Tracking the money Spike in marriage licenses statewideThe gay-marriage battle: Follow the money
Gay marriages in California surpass those in Massachusetts
Although the Yes on 8 campaign has not yet posted its latest fund-raising report, supporters said Tuesday that they have raised at least $25 million, compared with $15.75 million raised by the other side.
“As a result of not being able to match dollar for dollar, we have seen a change,” said Geoff Kors, the executive director of Equality California, which is fighting Proposition 8, the proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman.
The announcement pleased supporters of Proposition 8. “I can understand their concern,” said Sonja Eddings Brown, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage Coalition.
Although other polls throughout the summer have consistently shown Proposition 8 failing, she pointed to another recent poll, from CBS and SurveyUSA, which showed the measure leading slightly.
Typically, campaigns do not release their internal polling information. But opponents of Proposition 8 are clearly hoping to spur donations by dramatizing the threat to same-sex marriage.
Steve Smith, campaign manager for No on 8, said he wanted to be able to “match [opponents] dollar for dollar. If we don’t get there, voters won’t hear our messages.”
Smith also said his forces are being outspent in part because of a surge in contributions from Mormon Church members.
“I don’t think we have ever seen a single religion in the state . . . so significantly participate in one political campaign,” Smith said.
Officials with the Mormon Church did not respond to e-mails seeking comment.
Meanwhile, gay and lesbian Mormons are criticizing members of their faith who support Proposition 8, pointing out that Mormons were once persecuted for defining marriage outside the traditional view of one woman and one man.
“The Mormon Church teaches that we should be building families,” said David Melson, assistant executive director of Affirmation, a group of gay and lesbian Mormons. “Through measures like Proposition 8, they are working to tear families apart.”
It is unclear how far ahead backers of Proposition 8 are in terms of fund-raising. The campaign tried to file its latest finance report Monday, the deadline for making the disclosure. But Kate Folmar, spokeswoman for Secretary of State Debra Bowen, said the report was so voluminous that the state’s computer could not handle it. Technicians were working on the problem Tuesday, Folmar said.
Also this week, both campaigns ramped up their outreach to Latinos.
The Yes on 8 side began airing a commercial on dozens of Spanish television stations that warned that children would be taught about gay marriage if the proposition was not approved. The spot features a little girl whose class reads a fairy tale about a prince who can’t find a princess to marry — so instead he marries a prince. Campaign officials said the ad would begin airing in English soon too.
The No on 8 campaign announced rallies in Latino neighborhoods. Los Angeles Unified School District board President Monica Garcia and others will gather at noon today for a rally and to open an office in East Los Angeles.
jessica.garrison@latimes.com
Times staff writers Dan Morain and Duke Helfand contributed to this report.
More On Prop 8 – ALNews Editors comments
Subject: Study Prop 8 — Forerunner for the Nation
California Prop 8 will be the second battle ground for an all out war on the definition of Marriage. Whether or not Prop 8 passes, the work on both sides is just the beginning of a larger battle that will continue for many years to come. As many of our readers have asked the editor for articles on opinions about Prop 8, we feel that what we can provide is some information from both sides.
As we are more of a community and religious paper, than a hard news paper, we ask our readers and citizens of the communities we serve, to study the issues out, ponder them and pray about them Above all, exercise your right in this free country to cast your vote.
To start off, the biggest grip that backers of Prop 8 have is how the issue of same sex marriage was handled in this state.
These are some of the words from an argument in favor of Prop 8 from the 2008 official voter guide.
Pro Prop 8 Statement:
Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to RESTORE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE as a man and a woman.
Analysis Statement:
In the official registered voter guide page 55 there is an analysis provided by a Legislative Analyst, it states; In March 2000, California voters passed Prop 22 to specify in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statue enacted by Prop 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state.
To further explain the evolving course of events leading to the May decision, here is information called “Marriage Timeline in California and the U.S.”, from the No On Prop advocates;
No On Prop 8 Website:
The Marriage Timeline in California
Since 1999, gay and lesbian couples and opposite-sex couples have been able to register as domestic partners, affording them many, but not all of the same responsibilities and benefits of marriage. Almost every year since the domestic partnership registry was established, new legislation has been introduced to close the gaps in rights and benefits between marriage and domestic partnership, which are still two separate and unequal institutions.
In February of 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. More than 4,000 licenses were issued at San Francisco’s City Hall. In August of that year, the California Supreme Court invalidated the marriages, ruling that the city of San Francisco did not have authority to issue marriage licenses.
That decision triggered a series of lawsuits filed on behalf of couples and other plaintiffs. Those lawsuits, collectively known as In re: Marriage Cases, were then combined for consideration by the California Supreme Court. This litigation asked the California Supreme Court to decide whether denying marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, was constitutional. In a 4-3 decision, drafted by Chief Justice Ronald George, the court concluded that the freedom to marry was of “central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society.”
In 2005, the California Legislature was the first legislative body in the nation to pass a bill that would give all couples the freedom to marry. That landmark legislation, AB 849, authored by Assembly member Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), would have simultaneously protected religious freedom by not requiring any religious institution to solemnize marriages contrary to its fundamental beliefs. Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 849.
In 2007 the California Legislature passed AB 43, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act — a bill almost identical to the measure passed by the legislature in 2005. The bill picked up two new votes in the Assembly and three new votes in the Senate compared to 2005. The Governor once again vetoed the measure, despite high public support: A May 2008 Field Poll showed a majority (51 percent) of Californians support marriage for gay and lesbian couples.
The California Supreme Court ruled on May 15, 2008 that all gay and lesbian couples in California have the legal right to marry. The landmark decision ends the state ban on marriage for gay and lesbian couples. In June 2008, thousands of couples celebrated their weddings with families and friends.
Marriage, Domestic Partnerships, and Civil Unions in the U.S.
On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first state in the union to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who are residents. At first, Massachusetts state law blocked out-of-state couples from marrying there, but this law was overturned in July 2008. More than 10,000 marriage licenses had been issued to gay or lesbian couples in Massachusetts as of July 2008.
For a period of time in 2004, marriage licenses were also issued to gay and lesbian couples in Sandoval County, N.M., New Paltz, N.Y., and Multnomah County, Ore. Courts intervened and invalidated these marriages.
As of June 16, 2008 and following the California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the legal right to marry, California became the second state to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
Four states, including Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire, offer civil unions, providing most of the same state rights and benefits as marriage, but under a separate title and institution.
In addition to California’s domestic partnership registry (which functions similarly to civil unions in other states), Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Maine, and the District of Columbia offer domestic partnerships with certain rights and responsibilities.
Measures against the Right to Marry
In 1996, the Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which says states are not required to recognize marriages performed in another state. DOMA also defines marriage under federal law as a legal union between one man and one woman.
Between 1973 and 2005, 42 states passed so-called Defense of Marriage statutes, which define marriage as solely a heterosexual union. Most of these laws are modeled after the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Some states have also approved measures that ban other forms of partner recognition, including domestic partnerships and civil unions.
Similar to the so-called Defense of Marriage statutes, an anti-gay initiative which qualified for the California November 2008 ballot is proposing to write marriage discrimination into the state constitution and take away the right to marry in California.
The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) would amend the U.S. Constitution to ban the right to marry nationwide. Several versions of an FMA were introduced and voted on in Congress between 2004 and 2006, but none came close to receiving the required two-thirds support needed to pass. Federal amendments also would require majority approval in 38 of the states’ legislatures to be ratified into the U.S. Constitution.
With this background explained we can go on to the arguments from each side.
Blurbs taken from page 56-57 of the Official Voter Guide
In Favor of Prop 8
Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle. Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code § 297.5.) There are NO exceptions. Proposition 8 WILL NOT change this.
YES on Proposition 8 does three simple things:
It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.
It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.
It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.
Against Prop 8
The government has no business telling people who can and cannot get married. Just like government has no business telling us what to read, watch on TV, or do in our private lives. We don’t need Prop. 8; WE DON’T NEED MORE GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES.
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. Those committed and loving couples who want to accept the responsibility that comes with marriage should be treated like everyone else.
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS ARE NOT MARRIAGE.
Rebuttal to Argument Against Prop 8
________________________________________
Proposition 8 is about traditional marriage; it is not an attack on gay relationships. Under California law gay and lesbian domestic partnerships are treated equally; they already have the same rights as married couples. Proposition 8 does not change that.
What Proposition 8 does is restore the meaning of marriage to what human history has understood it to be and over 61% of California voters approved just a few years ago.
Your YES vote ensures that the will of the people is respected. It overturns the flawed legal reasoning of four judges in San Francisco who wrongly disregarded the people’s vote, and ensures that gay marriage can be legalized only through a vote of the people.
Your YES vote ensures that parents can teach their children about marriage according to their own values and beliefs without conflicting messages being forced on young children in public schools that gay marriage is okay.
Your YES vote on Proposition 8 means that only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California, regardless of when or where performed. But Prop. 8 will NOT take away any other rights or benefits of gay couples.
Gays and lesbians have the right to live the lifestyle they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else. Proposition 8 respects the rights of gays while still reaffirming traditional marriage.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 8
________________________________________
Don’t be tricked by scare tactics.
• PROP. 8 DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SCHOOLS
There’s NOT ONE WORD IN 8 ABOUT EDUCATION. In fact, local school districts and parents—not the state—develop health education programs for their schools.
NO CHILD CAN BE FORCED, AGAINST THE WILL OF THEIR PARENTS, TO BE TAUGHT ANYTHING about health and family issues. CALIFORNIA LAW PROHIBITS IT.
And NOTHING IN STATE LAW REQUIRES THE MENTION OF MARRIAGE IN KINDERGARTEN!
It’s a smokescreen.
• DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS and MARRIAGE AREN’T THE SAME.
CALIFORNIA STATUTES CLEARLY IDENTIFY NINE REAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MARRIAGE AND DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS. Only marriage provides the security that spouses provide one another—it’s why people get married in the first place!
Think about it. Married couples depend on spouses when they’re sick, hurt, or aging. They accompany them into ambulances or hospital rooms, and help make life-and-death decisions, with no questions asked. ONLY MARRIAGE ENDS THE CONFUSION AND GUARANTEES THE CERTAINTY COUPLES CAN COUNT ON IN TIMES OF GREATEST NEED.
Regardless of how you feel about this issue, we should guarantee the same fundamental freedoms to every Californian.
• PROP. 8 TAKES AWAY THE RIGHTS OF GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES AND TREATS THEM DIFFERENTLY UNDER THE LAW.
Equality under the law is one of the basic foundations of our society.
Prop. 8 means one class of citizens can enjoy the dignity and responsibility of marriage, and another cannot. That’s unfair.
FISCAL COSTS TO CALIFORNIA
In the Voter Guide, a summary is given of an estimate of net state and local government impact. On page 54 it states that
• Over the next few years potential revenue loss, mainly from 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
They are talking about the revenue generated by weddings of same-sex couples. See page 55 Voter Guide
Because marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid in California, there would likely be an increase in spending on weddings by same-sex couples in California over the next few years. This would result in increased revenue, primarily sales tax revenue, to state and local governments.
By specifying that marriage between individuals of the same sex is not valid or recognized, this measure could result in revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, to state and local governments. Over the next few years, this loss could potentially total in the several tens of millions of dollars. Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments.
************************
The conversation goes on and on…. what is most important is that the people who live in the great State Of California need to let their thoughts and voices be heard.’
Post away here, on other sites and make sure above all things — to go to the polls in November and cast your vote, your way…. that’s what a Democracy is all about.
