In what is sure to be an important component of the campaign, No on 8 started airing a TV spot in markets across California. It is a strong commercial featuring a married couple of 46 years with three grown children, one of whom is gay. Here's the words from the commercial, video to the right:
SAMUEL THORON: Julia and I have been married for 46 years.
JULIA THORON: Together we've raised three children - who are now adults.
SAMUEL THORON: My wife and I never treated our children differently, we never loved them any differently and the law shouldn't treat them differently either.
JULIA THORON: If Prop 8 passes, our gay daughter and thousands of our fellow Californians will lose the right to marry. Please don't eliminate that right - for anyone's family."
SAMUEL THORON: Don't eliminate marriage for anyone. Vote No on Prop 8.
You can help get this commercial on television more frequently at the No on 8 Website. Here at Calitics, we're hoping to have some fun activities for you as well soon...
[UPDATE] by Julia: The Thorons signed the ballot argument against passage of Prop. 8. This is a good, solid ad carefully calibrated to move undecided voters. The more you donate, the more they can get ads up on the air. The other side had booked TV earlier than us, but with this ad we have beaten them to the punch.
Yesterday, the six most senior bishops in California announced their opposition to Proposition 8, the anti-marriage amendment.
"We believe that continued access to civil marriage for all, regardless of sexual orientation, is consistent with the best principles of our constitutional rights," said the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles.
Bruno, flanked at a news conference by fellow clergy members and gay and straight couples, added: "We do not believe that marriage of heterosexuals is threatened by same-sex marriage." (LA Times 9/11/08)
This is just another crack in the facade the Yes on 8 people are trying to put up. That somehow they own religion. Despite the fact that nearly all of their endorsements are tied to Dobson-esque quasi-religious right-wing organizations (and the Republicans that love them), they do not speak for all religious groups. These Episcopal Bishops join other religious leaders like those from the National Council of Jewish Women and the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry Action Network.
Also, the LA Times has an interesting graphic on the donations to both sides on Prop 8 and where they come from. Yes on 8 still leads, with about $14.5 million compared to about $10.5 million for the no side. Let's just hope the yes side squanders more resources.
Yesterday I mentioned the Prop 7 ballot argument lawsuit, but there's always more of this stuff. Today we should be getting the Prop 8 ballot title result. A hearing on the case was held yesterday, and it didn't go so well for the Yes on 8 folks:
Despite objections from opponents of same-sex marriage, a judge seemed inclined Thursday to leave intact a state ballot label that declares a November initiative "eliminates (the) right of same-sex couples to marry."
Sponsors of Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 ballot argued that Attorney General Jerry Brown's formal title and summary of the measure - the first words voters will see on their ballots - were one-sided and prejudicial. Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley appeared skeptical, although he deferred a ruling until today. (SF Chronicle 8/8/08)
UPDATE: The ballot title stays. This is a nice little victory for the opponents of Prop 8. Thatks to Hermit9 in the comments. Full press release over the flip.
UPDATE by Dave: The other big news today is that the LA Times has come out No on 8, which, given their reach and their tendency to be something less than liberal in worldview, is very significant.
But it was Ronald M. George, chief justice of the California Supreme Court, who cut through to the essence of the issue in the May 15 opinion he wrote: "[A]ffording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples."
In other words, the very act of denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry -- traditionally the highest legal and societal recognition of a loving commitment -- by definition relegates them and their relationships to second-class status, separate and not all that equal.
Dan Walters has never been a fan of Jerry Brown. In the past few years, he's never missed a chance to call him a flip-flop artist or go after him as a Flake Extraordinaire (PDF). We get it, Dan Walters doesn't like "Governor Moonbeam."
But his most recent attack is really beyond whatever logic even Dan Walters has. Dan thinks that Jerry went all cynically pro-gay by changing the title and summary of Prop 8 from "amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry." And by doing so, Dan becomes nothing more than a Knight acolyte.
The logic behind the change is clear. Before In re Marriage Cases was decided the amendment was not really removing any already existing rights. Today, Prop 8 would eliminate the right of gays and lesbians to marry the person they love. That is a right today that would no longer exist after. The switch only reflects the changing state of the law.
But Dan Walters simply loves going after Jerry Brown, so he attacks Brown as a sycophant to the gays. Well, I won't deny that Brown is trying to ingratiate himself with what is a powerful Democratic voting block, but this decision only reflects the world as it is. The courts will soon confirm that Brown did the right thing.
In most, if not all, of the states that have passed marriage bans, corporations have pretty much stayed out of the ballot fight. After all, who wants to get boycotted by the Family Research Council. I mean that's three bottles of soap that you could have sold right down the drain.
So, the introduction of a "Equality Business Advisory Council" at a presser tomorrow is something of a big deal. No on 8 needs to pick up a few points from CalChamber types who not only see the importance of equality from a fairness perspective but also see the value of marriage equality to their bottom line. And first up is Pacific Gas & Electric.
PG&E is a big political player. They know exactly what they are doing here. They need some credibility with the left, especially in San Francisco. It doesn't hurt that they are in a fight over a possible public power measure in SF either. Of course, being something of a monopoly doesn't hurt. Where else are people going to go to get the electricity to turn on their lights?
As for other companies, I expect we'll see a few other businesses. Maybe a few similar monopolies, but also a group of businesses that cater to the rising creative class. As the title and summary of Prop 8 mentioned, this ban will have an effect on the bottom line of some businesses in the state. I have confidence in the voters of California seeing the fairness and logic in voting NO on Prop 8.
The reply brief in Bennet v Bowen has been filed by Equality California and allies. You can grab the PDF here.
There's not a whole lot new here, so I'd recommend that you take a look at my previous diary. This reply brief focuses on the issue of pre-election versus post-election review and then restates the previous two issues: that Prop 8 is a revision rather than an amendment of the constitution and that the signature forms carried an improper statement of the law.
There is one interesting passage that I thought might carry some weight and might incline the justices to consider pulling Prop 8 off the ballot:
No other group in this state has ever had to face an initiative that would deprive them of their basic status as equal families under California law. If Proposition 8 is a revision, as Petitioners assert, gay and lesbian Californians should not be required to endure the indignity and pain caused by the uncertainty that Proposition 8 now poses for their families. That many gay and lesbian couples have had to wait decades or even most of their lives, to exercise the fundamental freedom to marry does not diminish, but rather exacerbates, the grave harm caused by that uncertainty.
I'm still counting this one as a longshot for anything to happen before the November election. It is still a case of first impression and would be creating new law, but it's not an altogether unreasonable argument. Either way, let's plan to shut the door on discrimination right here in California.
On June 20, Equality California, NCLR, and a whole host of groups filed suit in the Supreme Court of California against our Secretary of State, Debra Bowen. (Note that Debra Bowen is an amazing SoS; she's getting sued in her SoS capacity.) To grossly oversimplify, EQCA alleges that the signature gathering process was flawed for a few reasons:
"The proposed initiative is invalid because it is a proposed constitutional revision, not a proposed constitutional amendment and, as such, the California Constitution provides that it may not be enacted by initiative"
"The description of the proposed initiative in the petitions that were circulated for signature was materially misleading and materially misstated the effect of the proposed initiative to the electors signing the petitions to qualify the measure for the ballot.
Ultimately, this is a long shot. For a number of reasons, the Supreme Court is unlikely to pull the measure off the ballot in November. Let's go over those over the flip.
Erica Solvig, reporter for The Desert Sun, in an article entitled "Outside funding inundates primary reports that special interests outside the CA 80th Assembly District have flooded the Coachella and Imperial Valleys with hate mail on behalf of Victor Manuel Perez. In fact, according to the Fair Political Practices Commission, Opportunity PAC has spent or plans to spend approximately $450,000 on hit pieces on behalf of Manuel Perez targeting the frontrunner Greg Pettis, Cathedral City Councilman and former Mayor Pro-Tem of Cathedral City. One has to wonder just what Opportunity PAC hopes to get in return for its investment should Perez be elected. One also has to wonder what the workers and their families in these AFL-CIO-labeled 'rogue unions' who typically make between $18,000 and $24,000 per annum might think about such expenditures by this PAC for a little-accomplished candidate on behalf of them.
Voters across the District also report receiving repeated live phone calls purported to be from the Pettis campaign at all hours of the day and night but that are clearly not from the Pettis campaign. This is an apparent attempt on the part of special interests to suppress voter turnout in areas of Pettis strength in the District.' The Pettis campaign has received 'many' reports on these harassing phone calls.
Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet
Palm Springs City Councilmember Ginny Foat
Palm Springs City Councilmember Rick Hutcheson
Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund
Equality California
The Bottom Line Magazine
Palm Springs Democratic Club
Desert Stonewall Democratic Club
Invite you to meet
U.S. Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA)
and to join him in supporting
Greg Pettis
For California State Assembly (80th AD)
Saturday May 24, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.
Location for the Cocktail Reception at the home of Andy Linsky will be provided with a confirmed reservation
Suggested minimum contribution: $100 per person
Sponsor: $500 ~ Co-Host: $1000
Xposted 5/20/2008 8:58 PM PDT on MyDesert.com by BluePalmSpringsBoyz
The Greg Pettis for 80th Assembly District campaign announced earlier that Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, the highest-ranking Democratic elected official in California endorsed Pettis for the 80th AD to replace the termed-out, thank God, Bonnie Garcia (R). The campaign Press Release is as follows:
Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi, the highest-ranking Democratic official in state government, has endorsed Greg Pettis in the open 80th Assembly District race.
"While Democrats in the 80th AD are fortunate to have a wealth of choices this year, I'm getting behind Greg Pettis because he has a long record of results that matter to families throughout the Coachella and Imperial Valleys, and the experience to deliver on the promise of creating a healthier California," Garamendi said.
Based on an XPost 5/19/2008 12:00 AM PDT on MyDesert.com in BluePalmSpringsBoyz blog
Greg Pettis, Cathedral City Councilmember for more than 13 years, former Cathedral City Mayor Pro-Tem, and Democratic Candidate for the CA 80th Assembly District has again and again shown his ongoing and indefatigable support for the issues that are important to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender communities. As indicated in earlier posts, Pettis is the only Candidate for the 80th AD, Democratic or Republican, to consistently and openly support Marriage Equality and Civil Rights for all members of the LGBT community. His opponent Rick Gonzales and Richard Guttierez have stated in public forums such as Democratic Club Candidates' forums that each would vote 'nay' on Marriage Equality. Victor Manuel Perez has refused to indicate in public whether or not he would vote for Marriage Equality if elected and shied away from answering directly at the same forums (his surrogates say that Perez supports 'gay marriage,' but Perez has not indicated that he would ever vote 'yea' on Marriage Equality in the Assembly. When his Campaign Director 'informed' members of the Desert Stonewall Democrats that Perez supported 'gay marriage,' members erupted in incredulity).
I received Press Releases from National Stonewall Democrats, the Sacramento Stonewall Democratic Club, and U.S. Representative Barney Frank regarding the decision by the Republican-dominated California Supreme Court overturning the ban on Marriage Equality in the State.
National Stonewall Democrats, co-founded by U.S. Representative Frank (D-MA), is the National voice of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Democrats. The Desert Stonewall Democratic Club is the official local Democratic Club for LGBT Democrats, sanctioned by both the National Stonewall Democrats as well as the Riverside County Democratic Central Committee. Zander, Vice-President Roger Tansey, Treasurer Bob Silverman, and Secretary James Reynolds are amongst the leaders of the local club.
The Greg Pettis for the California 80th Assembly District Campaign has announced that U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) will headline a fundraiser for the campaign on Saturday, May 24, 2008. Pettis has served with distinction for more than 13 years on the Cathdral City Council, also serving previously as Mayor Pro-Tem, and is presently the leading Democratic candidate for the 80th AD. Pettis was one of the first openly-gay electeds in the Coachella Valley and has solid support in the LGBT community amongst local, state, and National electeds.
Rep. Frank has served in Congress since 1981. He is the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Previously, he was a Massachusetts State Representative and an assistant to the Mayor of Boston. Frank has also taught at several Boston area universities.
As of May 2007, Frank is one of two openly-gay members of Congress, the other being Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), who has also endorsed Pettis for the CA 80th AD (see BlogActive.com for its listing of the closeted gay members of Congress who regularly vote to harm their own clan).
Frank's blunt stance on outing certain gay Republicans has become well-publicized, dubbed "The Frank Rule" - that it is acceptable to out a closeted gay person, if that person uses their power or notoriety to hurt gay people.
(Xposted at www.mydesert.com as BluePalmSpringsBoyz)
I just received this Press Release from Equality California regarding an effort of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and the Advocates for Faith and Freedom (AFF) to prevent the enforcement of the Students Civil Rights Act (SB 777) that protects students from discrimination, harassment, and bullying in publicly-funded schools.
As a member of the Palm Springs Unified School District board of directors whose leadership is now in question due to the possiblity that the PSUSD and the school board may face sanctions due to their inability to meet academic standards, Gary Jeandron, must make his stand known regarding the enforcement of SB 777 and regarding discrimination, harassment and bullying of students.
Jeandron is also a declared candidate for the Republican nomination for the CA 80th Assembly District. His website indicates that as a member of the School Board of Directors, Jeandron supervises a district with 22,000 students and an annual budget of $191 million. Unfortunately, he did not use his position as a member of the Board to help students achieve academic standards or was unable to influence the Board in order to implement any plan that he formulated. Now, the pressure is on Jeandron to indicate where he stands regarding SB 777 and its implementation.
AFF's website states: "WHEN YOU PUT ON YOUR JESUS GLASSES, YOU CAN SEE THE TRUTH!" The AFF is a non-profit law firm whose goal is 'protecting our religious liberty in the courts." In other words, AFF's intent is to help to implement a theocratic state where religion, their religion, dictates school policy. Implicit in AFF's policy statement is also the fact that they want their religious liberty protected and not the religious liberty of those who have differing faiths. Great, faith-based law now.
The ADF is another so-called Christian organization that purports to defend Religious Freedom, Sanctity of Human Life, and Family Values. Again, clearly a reference to what they perceive to be religious freedom, sanctity of human life, and family values. They presume that only their view on these issues is the correct one and should be the prevailing one. I thought that the religious culture wars ended centuries ago in Europe!
So, will Jeandron appeal to his radical right base and support the efforts of the AFF and the ADF and their attempts to develop a theocratic state based on their views of so-called Christian principles or will Jeandron support the right of students at every grade level to attend school and to live their lives without discrimination, harassment, and bullying? Will Jeandron take a leadership stance that protects elementary, middle, and secondary school students from discrimination, harassment, and bullying because of perceived or actual sexual orientation.
Is it a family value that an elementary school student should continue to suffer discrimination because someone perceives that he or she might be gay or lesbian in the schools? This is not my family value or that of a majority of Palm Springs residents. Is it a family value that a middle school student should continue to suffer harassment because he or she is gay or lesbian? That is not my family value and it is not the family value of most Palm Springs residents. Is it a family value that a high school student is prevented from doing well academically because he or she is bullied at school and in the school yard because he or she is gay? That is not my family or community value. What are Jeandron's family values and are they diametrically opposed to those of most Palm Springs residents? Does Jeandron believe that students ought to be able to study and to achieve academically without a hostile environment?
Seems like AFF and ADF fall into the category of bullies. I wonder what the members were like on the school playground. Just sayin'.
What follows if the Press Release from Equality California (EQCA) and the Gay-Straight Student Alliance Network (GSA):
WooHoo! We are almost as good as everybody else. I suppose the key word there is almost. Equality California released their annual scorecard, and a record number of legislators scored a 100 by voting for civil rights. In fact, 61 of of the 120 legislators scored a 100, all Democrats of course.
You can see the full scorecard here (PDF), but interestingly there were only 4 0s in the Senate, and 8 0s in the Assembly. A lot of that can be attributed to the seeming lack of controversy surround Sen. Carole Migden's SB 105, which allows "Simplifies the process of filing joint state income tax returns for registered domestic partners. Creates a worksheet California registered domestic partners will use to file jointly beginning with the 2007 tax year. " IN other words, it's a tax clean-up measure for a right (filing joint taxes) that was bestowed already.
Also getting many pro-LGBT votes was AJR 29, which encourages the federal government to pass hate crimes legislation, specifically the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. I'm guessing that has to do with Republicans being ToughOnCrimeTM or something like that.
And the Governor, well he got an 88. It seems he mistakenly vetoed Marriage Equality, because I couldn't possibly imagine our liberal, well-intentioned governor ever thinking that we don't all deserve the freedom to marry the one we love. Oh, right...he wants the "voters to decide". Nice cop out, Arnold.
"This campaign is about changing the climate in California around this issue," Seth Kilbourn, Equality California's political and policy director, said as he sat in his upper Market Street office.
He cites polls showing Californians almost evenly split on the issue. A 2000 poll by the Policy Institute of California found that voters opposed same-sex marriage 55 to 38 percent; a poll by the same group last year showed a major shift: 48 to 46 percent.
This campaign is intended to move the state "over the tipping point," Kilbourn said. "We wanted to connect to the people of California on an emotional level, on a level they can identify with."
