So the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the revolution will NOT be telvised. Attorney General candidate Ted Lieu (a miliatary prosecutor himself) has a few choice words for them:
"The goal of the American civil justice system is to seek justice. The Supreme Court's decision to censor the public broadcast of the historic trial to reverse California's Proposition 8 amounts to a fear of too much justice. Our courts are not star chambers, where testimony and rulings are made in secret and hidden from the public.
"The Court majority's rationale that broadcasting this trial will result in "irreparable harm" has no basis in fact. The Court states that witnesses may suffer harm because they are concerned about possible "harassment" if the public actually found out what they will say under oath. Under that rationale, the Court should seal the transcript of this entire proceeding, not allow any non-witness to attend the proceeding, and block newspapers from reporting on this trial.
...
I served on active duty in the armed forces because I believe America is the best country in the world. Members of our armed forces have given their blood to defend our democracy and our constitutional liberties, including freedom of the press, which is perhaps the greatest check on governmental overreach. The Court's overreach in censoring the broadcast of this trial is something you would expect from the Supreme Court of Iran, not the Supreme Court of the United States."
I'm at a beautiful retreat house on a hilltop in the mountains north of San Luis Obispo as thirty volunteers led by Courage Campaign's brilliant field team learn the skills to be community organizers. The spirit and energy in the room outshine the magnificent California countryside.
Every four years, California exports labor and capital for presidential campaigns. I witnessed that firsthand as chair of Howard Dean's presidential campaign here in California when, in 2003/4, we sent hundreds of people to Iowa, New Mexico and Arizona to fight in the early primaries. And we raised millions online from California to make Howard Dean the voice that forever changed the Democratic Party. But then what?
The Sacramento Bee will host a live webcast discussion with legal experts about the implications of the California Supreme Court's ruling on Prop. 8, on minority rights, the First Amendment, equal protection and even religious freedom. It promises to be a good discussion, and it starts at noon.
But considering that the Court has, for now, given up on its ability to protect the civil rights of the minority in the face of mob rule, the logical arguments must also incorporate the emotional ones, and what must be now taken into account are the personal stories, highlighted here by state lawmakers.
Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, confided in a Capitol press conference that her daughter is lesbian.
"This is a decision that affects all Californians in a very personal way," Skinner said of the ruling on Proposition 8.
"It impacts my family in saying that somehow my daughter's love for the woman who is her partner is not as valid as the love others have for the opposite sex."
Skinner appeared at a news conference with the Legislature's four openly gay members, all Democrats - Sen. Mark Leno, San Francisco; Sen. Christine Kehoe, San Diego; Assemblyman John Perez, Los Angeles; and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, San Francisco.
San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, a Republican, spoke briefly at the event, noting that he has one daughter who is lesbian and the other "straight."
"They don't have the same rights today," Sanders said.
I want to add my voice to that personalization by highlighting this section of an LA Times piece on some of the 18,000 married couples, now granted separate rights than their fellow gays and lesbians.
Julie Nice, a University of San Francisco law professor specializing in constitutional and sexuality law, sees the emergence of the legally married gay class as yet another inconsistency in the nation's laws governing same-sex marriage.
"This kind of chaotic patchwork is not sustainable," Nice said of laws recognizing the right of gays to marry in five states, granting recognition to legal marriages conducted elsewhere in a few others and now California's validation of the pre-Proposition 8 marriages while denying the status to other gays [...]
Several gay couples were in attendance as West Hollywood officials sought to chart a path forward in the fight for same-sex marriage rights after the high court's decision. Although Mark Katz, 58, and Robert Goodman, 48, continue to be recognized in the state as legally married, they deemed the ruling "tragic."
"This is as if we were freed slaves living in a slave state," said Goodman, a career counselor. "We were able to keep our marriage, but none of our brothers will be able to marry."
Mark Katz is my cousin. The rhetorical bomb-throwing must run in the family. But they are wonderful people, with an adopted son, and while yesterday's ruling secured some of their civil rights, they are not satisfied with being put on a kind of island, where their friends and fellow citizens must live under a separate system.
The legal ramifications of this are truly troubling, and ought to be examined thoroughly. But my first thought turns to my cousin. And those familial connections, and the new connections forged through organizing, will eventually be how these rights are achieved for everyone.
As David Atkins discusses today, the decision on Prop. 8 by the State Supreme Court basically elevates the people as a Fourth Branch of government that cannot be countermanded by the judicial branch, no matter what their whims decide. The Court said, "the system may be broken - depending on your perspective - but that's the system we have, and we're powerless to do anything about it."
Thoughts at this point turn to the need for a transformation of this Constitution, to restore the balance of representative democracy, with a judiciary enabled to determine Constitutionality, with a legislative branch given their mandate by the people to reflect the popular will, with an executive secure in his or her role. While I do not believe that "the people" should be endlessly demonized for the options they have been given by a flawed process, I do believe that the verdict has been delivered on this form of government, and delivered as a failure. In an extraordinary discussion unrelated to the Prop. 8 case, the Governor today basically admits California is ungovernable even while vowing to follow the "will of the people," a will which he fails to properly define. Most of the rant Arnold made today involves him whining that he's not allowed to be a dictator. But some of it is brutally revealing.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger considers himself a glass-half-full guy, and he ended his California Small Business Day speech in Sacramento with a dose of optimism. But it seemed clear the governor has just about had it with California's governance system, especially after last week's special election was a colossal failure. Though he blamed many of the state's budget problems on the current economic collapse, he said part of our woes are "self-inflicted."
"California hasn't had a responsible fiscal system since Earl Warren in the late '40s and early '50s," he said.
The governor ticked off a number of complaints about the system this morning:
• The state relies too much on personal-income and capital gains taxes.
• The state doesn't have a spending cap, nor a "rainy-day fund" (the latter point is questionable given that Schwarzenegger asked voters to establish a "rainy-day" reserve in 2004, albeit one with weak restrictions).
• Federal judges tell California how to run its prison health-care system.
• Federal stimulus rules restrict how California can cut from its budget.
• California requires a two-thirds vote to approve the budget.
• An "endless list" of ballot-box budgeting requirements, including Propositions 13, 42, 49 and 1A, all of which he has championed in the past.
"Until we fix our system, nothing will ever change," Schwarzenegger said. "This is no way, of course, to run a state."
He's crying about "federal judges" who merely enforce the Constitutional right of prisoners not to be allowed to die as a cause of their incarceration. And the federal stimulus rules don't restrict a damn thing, they merely require a certain threshold of service to qualify for federal funds. Waah waah waah. But the last two are truly amazing. Schwarzenegger ADMITS the two-thirds rule has completely hamstrung government, and that "an endless list" of ballot-box budgeting have distorted the balance of power in California. Prop. 49 is the after-school program initiative that SCHWARZENEGGER HIMSELF put on the ballot prior to his tenure in office.
Arnold's press people tried to walk this back today, but this was a Kinsleyan gaffe where he made the mistake of telling the truth. Schwarzenegger has always wanted to claim to know the will of the people, and he pretty much got it right when he let his guard down today - Californians want a functional government with a basic level of services funded equitably, and they want lawmakers to do the job they were elected to do. "The people" are a Fourth Branch who want no part of being elected or serving.
The next batch of gubernatorial wannabes have a mixed record on Constitutional reform. Some reports claim that they are more interested with the rhetoric of change than offering anything specific and incurring the wrath of the unelected Fourth Branch. If in fact candidates run in this fashion, they will discover an electorate actually more interested in solutions than mantras, more interested in fundamental reform than careening along this unsustainable path. And 19 months later, when one of them sits in the office in Sacramento and actually looks deeply at the situation in which they find themselves, they'll have wished longingly for a whole raft of specific reforms they could implement right away. Because otherwise, they will sink under the weight of a top-heavy, broken governmental system.
• An interesting piece from earlier in the week on Jerry Brown's legal challenge to Prop. 8, strictly speaking the first time a state Attorney General has sought to invalidate a popularly passed ballot measure since 1964.
• In other Brown news, he's suing the Bush Administration to block one of their "midnight regulations"- this one would reduce the input of federal scientists on mining and logging projects that may threaten endangered species.
• John Garamendi is, er, a little worried about the trajectory of the state's financial prospects.
• Again, you can check out Arnold's plan to cover the $41.8 billion dollar budget hole here.
• And a Happy New Year to everyone, with hopes for a great 2009! Oh, and if you want to sue for divorce, stay at a parking meter beyond the proscribed time, or not wear a seat belt, better get it in before the end of the year - state fees go up after midnight.
To me one of the clearest targets for the Prop. H8 boycotts and protests is Cinemark. Their CEO Alan Stock gave $9,999 to tear apart my family; that's my ticket money recycled to attack me.
• Alan Keyes, who kind of plays the Washington Generals to Barack Obama's Harlem Globetrotters, has filed suit in Superior Court in Sacramento to stop California from awarding its electoral votes to Obama because he doesn't fulfill the necessary citizenship requirements. Discussion item: Keyes used to have a talk show on MSNBC.
• Assemblyman Mike Davis has filed as a candidate in the special election to replace State Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas, who is now an LA County Supervisor. Assemblyman Curren Price is also rumored to be seeking the seat, but he hasn't filed yet.
• One of the most interesting news items from this weekend's Join The Impact rallies was the coming out of comedian Wanda Sykes at an event in Las Vegas. Sykes, who was married to her partner last month, had this to say:
"Everybody that knows me personally they know I'm gay," she continued. "But that's the way people should be able to live their lives."
The motivation behind the revelation: the Nov. 4 passage of a same-sex marriage ban in California that has taken the nation by storm.
Sykes said the ban (also known as California's Proposition 8) made her feel like she was "attacked."
"Now, I gotta get in their face," she said. "I'm proud to be a woman. I'm proud to be a black woman, and I'm proud to be gay."
• In the close races yet to be decided in California, the news remains not so great. Hannah-Beth Jackson and Alyson Huber are now behind by more than the .5% needed for a partial recount. Charlie Brown is within 622 votes of Tom McClintock but there aren't a lot of ballots left in his stronghold of Nevada County. Interestingly, both Brown and McClintock showed up for the freshman orientation.
Another nasty trend is emerging from the homophobes behind the Yes on 8 campaign.
Apparently shocked by the national uprising in support of full equality under the law for gay/lesbian families, leaders of the Prop. H8 campaign have rolled out a new tactic: threatening the Supreme Court.
What could get opponents of same-sex marriage in the street, however, would be the state Supreme Court tossing out the vote, he said. San Francisco city officials, joined by the city of Los Angeles and Santa Clara and Los Angeles counties, have petitioned the court to do just that.
"I think you'll have a revolution on your hands at that point," Pugno said.
People are still filing out of what I imagine to be very congested spaces and rallies across the country, but I thought I'd go around the Web and find some reports.
Gay rights supporters waving rainbow colors marched, chanted and danced in cities coast to coast Saturday to protest the California vote that banned gay marriage there and urge supporters not to quit the fight for the right to wed.
Many cast it as a civil rights issue.
Crowds gathered near public buildings in small communities and major cities including New York, San Francisco and Chicago to vent their frustrations, celebrate gay relationships and renew calls for change.
"Civil marriages are a civil right, and we're going to keep fighting until we get the rights we deserve as American citizens," Karen Amico said in Philadelphia, holding up a sign reading "Don't Spread H8".
"We are the American family, we live next door to you, we teach your children, we take care of your elderly," said Heather Baker a special education teacher from Boston who addressed the crowd at Boston's City Hall Plaza. "We need equal rights across the country."
Democracy is not a one-shot deal. People can't just vote every 4 years (or 2, or more often) and think that the work is done. We still need to make our voices heard, to hold our elected officials responsible, to advocate for the causes we believe in. Very rarely do we see a direct and immediate change from any act of public assembly or civil disobedience, but each of us is still one. And the more of us there are, the harder we are to ignore.
Greater public awareness + greater media coverage = greater political awareness = a better shot at change that matters.
It was a beautiful sunny morning as thousands of people converged on Civic Center Square (just across the street from where Obama rallied the Bay Area twice, more than a year ago now).
One of the most stirring speeches was given by an African American Baptist preacher, a man who was introduced as having been taught by Martin Luther King. His ringing oratory, as evinced by the title of this diary, brought the crowd to its highest pitch of enthusiasm; I could imagine being at a rally in the 60's and hearing King exhort his followers for civil rights. (Sorry, I did not get his name).
Apparently Mark Leno and Carole Migden spoke at the SF rally.
In Los Angeles, protesters clustered shoulder to shoulder near City Hall before setting off on a downtown march, chanting and carrying rainbow-colored flags and signs bearing messages such as "No More Mr. Nice Gay" and "No on Hate." [...]
The Los Angeles Police Department estimated that 40,000 people would attend the march, which officials expected to be peaceful.
Across the state, the rallies took on a carnival-like atmosphere in heat-wave conditions.
Hundreds of people gathered on the steps of Houston City Hall this afternoon to protest the passing of Proposition 8, California's constitutional amendment taking away the right to marry for same-sex couples. Along with the passing of other anti-gay measures across the nation, Prop. 8 made November 4 a day of mixed emotions for many of the progressives in attendance, who say they went to bed ecstatic about the election of Barack Obama but woke up the next morning to find out not everything had changed for the better.
SAN DIEGO - A crowd estimated at 10,000 by police and 15,000 by organizers marched downtown Saturday to protest the passage of Proposition 8, with one arrest of a counter-protester reported during the otherwise peaceful event.
A man identified by police as a member of the anti-illegal immigration group San Diego Minutemen was arrested about 12:30 p.m. at Sixth Avenue and Ash Street following a fight, said San Diego police Capt. C.J. Ball.
The numerous issues inside the No on 8 campaign, and their disappointing mismanagement, has finally bubbled up into the traditional media (we were talking about it a week ago). The SacBee writes about the trouble at the top:
Key staff members - including the campaign manager - were replaced in the final weeks as polls turned dramatically against the No side. Their replacements say they found an effort that was too timid, slow to react, without a radio campaign or a strategy to reach out to African Americans, a group that ultimately supported the measure by more than 2 to 1.
Gay marriage supporters are looking to the courts to overturn the decision. But if another political campaign is waged, said Dennis Mangers, co-chairman of the No on 8 Northern California Committee, "we'll have to do better."
No on 8 campaign manager Steve Smith was shoved aside three weeks before Election Day, after he was slow to counter TV ads in which the measure's supporters claimed that same-sex marriage would be promoted in schools if the measure failed.
And Smith was replaced by a committee - half the consultant class in Sacramento went through the revolving door of that campaign. And they set about to answer unchallenged ads from the Yes campaign and get on radio. But the message remained somewhat timid, and the campaign didn't put much effort into minority outreach or field operations. Late volunteers were told to go out on a street corner and wave signs.
What's remarkable is that the best activism and creativity I've seen from the LGBT community in years has come in the immediate AFTERMATH of this vote. The talent was out there, but wasn't channeled during the campaign. Activists are using wiki-based technology to set up a national day of action on November 15 called The Impact. A comedy troup in LA used the Yes campaign's own words to "advocate" for prohibiting divorce. And Utah lawmakers are turning the tables on the Mormon church by using their alleged tolerance to make major advances for gay rights in the Beehive State:
Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have said they do not object to rights for same-sex couples, as long as those rights do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family.
Now, gay-rights activists and at least five Utah legislators are asking the Church to demonstrate its conviction.
The group Equality Utah says the Church made the invitation, and they're accepting it. "The LDS Church says it does not oppose same-sex couples receiving such rights as hospitalization and medical care, fair housing rights or probate rights," said Mike Thompson, executive director of Equality Utah.
These actions are useful to the future of marriage equality nationwide, and could be the backbone of a smarter, more grassroots movement. Why were they not tapped at all for the No on 8 campaign?
Yesterday, Connecticut granted marriage equality to all its citizens, offering a glimmer of hope. I am convinced that justice will eventually prevail. But you have to treat the campaign like a campaign, and use the assets at your disposal.
The mass of outrage and activism that has welled up in the wake of California's passage of Prop. 8 will I think eventually be healthy. It's a testament to the failure of the No on 8 campaign that they were unable to channel this energy before the vote, but often it takes a disruptive outcome like this to make it happen. And I think people are finally starting to ask the right questions and move from lashing out in anger to a more mature response befitting the message of equality. The scattered instances of racial intolerance were harmful and unnecessary, especially given that, based on the exit poll data, there was no one ethnic group that deserved to be targeted (Republicans who crossed over to vote for Obama made up a far larger portion of the Prop. 8 coalition than African-Americans). The various proposed boycotts (how could the owner of LA's El Coyote donate to Yes on 8? Given their clientele that's unthinkable) and individual actions are natural outgrowths of a movement like this and they have their place, but at least someone is making sure that the actual culprits get mentioned in all of this.
What is odd about the loss of family rights for California's gay and lesbians is that the losing old school campaign was built while the rules of campaigning where being demonstrably rewritten by the Obama campaign.
The Obama campaign's success was built upon not ceding territory to old myths on Latinos, African Americans, and young voters. The myth that Latinos would never vote for an African American was debunked by the Obama campaign, the idea of low voter turnout among African Americans and young people was also debunked. But in addition to ignoring basic myths on minority voting behavior, the Obama campaign knew that it had to still work hard to get the electoral results they wanted. They waged a campaign to win the votes and turnout model they needed.
At the end of the day, Prop. 8 was still a campaign and it needed to maximize its potential, which it clearly did not do. Many on this site have asked the right questions and will continue to do so.
As for the next steps, this is not, in my view, about patiently waiting back and hoping that the younger generation will reverse the decision at some unspecified point in the future. It's about sustained effort on a variety of fronts. It is quite heartening to see 44 members of the California Legislature offer an amicus brief to the State Supreme Court on behalf of marriage equality in the ongoing lawsuit to invalidate the constitutional amendment. There are a lot of politicians on our side.
The spontaneous protests and marches can actually be a way to harness the energy if they are handled properly. I think The Impact, a series of protests organized on a distributed model in California and in every state in America, is exactly what is needed. This is actually quite promising and would move this seamlessly into an issue of civil rights. Ultimately, there is a future for equality. There always is.
It wasn't just hatred that helped Prop. 8 pass. Money and strategy was the real reason Prop. 8 passed. We were out-gunned and out-smarted. We had a full house and got bluffed by two pair. We stood there and couldn't believe that our fellow citizens would belive the lies that were being said about us. And now we've taken to the streets in anger that our right to marry was stolen from us. Well, just because your opponent claims to be Christian, don't expect them to behave Christ-like when they hate you. Television and radio was FLOODED with those hateful ads. "They are going to teach your children about gay marriage in school." "They are going to take away the church's right to free speech." "Children should have one Daddy and one Mommy." No one taught gay marriage to anyone in school. The churches still have their free speech. There are still plenty of single-parent families, double-parent families, and every other combination there of. All that has changed is that same-sex marriage is now outlawed in the state of California. Thanks guys!
Here are my suggestions on how to get back our right to marry:
"Blacks turning out in droves to support Obama also threw their support strongly behind Proposition 8, which would overturn the state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage. Opposition to the ban held a slight edge among whites, while Lations and Asians were split."
We've heard some scattered stories today. As dkirk notes in comments on the last thread, Yes on 8 is apparently using Barack Obama's voice in a robocall:
Male Voice: Here are Barack Obama's own words on Gay Marriage. --Then play recording of Obama response to question during debates--.
Male Voice:(Paraphrased) - Proposition 8 defines marriage as between one man and one woman, as you heard Barack Obama state. Remember to vote Yes on Prop 8.
Obama has repeatedly announced his opposition to Prop. 8. I don't really like his splitting of the baby, that he personally opposes same-sex marriage but opposes divisive and discriminatory initiatives like Prop. 8, but let it be known that it's the furthest any Presidential candidate has been willing to go in American history, particularly the fact that he has lent his image to ads.
This is a message for (um) all people (um) in Pasadena. The (um) place for (uh) people in Pasadena is for you to vote at Jackie Robinson on Wednesday the 5th, November 5th. The (uh) ballot can be delivered on November 5th at Jackie Robinson.
Today is November 4th.
There's audio at the link. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that this comes from Yes on 8. Just a hunch. Pasadena is a pretty liberal city, and huge turnout obviously could be the difference in a lot of these races.
Disguised in a blond wig and in character as Bruno, a gay Austrian fashion reporter who's the star of another mockumentary, The Bruno Movie Sasha Baron Cohen marched with haters demonstrators who support Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage at a rally across from Los Angeles' City Hall.
Cohen who starred Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, enturbulated the Yes on 8 crowd with Bruno's gayness until reporters and camera crews spotted him. Members of his film crew tried to shield him and "Bruno" was eventually whisked away in a van before he had to encounter real media.
Perez Hilton has some video at his site, but there's not much to it.
Seriously, Sacha, be careful. The potential for violence is not only great, but it's been realized to varying degrees.
The other day I wondered if the No on 8 side was being too cautious in their advertising, instead of putting an actual face on the discrimination and harm that would be suffered if marriage rights were eliminated for a particular class of people. Well, this video isn't exactly that, but it certainly makes the point about discrimination. Via Amanda at Pandagon, this is my favorite video of the cycle. A group redubbed the voices on a video of young people ranting about all the supposed consequences about gay marriage, and changed it so they say "interracial marriage." It's kind of perfect:
See, this comes down to discrimination, pure and simple. The other side wants to talk about ancillary outcomes, but really they want to hurt LGBT people. I mean, we have to be willing to say that. The other side has no problem outlining what they consider to be the stakes, as crazy as they think they are:
"This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is Armageddon," said Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and an eminent evangelical voice, speaking to pastors in a video promoting Proposition 8. "We lose this, we are going to lose in a lot of other ways, including freedom of religion."
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobby based in Washington, said in an interview, "It's more important than the presidential election."
"We've picked bad presidents before, and we've survived as a nation," said Mr. Perkins, who has made two trips to California in the last six weeks. "But we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage."
I'm glad that No on 8 is raising a lot of money, and that high-profile Californians like Maria Shriver are on board. But at some point in this final week, someone has to break this down. This is about harming same-sex couples.
If you tool around the Internets as much as I do, you may have noticed this. The No on 8 campaign has been using Barack Obama's logo and image in Web ads that say "Obama Calls Prop. 8 Divisive And Discriminatory". Clicking on the ad will take you to this page, at the No On Prop. 8 site, with a couple quotes from Sen. Obama about the measure.
The Obama campaign would not let this happen on its own. God for them for allowing the No on 8 campaign to associate with his remarks. Obama has shown a willingness to lend himself to the efforts of downticket races - he's cut an ad for Oregon US Senate candidate Jeff Merkley - though I doubt we'll see much more than this Web advertising from him on Prop. 8.
Here are a couple other things I think need to happen to help the Prop. 8 cause. First, Google needs to stop running ads that violate their own policies. Google has a very specific standard for those groups that use their architecture to advertise, which includes banning ads that advocate against a "protected class" like the LGBT community. Yet they allow Yes on 8 to use Google ads. I know Google as a company is on the right side of this debate, but they can either stand behind their stated policy or not.
The other thing that the no side might want to consider is putting an actual face on who would be discriminated against with this measure. I know this has been a source of controversy that's simmered under the surface, but today Jonathan Rauch brings it up in the LA Times.
The need to walk that tightrope helps explain why the actual subjects of next month's initiative, gay couples, were "inned" by the "No on 8" campaign's ads. (Full disclosure: I am a "No on 8" donor.) One ad, for example, features a gray-haired straight couple. "Our gay daughter and thousands of our fellow Californians will lose the right to marry," says mother Julia Thoron.
A subsequent ad, all text with voice-over narration, mentions marriage only once ("Regardless of how you feel about marriage, it's wrong to treat people differently under the law") and never uses the phrase "gay marriage" or even the word "gay." Just as oblique was a spot, released Wednesday, in which state Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell reassures viewers that "Prop. 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids. Our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage." A casual viewer could have come away from these ads puzzled as to exactly what right thousands of Californians might be about to lose.
Asked about the absence of gay couples, a senior "No on 8" official told KPIX-TV in San Francisco that "from all the knowledge that we have and research that we have, [those] are not the best images to move people." Children, also, were missing; showing kids with same-sex parents could too easily backfire [...]
Whatever the tactical considerations, the absence of gay couples and gay marriages from California's gay-marriage debate makes for an oddly hollow discussion. It leaves voters of good conscience to conjure in their own minds the ads that are not being aired: Ads that show how gay marriage directly affects the couples and communities that need it most.
You can show me all the data you want; "hollow" is the best word for what's happening. Neither side is talking about the actual proposition in their messaging. I expect that from the Yes side, to hide their serial homophobia and focus on made-up protections of imagined rights that would be encroached upon. But when a self-described squish like Kevin Drum terms No on 8's ads "bland and generic," something is wrong. Without a clear indication, as done in the Ellen DeGeneres PSA, of who would be harmed by this measure and why, there's this subconscious message of shame about the rights that this campaign is trying to defend.
On a completely unrelated note, this is a great post from a minister discussing what the Bible actually says about marriage.
One of the biggest ways you can impact this election is to disseminate information to your circle of friends. A couple organizations have stepped up in a big way to make that process smooth and easy.
Google noticed that millions of people were searching through their site for voting information - where their polling place is, when the last day for early voting is, etc. Google created this great tool as a one-stop shop to answer all of those questions.
It's hard to believe that in 2008, information so important to U.S. citizens and the democratic process isn't well organized on the web. To solve this problem, we've released our US Voter Info site, an effort to simplify and centralize voting locations and registration information.
Are you registered to vote? What's the best way to obtain an absentee ballot? When people visit the site, answers to these questions appear. And anyone with a website can provide the same information. The US Voter Info gadget places a simple search box that expands to show a full set of voter information when someone enters an address.
We are also offering a simpler way to find out where to vote. By entering a home address, citizens across the country will be able to find their polling place for election day.
The tool is super-easy and effective. Tell your friends.
Another incredible tool comes from our friends at CREDO mobile. It's called TXT Out The Vote, and it enabled you to send targeted text messages in California opposing Prop. 4 (parental notification for abortion) and Prop. 8 (eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry). The messages, which you can send to any friend or family member with a cell phone, will be delivered on Election Day. This kind of "personal phone banking" is one of the best ways to get out the vote. Check it out at TXT Out The Vote. Standard text messaging rates apply.
Here's some tidbits from the campaign trail with 12 days out:
• CA-03: Bill Durston and Dan Lungren debated last night, and it was a predictable affair, says Randy Bayne:
Nothing new, no fireworks, no knockout punch, no excitement of any kind was reported by either MyMotherLode.com or the Stockton Record. Just what we already know - Durston wants us out of Iraq, doesn't like No Child Left Behind, and thinks the bailout is the wrong solution. Lungren supports the occupation, favors No Child Left Behind, and voted for the bailout.
If you're looking for change from eight years of down the toilet policy, and you don't want to continue flushing our future down the crapper - vote for Bill Durston.
If the registration stats cited by anecdotal reports are at all accurate, we're going to be very close to registration parity in this seat by Election Day. Lungren may be acting positive in public, but inside the campaign they must be terrified. They probably didn't expect Durston to run a credible campaign.
"Lincoln asked, 'If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? The answer is four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one,'" McClintock said in a statement. "And calling a homosexual partnership a marriage doesn't make it one."
I'm pretty sure that means nothing at all, but California's Alan Keyes has had to distance himself from the comment. Meanwhile his much bigger problem is lacking the funds to run a proper campaign. He's now taken to relying on cheap robocalls, and Charlie Brown has immediately called on him to stop. Dirty trick robocalls that appeared to be coming from the Brown campaign were a major factor in John Doolittle's narrow re-election in 2006.
• CA-46: I didn't get a chance to post Debbie Cook's amazing closing statement at Tuesday's debate. Here it is.
The OC Register has a story on this race today. These "Challenger hopes to upset incumbent" stories have a familiar feel to them - the pose of surprise that the race is competitive, the quote from the shallow CW fountain like Allen Hoffenblum explaining why the incumbent is probably still safe, and the overall sense of shock, which would be natural if you weren't paying attention for the last 18 months, like, um, us.
• Assembly & Senate: Art Torres and Ron Nehring had a debate yesterday, and I think Torres needed to be prepped a little better. He claimed that Democrats could grab a 2/3 majority in the legislature but then couldn't come up with a simple list of what seats are in play. He should be reading more Calitics. Nehring replied with a lot of bunk and a little truth.
None of that adds up to 54 and 27, of course, and Nehring said Torres' boast "just doesn't pencil out."
He noted that Democratic efforts to oust Sen. Jeff Denham via recall failed miserably this year and the party ended up with no opponent to challenge Sen. Abel Maldonado in Santa Maria, a district believed to be winnable by a Democrat.
On the Assembly side, Nehring said, Republicans "have a great shot at holding on to" the 15th and "have a number of strategic advantages in the 78th (because) the Democrats have nominated the most liberal candidate (Marty Block) they possibly could."
In the 80th, the Democratic candidate (Manuel Perez) "is getting hammered on ... social issues which are important to many people in the Latino community," Nehring said.
"I don't know how can you be serious about trying to have a two-thirds vote in the Legislature," Nehring told Torres, "when you blow so many of these opportunities."
I'll go bottom to top on this. Manuel Perez is going to CRUSH Gary Jeandron, and if anyone's being hammered, it's the Republicans. The IE money is pretty one-sided in the state. Between that and the registration gains, it'll take more than just spin to dig your party out of its self-created hole, Mr. Nehring.
However, on one point I will agree with you. The Denham recall and Maldonado disaster have indeed stopped the potential forward momentum in the Senate. Of course, Torres couldn't say the plain truth - that Don Perata is among the worst leaders in recent Democratic Party history, and has completely set back the state in major ways by his blunders. He is an embarrassment.
Here's the latest on the ballot propositions (Remember, you can find the Calitics endorsements here).
• Prop. 1A & Prop. 3: The California Budget Project put together an analysis of these two bond measures (for some reason they left off Prop. 12). It's a decent enough overview, but of course the CBP is aggressively neutral, and the questions they raise have answers they refuse to list. For example, they ask:
Will high-speed rail gain access to rail corridors used by commercial and commuter trains? High-speed trains likely will require access to rail corridors - so-called right-of-way - currently used or owned by commercial or commuter train operators. The growth in freight transport at California's ports and increased ridership on California's commuter rail lines may mean that high-speed trains may have difficulty gaining required rights-of-way in certain highly trafficked corridors.
Or maybe not! Let's not bother to delve into this any further!
That's kind of the tone the whole paper takes. These projects could be laudable! Then again, they cost money! Good luck, California! One would think that some hard numbers about the role of public infrastructure investments during economic downturns or the need for job creation engines or how to reach emissions reductions targets without mass transit improvements could have entered the picture.
• Prop. 2: You know that an issue has gone mainstream when Oprah devotes an hour to it. Prop. 2 will essentially get an hour-long infomercial on daytime talk today, and that's as good as gold. Their ads, starkly displaying the effects of animal cruelty, are powerful and effective as well. But in addition, I hope that Prop. 2 advocates make the argument about a comprehensive food policy that understands the externalities of eating meat ought to be built into the product itself:
It will be argued that moving animals off feedlots and back onto farms will raise the price of meat. It probably will - as it should. You will need to make the case that paying the real cost of meat, and therefore eating less of it, is a good thing for our health, for the environment, for our dwindling reserves of fresh water and for the welfare of the animals. Meat and milk production represent the food industry's greatest burden on the environment; a recent U.N. study estimated that the world's livestock alone account for 18 percent of all greenhouse gases, more than all forms of transportation combined. (According to one study, a pound of feedlot beef also takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce.) And while animals living on farms will still emit their share of greenhouse gases, grazing them on grass and returning their waste to the soil will substantially offset their carbon hoof prints, as will getting ruminant animals off grain. A bushel of grain takes approximately a half gallon of oil to produce; grass can be grown with little more than sunshine.
This is about stopping brutality, but also about intelligent food policy that would decrease risks and burdens on the environment and public health.
• Prop. 4: A very effective ad from the No on 4 team has returned to the airwaves:
Two years ago, opponents of a parental notification initiative on abortion put out a chilling ad. It depicted a soap bubble floating in the air in a seemingly tranquil setting of a residential backyard. The bubble drifted by windows of a house, where angry voices and rumbling noises suggested violence taking place inside.
Now the bubble commercial that opponents used to defeat Proposition 85 is back. This time, with identical treatment and text, it is being used in the campaign against another parental notification initiative, Proposition 4.
The commercial neglects to mention provisions in the initiative that allow a minor to petition a juvenile court judge to waive the parental notification requirement. It ends (with only the proposition number changed) by saying Prop 4 "would force girls to notify an abusive or violent parent that they are pregnant, and this puts them in real danger. Please think outside your bubble and vote no on Prop. 4."
The ad is here. The commercial neglects to mention that provision because it's a crap provision - the minor has to accuse the parent of mistreatment and claim that she fears physical or emotional abuse, which is really a great position in which to put a minor. And the idea of a 17 year-old going to a judge is just nonsensical.
The commission's consideration of alternatives to incarceration reflects its determination to persuade Congress to ease federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws that contributed to explosive growth in the prison population. The laws were enacted in the mid-1980s, principally to address a crime epidemic related to crack cocaine. But in recent years, federal judges, public defenders and probation officials have argued that mandatory sentences imprison first-time offenders unnecessarily and disproportionately affect minorities.
Don't these people know that sentencing commissions with expert experience in the issues shouldn't be trusted to carry out guidelines and recommendations on sentencing? This of course should only be left to politicians who worry about attack ads claiming that they're soft on crime! After all, look how well that's worked in California: 1,000 straight laws over 30 years increasing sentences, overcrowded prisons, costs of incarceration outpacing education and billions of dollars needed to fix an unconstitutionally cruel prison healthcare system! Clearly, the legislature has this covered, right? So there's no need to vote yes on Prop. 5, because that would be too "risky." What we have now is working so well.
• Prop. 8: This being the biggest and most expensive initiative on the ballot, there's a lot of news here. Fresno priest Father Geoffrey Farrow took a stand against Prop. 8 recently and it resulted in his firing. His is a heroic story of someone coming forward at great personal cost to commit to equality and tolerance. That is the meaning of courage.
Peter Schrag has an article out about the lies of Yes on 8.
The ad, on behalf of Proposition 8, features a law professor from Pepperdine University who cites a federal appellate court decision in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal. The decision affirms a lower court ruling denying parents of a couple of young children the right to be notified when gay marriage is discussed in their classrooms.
"Think it can't happen?" says the professor. "It's already happened."
But the insinuation about what might happen in California is wildly misleading. It relies on a set of leaps likely to land the leaper in a logical ditch. In the case of one of the kids, the court said, "(T)here is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no allegation that Joey was asked to affirm gay marriage."
If you want to see bigger lies than that, check out this deeply insulting ad targeted to the Chinese community.
On the lighter side, here's a slick amateur ad for No on 8 playing off the ubiquitous Mac/PC spots.
• Prop. 10: Speaking of lying in campaign ads, have you met T. Boone Pickens?
The ad capitalizes on popular sentiment for clean, efficient and secure energy - and no new taxes. What goes unadvertised might stir the public's distaste for special interest-driven initiatives, particularly those that increase state debt.
Nearly all $13 million in campaign contributions so far has come from Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens, who stands to profit from its passage. Pickens is founder of Clean Energy Fuels Corp. of Seal Beach, the nation's largest supplier of natural gas for fleets of vehicles, including Sacramento city and county garbage trucks.
More than half of the $5 billion would be spent on rebates to companies and consumers that buy environmentally friendlier vehicles. And most of that rebate money is dedicated to heavy-duty trucks and vans, the kind of fleet vehicles that Pickens' company supplies.
