Vote No on Prop 8: News

No on Prop 8 Calls for Peaceful Campaign

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 13, 2008

CONTACTS:
Ali Bay
PHONE: 916.284.9187

Eddie Fernandez
PHONE: 916.425.3363

No on Prop 8 Calls for Peaceful Campaign

SAN FRANCISCO – In response to a report in PR Newswire, NO on Prop 8 Campaign Director Patrick Guerriero has released the following statement.

“The No on Prop 8 campaign condemns violence of any sort. We are deeply concerned to hear the news of a lawn-sign incident that apparently involved the injury of one of the volunteers for the Yes on 8 campaign. This incident – or anything like it – should not be tolerated in any campaign.

“However, we deplore the tactics unleashed today that blames the NO on Prop 8 campaign for this despicable act. To take something this unfortunate and use it for political gamesmanship is a disgrace.

“Our campaign has always been about dignity and respect for all Californians. We call for a peaceful, honest and just campaign on both sides.”

Asian Pacific American Elected Leaders Urge Asian Pacific American Voters to Vote No on Proposition 8

Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 11, 2008

CONTACT: Bill Wong
PHONE: (916) 708-2828

Asian Pacific American Elected Leaders Urge Asian Pacific American Voters to Vote No on Proposition 8

Sacramento, CA – California's Asian Pacific American state elected leaders jointly urge Asian Pacific American voters to vote no on Proposition 8 that would take away the right of gay and lesbian couples to wed. The APA elected officials include: State Controller John Chiang, State Board of Equalization Chair Judy Chu, State Board of Equalization Vice Chair Betty Yee, State Senator Leland Yee, State Assembly members Mike Eng, Warren Furutani, Mary Hayashi, Ted Lieu (API Caucus Chair), Fiona Ma (Assembly Democratic Whip), and Alberto Torrico (Assembly Majority Leader), Former Assembly Member Carol Liu, Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada, and Foothill DeAnza Community College Trustee Paul Fong.

These elected officials join prominent APA organizations including the Japanese American Citizen's League, Asian & Pacific Islander Equality, Asian & Pacific Islander Equality-Los Angeles, Asian & Pacific Islander Equality-San Francisco, and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California in opposition to Proposition 8.

Previously a coalition of 63 local, state, and national Asian Pacific American organizations filed a legal brief in California in support of equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. The Asian American amicus brief supported basic fairness for same-sex couples and their families, drawing from the Asian American community's own past struggle with discriminatory laws in the state of California that limited the rights of Asian Pacific Americans to marry.

"It was over 125 years ago on the floor of the California State Legislature that a law was passed to specifically prohibit marriage between Chinese and whites, in order to deal with what they called the 'Chinese problem.' I know that I do not want that same kind of hysteria to be leveled against other human beings in the state of California. I know that if I expect full and equal treatment to be given to me, then it is my responsibility to ensure that there is full and equal treatment for others," stated Board of Equalization Chair Judy Chu, Ph.D.

"How can we as a society in good conscience discriminate against committed lesbian and gay couples who are heading up households and raising families in our communities? Instead of institutionalizing discrimination against them in our constitution, we should embrace them and accord them the same rights and benefits that heterosexual married couples have," stated Board of Equalization Vice Chair Betty Yee

"Existing law in California requires the government to not discriminate based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. These are the same laws that have protected minority communities, including the Asian Pacific Islander community. Nothing in the law prevents churches or other religious institutions from discriminating based on religious doctrine. All the law says is that government cannot discriminate. Proposition 8 would turn this fundamental anti-discrimination approach on its head by elevating religious doctrine over governmental laws. That is wrong. We live in a Democracy, not a Theocracy," says Assemblyman Ted W. Lieu, Chair of the Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus

"I cannot support Proposition 8 because it would reverse a ruling by the California Supreme Court that permits gay couples to marry. The Court has spoken. Relying on that decision, hundreds of couples did marry and Proposition 8 would cause extreme hardship to those who relied on the decision only to be told that their marriage would be nullified. Asian Americans and others have many historic examples of where they have relied on U.S. laws that promised equality and fairness only to be told at the last minute that the laws did not apply to them. We must oppose Proposition 8 for the same reason," stated Assembly Member Mike Eng.

"This is an issue of equal rights, pure and simple," said Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada, who has performed several marriage ceremonies since the historic California Supreme Court ruling on May 15, 2008. "I believe we need more love in the world, not less."

No on Prop 8 in Chinese (pdf)

No on Prop 8 in Korean (pdf)

No on Prop 8 in Vietnamese (pdf)

EDITORIAL: Parental Notification and Gay Marriages Two Controversial Propositions

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

This year the State of California has 12 propositions on the ballot. Of the 12, two are highly emotional, controversial, and have attracted their fair share of attention this year. The Propositions are Prop. 4 Parental Notification before an abortion is performed and Proposition 8 which will nullify the right for same sex marriage.

Proposition 4: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment - Majority Approval Required

Shall the California Constitution be changed to prohibit abortion for an unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian, or, in limited cases, substitute adult relative?

This is now the third time that this proposition has come before the voters, each time it has been tweaked to address voters concerns, and the first two times it has been defeated at the polls. In the past two elections La Prensa San Diego has endorsed this proposition.

Basically Prop. 4 will make it a Constitutional Amendment that a young woman under the age of 18, the doctor must inform the parents or guardian of the woman 48 hours prior to an abortion procedure. This time around the tweak in the law from the last election is that if the young woman is unable to tell her parents/guardian due to an abusive relationship that the doctor can inform another adult relative of the young woman.

The main argument against this proposition is that in situations where a young woman can’t tell her parents because she could be abused or because she simply can’t face the family with this news that the young woman will resort to back alley abortion services or worst yet possibly commit suicide. This is a strong argument and one that has defeated this proposal in the past.

Our position on this issue has always been that emotionally this is still a child, that ultimately the parents are still responsible, and that at a time such as this, when a person is making a decision as tragic as an abortion, that family support is crucial.

As parents we have tried to put ourselves in these circumstances and have looked at this issue from a supportive family perspective and we have focused on the aspect of finding out after the fact which we find unsettling to say the least.

The opponents to this proposition argue that in a supportive family situation in all likelihood a child/young woman would have the courage to talk with a supportive family member, be it the father and mother, an older sister, or cousin and inform that person what they are going through. The opponents’ argument is that they are protecting that child/young woman who cannot turn to a supportive family member and faces the danger of self abortion, back alley abortion, family abuse, or suicide.

It is a state law that minor children are entitled to receive, without parental consent or notification, the same types of medical care for a pregnancy that are available to an adult. In 1987 the State Legislature enacted a law that required consent from a parent or court in regards to an abortion by a minor. This law was struck down by the State Supreme Court. In the last three years this proposition has twice been defeated at the polls.

The State Supreme Court has spoken to this issue. The voters have made their position on this issue loud and clear, that a minor does not need to notify their parents/guardian.

We have heard the voters’ voice on this issue and they have said NO to Prop. 4. We will stand with the voters and support a No Vote to Prop. 4

Proposition 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment - Majority Approval Required

Shall the California Constitution be changed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California?

Whereas opponents to Prop. 4 had the support of the State Supreme Court and the voters, Prop. 8 is different. In the year 2000, California voters approved the designation that a legal marriage is between a man and woman. It was the State Supreme Court (in May 2008) that denied the provisions of Prop 4, citing that it violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. Same sex couples have been getting married ever since the May 2008 ruling.

A Yes vote on Prop. 8 would be a vote for marriage as legal only if it was between a man and woman. A No vote would allow the State of California to continue recognizing the legal union between same sex marriages.

First and foremost, marriage is a statement of love between two people. Same sex marriage as a legal union will not diminish the value of heterosexual marriages. Legal recognition for same sex marriages provides a sense of pride, dignity, accountability, and as the State Supreme Court ruled: equal protection under the law.

Gays and Lesbians have been a part of society since the beginning of time. This is a community that continues to grow and speak out. The Gay community is an integral part of our society and their elected numbers continues to grow. We can no longer marginalize this part of our community. Rejecting the legal designation of a Gay marriage will do nothing more than to polarize this community toward working harder for full recognition as a part of society.

This proposition is nothing more than one group trying to impose their moral standards on another. Fortunately, the world is made up of many different people and you simple can’t contain all people in a single box. Instead we should celebrate our differences and work together to make our world a better place for all to live in happiness and in love.

We believe that if two people are in love and they want to get married, we as a State should not legislate against the happiness of these people. We Urge a No Vote on Prop. 8

NO on Prop 8 Campaign Demands Ads Be Taken Off the Air

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 10, 2008

CONTACT: Ali Bay
PHONE: (916) 284-9187

NO ON PROP 8 CAMPAIGN DEMANDS ADS BE TAKEN OFF THE AIR
Lawyers for Campaign say ads are “false and misleading”

The NO on Prop 8 campaign today released a memorandum from their law firm to stations throughout California citing the lies contained in the Yes on 8 advertisements currently running statewide, asking them to take the ads down. The memorandum to station managers from Karen Getman of Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, LLP, is attached.

“Their ads are full of lies and this memo makes that clear” said Steve Smith, Campaign Manager for No on 8. “There is nothing in Prop 8 about teaching children in our schools, nothing that would affect religion or religious institutions in any way, and Pepperdine University has made it clear they aren’t involved in the Yes Campaign in any way.”

“Lots of campaigns stretch the truth,” continued Smith, “but these ads go way beyond that. The Yes on 8 Campaign ads are false and misleading and are meant to scare the public. These ads go way beyond what we’ve ever seen in past campaigns. They must come off the air.”

Click here to read the No on Prop 8 the letter to station managers regarding the ads (pdf)

No on 8 Campaign Applauds Connecticut Marriage Decision

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 10, 2008

CONTACT: Ali Bay
PHONE: (916) 284-9187

CONTACT: Eddie Fernandez
PHONE: (916) 425-3363

NO on 8 Campaign Applauds Connecticut Marriage Decision

SACRAMENTO – Connecticut today confirmed the right to marry for same-sex couples. Preventing same-sex couples from marrying was found to violate the state constitution.

Statement by Geoff Kors, NO on Prop 8 Executive Committee Member:

“Today, another state recognized that same-sex couples have the fundamental right to marry,” Kors said. “We believe – as do millions of our fellow Californians – that laws should not treat people differently, and we’re thrilled that loving couples in Connecticut now have the same fundamental rights as everyone in California.”

“As Californians, we believe in the freedom to make choices and live our lives without government interference,” Kors said. “We don’t want to eliminate the fundamental rights of our friends, neighbors and family members, and that’s why voters will vote NO on Prop 8. This is another indication that more and more Americans are recognizing the fundamental right of loving couples to marry.”

Proposition 8, a measure on the November ballot, would eliminate the right to marry for same-sex couples in California.

Foes of gay marriage raise big money from small donors

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

California’s fight over marriage is attracting large sums of small donations, particularly on the side that seeks to ban same-sex marriage.

In terms of campaign spending, Proposition 8, the initiative that would create a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, has become the most costly ballot measure on a social issue, and is drawing big money from national sources. By the time votes are cast on Nov. 4, both sides will have spent upward of $50 million.

Backers of Prop. 8 raised $24.3 million as of the end of September. Foes raised $15.4 million.

California law permits donors to give unlimited sums to support or oppose ballot measures. Both sides have received large donations.

The "yes" side has received big money from conservative Christian and Catholic groups including $450,000 from Focus on the Family, based in Colorado, and $1 million from the Knights of....

...Columbus in Connecticut. The "no" side gets big-dollar donations from from wealthy individuals from California and across the country who support same-sex marriage.

But the yes-on-8 campaign also is particularly successful at mining small donors. It raised $4.5 million in increments of less than $1,000, and $8.6 million in donations of less than $10,000. That works out to about 46% of its money.

The "yes" campaign has spent $1.6 million on mass mailings, many of which are intended to raise small donations. It has spent another $510,000 on phone banks, also aimed in part at raising money. The campaign also is relying on Internet fund-raising to bring in small bucks.

The bulk of the "yes" side’s money — at least $20.46 million, or 84% — has come donors living within California, the latest campaign finance disclosure filed with the California secretary of state shows.

The no-on-8 campaign has raised 75% of its money -- $11.5 million -- from within California.

On the "no" side, far more money has come in large checks -- $10.1 million in donations of $100,000 or more, and another $2.65 million in donations of between $10,000 and $99,999. That works out to almost 83% coming in donations of $10,000 or more.

Proposition 8 would reverse a California Supreme Court decision that struck down a previous initiative banning same-sex marriage, a statute that was by voters in 2000.

Knights of Columbus give 1.25 million to stop CA gay marriage

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

New Haven-based Knights of Columbus is one of the largest contributors to the "Yes on 8" campaign in California which would change the state's constitution to prohibit marriage between same sex partners in that state.

The Knights donated $250,000 in February and in August they donated an additional $1 million according to the California Secretary of State Web site.

In May the California Supreme Court ruled that marriage between same sex partners was legal. Prior to that a proposition to the State Constitution was put on the ballot for November 4th which would prohibit those marriages.

Hundreds of same sex couples have been married since May.

The Knights of Columbus, founded in 1882 and headquartered in New Haven, is a Catholic Service organization. According to their website, they provide aid to needy members and their families.

Latinos Come Out Opposing Prop 8

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Jana Katsuyama reports on Prop 8 supporters claiming ads for gay marriage ban are working. Latino leaders gather to urge people to vote No on Proposition 8. Click here to watch KTVU's news report: http://www.ktvu.com/video/17667657/index.html

Mormons renew calls for California gay marriage ban

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Senior elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made a televised appeal to Mormons in California Wednesday night to step up their already considerable efforts to pass a ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage in the state.

Two members of the church's second-highest governing body, the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, quoted from Mormon scripture on the sanctity of marriage as they laid out a week-by-week strategy for boosting Mormon involvement before the Nov. 4 election in voter registration efforts, phone banks and distributing campaign materials.

"What we're about is the work of the Lord, and He will bless you for your involvement," apostle M. Russell Ballard said during the hourlong meeting, which was broadcast to church buildings in California, Utah, Hawaii and Idaho.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is part of a coalition of conservative groups backing Proposition 8, which would overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the nation's most populous state by amending the state constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

Mormons have been active participants in the campaign both as volunteers and financial contributors, giving an estimated 43 percent—some $8.4 million—to the Proposition 8 campaign, according to the Web site mormonsfor8.com. There are about 770,000 Mormon church members in California, but Mormons from outside the state have been encouraged to give money and time to help pass the measure.

During Wednesday's taped satellite broadcast, church leaders asked for 30 members from each California congregation to donate four hours of week to the campaign. They also called on young married couples and single Mormons to use the Internet, text messaging, blogging and other forms of computer technology to help pass the initiative, saying the church has created a new Web site—PreservingMarriage.org—with materials they can download and post on their own social networking sites.

Church elder L. Whitney Clayton, who has been working as a liaison between the LDS leaders and the Proposition 8 campaign, said before the event that it was meant to energize Mormons for the weeks remaining before Election Day.

"It's a political campaign, and time is short and there's a lot to do."

Along with recruiting Mormons to work in California, church members from outside the state have been asked to call friends and family at home in California to encourage support for the measure, according to Clayton. He said many students attending church-owned universities have asked how they might help and could be enlisted to make calls.

"In California, the phone trees are up and running. We just want to be able to help, and one of the things we can do is we can organize," Clayton said in an interview Wednesday.

Officially, the Mormon church is politically neutral and does not endorse individual candidates or political parties. The church does, however, weigh in on issues it considers morally important. The church holds traditional marriage as a sacred institution ordained by God and has actively fought efforts to legalize same-sex marriage across the United States since the 1990s.

Its involvement in the California same-sex marriage debate this year began with a letter from church President Thomas S. Monson asking California Mormons to give their time and money to pass Proposition 8. Monson's letter has been read repeatedly in Mormon churches, and opponents of the forthcoming initiative have credited LDS members with giving the Yes on 8 camp an edge in donations and volunteers.

Some Mormons have criticized the church for wading so heavily into the political realm.

"We know that it is not without controversy, yet let me be clear that at the heart of this issue is the central doctrine of eternal marriage and it's place in our Father's plan," Ballard said.

Besides Clayton and Ballard, the broadcast featured Quentin L. Cook, another member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

No on 8 Needs $10 Million - "Our Lead is Gone"

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

With the campaign to defeat anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 behind in money and in two recent polls, Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors declared Tuesday, "We are going to lose this election if we don't raise the money we need to stay on the airwaves."

No on 8 senior strategist Steve Smith who, along with Kors, was speaking on a conference call with LGBT media, said the campaign needs to raise at least $10 million before the November 4 election. That money is crucial to reach voters through TV ads.

Smith responded to a reporter's question about what the homeland security alert color would be at this stage by saying, "To hell with orange. We're going straight to red."

"Our community is very complacent," Kors said, thinking that the election's over and that "we're going to win." But, he said, "Our lead is gone."

"We are not matching them dollar for dollar," Kors added, "and that is slippage that we've got to stop."

Just a week after the Yes on 8 campaign launched a commercial featuring San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom shouting that same-sex marriages are going to happen "whether you like it or not!" polls show opponents of same-sex marriage gaining an edge, although the race is extremely close.

The latest SurveyUSA poll sponsored by CBS5 in San Francisco showed that 47 percent of likely voters statewide would support Prop 8, while 42 percent would oppose it. However, the survey, released Monday, noted, "polling on ballot measures in general is an inexact science, and polling on homosexuality in general is a tricky business. So, not too much should be made of the five points that separates 'Yes' and 'No.'"

The poll, which was conducted among 670 likely voters between October 4 and 5, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.

An internal poll from the No on 8 campaign by Lake Research Partners that was discussed on the Tuesday call showed that 47 percent of voters support Prop 8, while 43 percent oppose it. That survey, conducted among 1,051 likely voters from September 29 through October 2, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

In the unusual move, No on 8 released its internal poll numbers Tuesday, as part of its direct appeal for money. Earlier public polls showed No on 8 leading.

"The electorate is still very movable," said Celinda Lake, president of Lake Research, who said 20 percent of voters are either undecided or are moving back and forth on the issue.

But she, Smith, and Kors credited the "volume" of the Yes on 8 Newsom commercial.

"Their ad is really breaking through," Lake said.

A striking find from the recent polls shows Yes on 8 leading among younger voters, who have previously been strongly supportive of marriage equality. Asked about that new development, Lake attributed it to the loudness and energy of the Newsom ad, but said that those voters would be the "easiest to get back."

"That trend speaks to the problem of continuing to be out-bought," she said.

No on 8 has continued to run its first ad, featuring local couple Sam and Julia Thoron, the parents of a lesbian daughter. And this week a new ad began airing showing two women talking about same-sex marriage, with one sharing a photo of a lesbian relative and her partner. When one woman said she didn't know if she was in favor of same-sex marriage, the other woman states that rights shouldn't be "eliminated." The unsure woman agrees.

Smith and Lake insisted that No on 8's "message is effective," but that the campaign does not have the money to match Yes on 8's large statewide media buy. The Yes on 8 campaign began airing the Newsom ad on Bay Area radio stations Monday, much to the consternation of local gays, several of whom contacted the Bay Area Reporter and the radio stations.

Behind in fundraising

According to data filed with the secretary of state's office, ProtectMarriage.com, the main group backing Prop 8, has raised about $25.4 million through September 30. No on 8, Equality for All - the main group opposing the measure - had raised almost $15.8 million.

Smith said, "The massive problem is their side has raised far more money than we anticipated," especially with strong support from the Mormon Church.

He said the amount of money raised by Yes on 8 has allowed the campaign to buy much more ad time, targeting more people.

The data filed with the secretary of state's office indicates opponents of Prop 8 are going to need a huge amount of money to catch up. Yes on 8 has a cash balance of about $12.8 million, while No on 8 has approximately $1.8 million.

Smith said the campaign will spend more than the $20 million to $22 million it has budgeted. He said Yes on 8 is going to spend up to $28 million.

Asked about the $28 million figure, Chip White, Yes on 8's press secretary, said he didn't have the budget, but said statewide campaigns in California generally spend at least 75 percent of their budget on advertising.

Smith also said that the campaign's potential donors don't need to wait for fundraising events to help out.

"Give us whatever amount you can give us, and we can put that on TV right now," he said, referring to additional ad buys.

The statement announcing the results of the Lake Research poll said that "many voters have already received their absentee ballot ... time is of the essence. Voters are deciding right now, and a record number of voters may also be voting right now. We need to communicate with them."

Meanwhile, the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law on Monday released a report that said an estimated 11,000 same-sex couples have married in California between June 17 and September 17. Nearly 80 percent of those weddings have taken place in five counties: Los Angeles (2,719), San Francisco (2,708), San Diego (1,689), Riverside (1,247), and Alameda (475).

Credibility

Smith declined to discuss the content of future No on 8 ads, but said they will address the lack of credibility of the Yes on 8 ad.

The Yes on 8 commercial, which shows Newsom speaking in front of a crowd in City Hall on May 15, shortly after the state's Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that same-sex couples have the right to marry in California, makes some false claims, according to No on 8.

The ad states that if Prop 8 fails, churches opposed to same-sex marriage could be threatened with losing their tax-exempt status, and suggests children in public schools would be taught about same-sex marriage.

Smith has disputed those claims. He pointed out that in its opinion on same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court noted that, "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."

As for children being taught about same-sex marriage, Smith also pointed out that, "Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education."

Other groups also raising money

Aside from the main No on 8 committee, there are several groups that are part of the statewide coalition that are also raising money on their own. Not all of that money is going toward buying TV time.

Marriage Equality USA has raised just over $25,000 through its committee, according to Molly McKay, the group's media director. McKay wrote in an e-mail that volunteer chapter leaders statewide have been working to ensure that the message is being heard. The money raised by MEUSA is being used for campaign materials.

The No on 8, Equality for All campaign "did a great job of distributing an initial run of campaign materials to folks around the state - stickers, signs, yard signs ... but indicated that any additional materials would not be funded by the campaign," she wrote.

Once the group ensures that local chapters have the materials they need to do public education in their community, MEUSA will provide the remaining funds to the No on 8 campaign. McKay wrote that in addition, the group's been distributing collection envelopes for Equality for All and directing people to the coalition's Web site.

MEUSA has raised another $11,300 through its Web site, where people can make donations "in the name of a loved one to Marriage Equality."

McKay wrote that those donations "go to our national nonprofit organization that will continue to do our grassroots outreach work to educate people about marriage equality. Even after we defeat Proposition 8, we still have a lot of work to do to secure recognition of marriages of same-sex couples at the national level and in the remaining 48 other states that do not recognize civil marriage rights for same-sex couples. We are in this for the long haul."

"We have different ways we raise funds and are clear about their uses," McKay wrote.

Another group that's part of the coalition but raising money on its own is Republicans Against 8. Scott Schmidt, the group's campaign manager, said that at the end of last week, Republicans Against 8 had raised more than $50,000 in cash and in-kind contributions.

He wrote in an e-mail that the funds are being used to reach voters through ways such as online advertising, new media outreach, and grassroots activities.

"... Monies raised for Republicans Against 8 are being used exclusively to send Republican messages to Republican voters with Republican messengers," he wrote. "We believe this is an effective strategy because we have a unique role as communicators to our fellow Republicans that cannot necessarily be accomplished by others."

He added, "I have encouraged others to give to No on 8, Equality for All and have contributed to the main No on 8 campaign myself."

He said the group's video "Freedom is a Republican Value" was viewed more than 12,700 times on YouTube and AOL uncut in just five days.

Kors said the money being raised by other groups in the coalition is "not a concern ... we're all in this together."

T.R. Knight latest to fight gay marriage ban

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

'Grey's Anatomy' star donates $50,000 to No on Prop. 8 campaign.

T.R. Knight has donated $50,000 to help defeat a California proposition aimed at ending gay marriage, according to the Advocate.

The “Grey’s Anatomy” star joins a growing list of celebrities including Brad Pitt, Steven Spielberg and his wife Kate Capshaw and Pete Wentz who have all donated funds to the No on Prop. 8 campaign.

If passed, Proposition 8 would define marriage as “only ... between a man and a woman,” in the California Constitution.

Should the proposition pass, the recent flood of marriages between gay couples including Ellen DeGeneres and Portia DiRossi, and George Takei and his lifelong partner-turned-husband, Brad Altman, would become null and void.

Recently, Jonathan Lewis, a gay, Ohio-based entrepreneur and political activist put out a call for Hollywood to rally together and donate $500,000 for the No on Prop. 8 campaign. According to the Advocate, Lewis and his family will match the contributions made.

“With Election Day five weeks away, we are concerned that the entertainment industry hasn’t stepped up to the plate to fight this unnecessary initiative,” Lewis said in a statement. “We are pleased to see the leadership of Brad Pitt and Kate Capshaw and Steven Spielberg. Now it’s time for the entertainment industry as a whole to take the lead.

Una propuesta innecesaria

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

La Proposición 8 busca cambiar la Constitución de California para garantizar expresamente que el matrimonio debe ser entre un hombre y una mujer. Nos parece una iniciativa innecesaria, que impondría una restricción constitucional a derechos que hoy posee un grupo de californianos cuyo compromiso mutuo ante la ley y la sociedad no representa peligro alguno. La idea detrás de esta iniciativa y el título que sus partidarios quisieron darle fue el de Ley de Protección del Matrimonio en California. El fiscal del estado cambió el título a uno más preciso: "Eliminación del Derecho al Matrimonio de las Parejas Homosexuales".

Ese derecho fue afirmado en mayo por la Suprema Corte de California, al dictaminar que tal prohibición es discriminatoria. Para llegar a esa decisión, los jueces se basaron en un precedente legal que en 1948 determinó que era ilegal prohibir el matrimonio a parejas de diferentes razas.

Es subjetivo afirmar que el matrimonio voluntario entre dos personas adultas es una amenaza para la institución en la que, irónicamente, estas personas luchan por entrar. Las verdaderas amenazas al matrimonio son la falta de comunicación, la infidelidad, el abuso doméstico y las presiones económicas.

El principal impulso detrás de la medida viene de iglesias evangélicas, católicas, mormonas, bautistas, judías ortodoxas y adventistas, con dinero, prédicas, rezos y ayuno, opiniones muy respetables y respetadas. Pero esto no quiere decir que sea aceptable imponer estas creencias a toda la sociedad y, mucho menos, cambiar la Constitución de California.

Estamos con el NO a la Proposición 8.

Young Mormons urged to join fight against gay marriage in California

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Young Mormons in California and Californian Mormons studying on Brigham Young University campuses should use texting, blogging, videos, podcasts, Twitter and Facebook to "go viral" in support of a California ballot initiative that would ban gay marriage, said an LDS apostle on Wednesday.

"I must admit I don't know how all this works, but you do," M. Russell Ballard said during a videotaped conference shown at LDS chapels across California and on campuses in in Utah, Idaho or Hawaii. "God will bless you as you do your part."

Ballard's remarks were part of a one-hour presentation titled, "The Divine Institution of Marriage Broadcast," during which he and Apostle Quentin L. Cook as well as L. Whitney Clayton discussed the church's support of Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

"Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God," Ballard said. "It has the natural biological power to create life. Its misuse undermines the fabric of society."

Because of such beliefs, Ballard said The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was willing to join the Protect Marriage Coalition, an umbrella organization of several religious bodies including Catholics and Evangelicals.

Cook, who lived in California for decades before being named one of the church's top 12 leaders, assured the Mormon faithful that the church's involvement is perfectly legal.

"We have the privilege and obligation to let our voices be heard," Cook said.

Then Clayton, who has been the church's liaison with the coalition, laid out a three-phase plan of action to drum up more support for Proposition 8 during the final weeks before votes are cast on Nov. 4: canvassing to identify voters; advocacy and persuasion; and get out the vote.

"We are looking for 30 people in every ward in California to commit 4 hours each until the election," Clayton said. "On the last weekend, November 1 through 4, we have an additional 100-hour program that we will describe later."

The instructions echoed a letter that was circulated in Idaho last week.

"The goal is to get as many members as possible who would be willing to make phone calls for two to four hours a week from now through election day," Robert Chambers, an LDS area authority for Pocatello, Idaho, wrote in a letter to stake presidents in the Rexburg area. "We ask you to commit initially to a minimum of 150-200 volunteers from your stake."

Another segment of the video was a question-and-answer session with Apostle David A. Bednar and a handful of students. He answered hypothetical questions about the church's view of the legal issues with the proposition. He spoke to LDS fears if the churches failed in this effort.

"If tolerance is the premise, it should go both ways," Bednar said. "There could be sanctions against us for teaching our doctrine."

About three dozen students watched the video broadcast at the University of Utah's LDS Institute of Religion. Several said the speeches motivated them to start calling friends.

"I didn't realize what a big deal it was until I went home for a visit," said Samantha Jones, 23, of Walnut Creek, Calif. "My parents are very involved. I knew I needed to take a stand so I read a lot of material on the church's Web site. It gave me a better idea of why I believe what I do. I'm ready to help."

Brianne Burhan, 19, thought the presentation was well-organized and thorough.

"You could feel the love from the apostles," she said, adding she is planning to make a video for Facebook.

That reaction likely would have pleased the three LDS leaders, who wanted especially to reach plugged-in Mormon youths.

"Because you are here tonight," Clayton said into the camera, "there is hope for the family."

Anti-gay marriage forces lead in cash just weeks from election

Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

As this endless election cycle grinds to a mud-slinging close, the tug of war continues over Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that would write a ban on gay marriage into the California Constitution.

High-profile donations have flowed to both sides of the debate. Last month, Brad Pitt and Steven Spielberg gave sizable chunks of change to oppose Proposition 8. In August, the Knights of Columbus kicked in a cool million to ensure that only a man and woman can ever say "I do" in the Golden State. Even Google has weighed in.

Now, with less than a month to go, fund-raising by Proposition 8 supporters has outstripped that of opponents. What does this mean for Nov. 4? Our own Jessica Garrison has the details:

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.

Behind the dollars and sentiments the question remains -- is marriage a state of the soul, or sole discretion of the state?

Fight against Prop. 8 reaches East L.A.

Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

The fight against Proposition 8, a state initiative to ban gay marriage, arrived today in East Los Angeles, where a trio of local politicians launched their push to reach Latino residents -– frequently a more socially conservative slice of the electorate -- on the hot-button issue.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, Los Angeles Board of Education President Monica Garcia and state Assembly candidate John Perez opened the Cesar Chavez Avenue storefront office for the “No on 8” campaign, which will communicate with Latino voters across the state.

Perez -- who is Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s cousin and a shoo-in for the seat currently held by Assemblyman Fabian Nunez – implored the crowd to write checks to the campaign and tell their neighbors to fight the measure. “Proposition 8 is a horrible, insidious message to the community that we’re worth less than others,” said Perez, who is openly gay.

Garcia told the audience that the measure would harm her loved ones, including her lesbian sister, Lilia Garcia, and her sister’s partner, Kelley Brower – both of whom stood with her and her mother in front of a bank of television cameras. “Familia is familia,” the school board president declared.

No on Prop 8 Campaign Hurting for Money

Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Opponents of Proposition 8 say they're in danger of losing, unless more money comes in for more TV commercials. Latino leaders rally support throughout California for No on Prop 8.

Click here to watch KNBC's news report: http://video.knbc.com/player/?id=738081.

State Ballot Measures

Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Proposition 8

Ban on same-sex marriage

NO, NO, NO

Same-sex couples have been able to marry legally in California since June. Their weddings — often between couples who have spent decades together, raised children, fought hard for civil rights, and been pillars of their communities — have been historic, joy-filled moments. San Francisco City Hall has witnessed thousands of these weddings — and to date, there has not been a single confirmed report that gay weddings have caused damage to straight marriages.

But now comes Proposition 8, a statewide measure that seeks to take this fundamental right away from same-sex couples.

Using the exact same argument that was used in 2000, Prop. 8 contends that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Back then, the measure passed. This time, the landscape has shifted radically and is full of same-sex brides and grooms who have already legally tied the knot. This time around, the stale "man and woman only" argument is being used to attempt to deny individuals their existing rights based on their sexual orientation. Polls suggest that a majority of Californians are unwilling to support this measure, but it would only take a simple majority to deny gays and lesbians their marriage rights. Vote no on Prop. 8 and protect hard-won marriage equality.

Study Says Sonoma Will Make Millions If Prop. 8 Fails

Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

The defeat next month of the state proposition that seeks to prohibit same sex marriages could mean hundreds of new jobs and millions of dollars in personal, business and government revenue from same-sex weddings over the next three years in Sonoma County, according to a study released Monday.

The report was prepared by Sonoma State University's Center for Regional Economic Analysis and was paid for by a grant from the Horizons Foundation, a philanthropic social justice organization serving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities in the Bay Area.

Details of the report were highlighted by Robert Eyler, Chair of Sonoma State's Department of Economics and the Center's director at a luncheon this afternoon attended by state and local officials and members of the No on 8 Campaign.

The report concludes 430 to 865 new jobs would be created between 2009 and 2011 from same-sex weddings in Sonoma County and new wages for new and existing workers will total $13.7-$27.6 million.

New state and local government tax and other revenue is estimated $2.4-$4.8 million and new business revenue would be $40.2-$80.7 million, according to the report.

The report estimates 1,534 same-sex couples from around the country will travel to Sonoma County to marry between 2009 and 2011. Of that number, 1,496 couples will be from California, the state with the most same sex couples.

"The major policy recommendation from this study is to market Sonoma County, especially its availability by air from Los Angeles, as a destination wedding location to same-sex households throughout the United States, specifically outside of California if Proposition 8 is defeated," Eyler concluded.

"Natural tourism flows, the county's welcoming reputation, and its desirability as a backdrop for 'destination weddings' could draw a certain proportion of same-sex couples to plan a wedding and reception in Sonoma County, as well as stay in local hotels, eat at local restaurants and visit local wineries and other tourist attractions," Eyler said.

Many of the jobs that will be created are in categories that could attract Sonoma County residents who may currently be unemployed or under-employed, Eyler said.

"This is especially true for working mothers, as many of these jobs are likely to be flexible in scheduling," Eyler said.

Tax revenues could be directed to augment social services for lower-income working families; approximately $900,000 to $1.8 million in revenue will go for human, health, police and fire services, according to the report.

Napa County officials also will likely react to the defeat of Proposition 8 and position their county to compete for same-sex wedding revenue, Eyler said.

Asked if the current economic and tight credit conditions would dissuade same-sex couples from traveling to Sonoma County to marry, Eyler said, "If people want to get married they will spend the money. It won't hurt the numbers that much, if at all."

Assemblyman Mark Leno, who is running for the state Senate's 3rd District seat, attended Monday's luncheon.

"No one go home complacent. We are in the fight of our lives for the next 30 days," Leno said regarding Proposition 8.

Leno praised the Sonoma State report and noted California stands to realize $3 billion in revenue from same-sex weddings.

"It's logical when a market is expanded, there is more money to be made, Leno said.

"Voters are being asked to repeal a state law and deny businesses benefits they currently enjoy. I believe voters will consider a yes vote on Proposition 8 unjust and unfair," Leno said.

Polling Data Shows Prop 8 Race Neck and Neck

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Ali Bay
PHONE: (916) 717-1411 or (916) 425-3363

Polling Data Shows Prop 8 Race Neck and Neck
LGBT Community Urged to Give More Right Away

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, LOS ANGELES – In an urgent announcement, the NO on Prop 8 campaign, Equality for All, today convened a special briefing of the LGBT press around the country. The campaign released new polling data that shows the opponents of Proposition 8 losing ground as proponents continue to flood the airwaves with misleading television ads. Proposition 8 is the November ballot initiative that eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

“Our most recent polling data shows us four points behind,” said Geoff Kors, a member of the NO on Prop 8 Executive Committee. “And unless we raise significant new dollars, we will not be able to compete with the proponents on television.” The latest poll from Lake Research shows the race 47% Yes and 43% No.

“While our poll didn't surprise us, it did confirm that we were starting to lose ground because we simply cannot match the proponents dollar for dollar on television,” said Steve Smith, NO on Prop 8 Senior Campaign Strategist. “We wanted to let LGBT community know that there is a level of complacency and false sense of security, and we wanted to set the record straight.”

Smith said, “Public polls have given everyone the impression that this campaign is over – it’s already won. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

The campaign released a memo from pollster Lake Research Partners that indicated that the opponents of Prop 8 had lost ground from just a few days ago.

“We have the messages, our advertising is compelling, but polling tells us that it is not being seen or heard as much as the Yes side, and that needs to change,” Lake says in the memo.

Geoff Kors concluded: “The proponents will continue to mislead the public, and we can’t let their lies stick. And if we can't get the resources into this campaign – both in dollars and volunteer hours – we will lose. Right now the fundraising gap is $6million. That’s the challenge, but I believe once the community understands how tight this race is, they will dig deep and give to our efforts. I’m comfortable that our best fundraising weeks are those ahead of us. We need everyone to pitch in right now.”

To receive a copy of the Lake Research polling memo, contact Eddie Fernandez, Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide at eddie.fernandez@ogilvypr.com.

Same sex marriage is about civil rights

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

If you’re a fair-minded person who’s also a churchgoer, odds are you’re finding yourself in a bind this November. This election includes statewide ballot initiative Proposition 8, which proposes an amendment to the constitution of California officially titled “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry,” or, as those who proposed the measure want you to call it, the “California Marriage Protection Act.” The text of the proposal reads simply, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Most traditional religious organizations are calling for their constituents to vote yes, which puts a painful decision before those members who believe that all citizens should have civil rights regardless of sexual orientation or the gender ratio of their relationship. They are being asked to choose to enshrine what they’ve been told God believes in law, and in so doing they often are being asked to violate their conscience promptings about right and wrong.

No one wants to disregard their pastor’s interpretation of God’s word, but when confronted with the idea of revoking a same-sex couple’s right to get married — a right which they already have in California, since a state Supreme Court ruling overturned Proposition 22’s marriage ban in May — people understandably get uneasy. A “yes” vote on Proposition 8 doesn’t “protect” marriage, it destroys it — specifically, the marriages sought by same-sex couples.

No matter how you feel about homosexuality and gay marriage, passing this constitutional amendment will prevent some couples from being able to take those formal vows of eternal commitment and will possibly destroy the legality of the marriages of those couples that have taken these vows already. Most people understand that this is not right, fair or just.

What’s interesting to me is the way Proposition 8 proponents are trying to reframe the debate. I’ve heard some say, “Gay marriage is not a gay rights or civil rights issue, it’s a religious freedom issue.” But when this reasoning is put in the spotlight, it’s clear how wrong it is.

The Constitution of the United States’ first order of business is to clarify that we “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This is subject to interpretation of course, but most scholars boil it down to preventing the establishment of an “official” religion, because the government applies to everyone, therefore, it’s not fair to pick one religion over the other or show favoritism toward a particular sect.

Taken further, we can see that creating any law that favors one religious interpretation over the other is unconstitutional. And the man/woman-only version of marriage is not something everyone shares as part of his or her interpretation of religion. This means enshrining it into law goes against our own founding document. This was the logic behind the California State Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Proposition 22 in the first place.

For another thing — and this is both more important and obvious — allowing same-sex couples to be legally recognized as married by the government does not impinge on anyone’s religious freedom. Churches that don’t approve of same-sex couples will not suddenly be forced to perform marriage ceremonies in full, colorful splendor. Some religious organizations require members to convert or change their denomination before performing the ceremony, and you don’t see them forced to change their doctrine or marry couples that don’t follow their prescriptions.

There are churches out there that accept same-sex couples with open arms and happily perform their ceremonies, so it’s not like same-sex couples that desire religious ceremonies have nowhere to go. Besides, there’s not a whole lot of motivation for anyone to force a church that doesn’t approve of them to perform their marriage ceremony, whether it be same-sex marriage, interracial marriage or marriage between members of different religions. Marriage is something special that people celebrate and enjoy, and no one enjoys your preacher glowering at you while you say your vows.

The “religious freedom” argument is a misrepresentation of the issue. What Proposition 8 is proposing is simple: eliminating the rights of some Californians to marry, rights they should have as full citizens of the United States. If you’re comfortable with that, vote yes.
If not, then ask yourself not what religious leaders are telling you God wants, but what you truly think is right.

—Ruthie Kelly is a journalism and women’s studies senior.

Sonoma County Study forecasts economic gain from same sex marriages

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

The report was prepared by Sonoma State University’s Center for Regional Economic Analysis and was paid for by a grant from the Horizons Foundation, a philanthropic social justice organization serving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities in the Bay Area.

Details of the report were highlighted by Robert Eyler, Chair of Sonoma State’s Department of Economics and the Center’s director at a luncheon this afternoon attended by state and local officials and members of the No on 8 Campaign.

The report concludes 430 to 865 new jobs would be created between 2009 and 2011 from same-sex weddings in Sonoma County and new wages for new and existing workers will total $13.7-$27.6 million.

New state and local government tax and other revenue is estimated $2.4-$4.8 million and new business revenue would be $40.2-$80.7 million, according to the report.

“The major policy recommendation from this study is to market Sonoma County, especially its availability by air from Los Angeles, as a destination wedding location to same-sex households throughout the United States, specifically outside of California if Proposition 8 is defeated,”
Eyler concluded.

“Natural tourism flows, the county’s welcoming reputation, and its desirability as a backdrop for ‘destination weddings’ could draw a certain proportion of same-sex couples to plan a wedding and reception in Sonoma County, as well as stay in local hotels, eat at local restaurants and visit local wineries and other tourist attractions,” Eyler said.

Many of the jobs that will be created are in categories that could attract Sonoma County residents who may currently be unemployed or under-employed, Eyler said.

“This is especially true for working mothers, as many of these jobs are likely to be flexible in scheduling,” Eyler said.

Napa County officials also will likely react to the defeat of Proposition 8 and position their county to compete for same-sex wedding revenue, Eyler said.

Asked if the current economic and tight credit conditions would dissuade same-sex couples from traveling to Sonoma County to marry, Eyler said, “If people want to get married they will spend the money. It won’t hurt the numbers that much, if at all.”

Stand up for love by voting NO on Prop 8

Sun, 05 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Last month, I had a chance to attend my first same-sex wedding. I, along with Ventura County dignitaries, straight couples and friends and family, attended the wedding of two local women, Connie and Rita, who have been together more than 27 years. Connie's lovely daughters accompanied them to the altar. It was truly moving to witness two older women who have been together for decades, have provided for their family, worked hard and paid their taxes, contributed to their community in countless ways suddenly move from second-class to first-class citizens right before our eyes.

After waiting nearly a lifetime, they were finally granted equality under the laws of the state of California.

On Nov. 4, Californians will be asked to vote on Proposition 8, which changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. By voting yes, you would abolish marriage for same-sex couples. By voting no, you will confirm that people like my friends who married after 27 years together, will continue to be treated fairly under the law.

I know that some still feel uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage. But, regardless of how you feel about this issue on a personal level, I urge you to remember how important the California Constitution is to guaranteeing fundamental rights. To amend the California Constitution and enshrine discrimination into it, as Proposition 8 will do, is against the founding principles of this state and nation.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and others who oppose Proposition 8, understand that this is about singling out some people for second-class status.

While Proposition 8 asks us to weigh in on whether we believe in fairness and equality for all Californians, it also gives us the opportunity to ask ourselves what kind of community we want to build.

I have recently been reminded of Martin Luther King Jr.'s notion of the "beloved community." He envisioned a community in which people would find themselves existing in an integrated society of sisters and brothers committed to peace and justice, and redeemed through the transformative power of love.

This beloved community would respect the rights of those who are different from us and would work to reconcile our differences. As King said during the civil rights struggle: "The end is reconciliation; the end is redemption; the end is the creation of the Beloved Community." Surely we are faced with another opportunity to explore the meaning of building this more perfect union.

Rather than having a divisive argument that pits us against each other, now is the opportunity for us to get to know one another with the spirit of reconciliation in our hearts.

Those of us who are gay or lesbian can talk to our neighbors, the people in our places of worship, our family and co-workers, to let them know how important it is to us that we be treated with fairness, if not love. Those of us who know someone gay or lesbian can let them know that we think their equality matters, that we respect them and believe they deserve the same rights as we enjoy. By having these conversations, we can inch closer to creating a beloved community.

The fact is, our children will benefit by the expression of more love and compassion, and the affirmation of equal treatment for our neighbors, our friends, our co-workers and our family members. We will all benefit when we strive to welcome families like Connie and Rita's that form outside the traditional model. Please stand up for fairness and equality. Stand up for love.

Vow to vote no on Proposition 8.

Marriage Responsibility for All

Sat, 04 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

When I read "Same-sex marriage foes stop at Whittier church," an article about a visit by the Rev. Louis Sheldon to an area church, I read it from start to finish and realized I had to tell my story.

This summer, my wife and I attended several weddings of family and friends. One of the most meaningful ceremonies we attended was for Daniel and Gary, a couple who had already been living in a committed, monogamous relationship for over 15 years.

They had already shared all that they had and all that they were, but now they were getting married with the witness of friends and family. There was no press or T.V. cameras present and no political statements - just two people deeply in love, standing before a judge in their backyard exchanging vows of total commitment to each other.

My wife and I sat there holding hands with silly smiles on our faces as we prayed silently to God for this couple that they would continue to be blessed and guided in their life journey together, now finally called a marriage.

We are both Episcopal priests and are well aware that some would invoke God and the Bible to condemn Daniel and Gary. Sadly, many people hear condemnations from ministers like Rev. Sheldon and think that this is the only Christian response to gay people. The fact is, many people of faith strongly support marriage equality and will vote no on Proposition 8. We will vote no because it would take away marriage for same-sex couples in California and leave our friends - and so many others - in grief.

The article quoted Whittier City Councilwoman Cathy Warner, who is Mormon, as saying, "I personally believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman." On one hand, I agree with this because that is what I experience in my marriage to my wife. On the other hand, I also saw that same sanctity of marriage before us when Daniel and Gary promised devotion to each other.

But regardless of how people of faith feel about gay people, my wife and I believe that the vast majority of Californians - even many conservative people of faith - realize that this is a simple matter of fairness.

It's not fair to take away marriages from loving couples. No church will be forced to perform marriages. Even though divorce is legal, Catholic priests are not forced to perform weddings for divorced people. Faith communities will continue to have the right to practice what they preach.

Our Episcopal Church has been in the news recently because of disagreement over gay people. But, despite our differences, California Episcopal bishops urged people to vote "no" on Proposition 8. Bishops from both northern and southern California spoke about such core values as love and mutual responsibility. They said it best, "society is strengthened when two people who love each other choose to enter into marriage, engaged in a lifetime of disciplined relationship building that serves as a witness to the importance of love and commitment."

The bishops recognized that keeping marriage available to same-sex couples is more than beautiful backyard weddings; it means that loving couples have lifelong obligations to care for one another that are not easily dissolved.

Only with the state's permission, through divorce courts, would this responsibility be lifted - and not without consideration for the support of both people. This model of lifelong commitment for all couples, gay or straight, goes far beyond civil unions which can be ended with a letter to the county courthouse.

When citizens of California vote "no" on Proposition 8, we will be lifting up lifelong marriage, with all its rights, privileges, and obligations, as our ethical grounding for all loving couples. When we Christians and other people of faith vote "no" on Proposition 8, we will be lifting up the freedom of believers in each faith group to set their own standards within their own tradition - and not impose them on others.

Nikkei Should Stand for Equality by Voting No on Prop 8

Sat, 04 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

“I simply love him and he loves me,” wrote a young Californian in a public letter defending a non-traditional marriage. “It is a matter solely between us two. I cannot see how our marriage will interfere with the workings of the community in any way or to the detriment of the church.”

Helen Gladys Emery, daughter of the archdeacon of San Francisco’s Episcopal diocese, made this statement nearly a century ago in reply to the violent opposition that erupted because she planned to marry Gunjiro Aoki, an Issei. Her words are apt today as a response to Proposition 8.

Proposition 8 would amend the state constitution to take away the existing right of same-sex couples to marry. As the targets of similar measures, Japanese Americans are in a unique position to consider Proposition 8 within the historical context of anti-Japanese laws and initiatives.

Most Japanese Americans now take interracial marriage for granted, but when Aoki and Emery tried to marry in 1909, and for decades after that, many considered interracial relationships unacceptable. The children of such unions were thought to be “social problems.”

Emery’s family sought medical opinions to explain why their daughter was in love with the wavy-haired immigrant. Even Aoki’s Issei compatriots opposed the partnership, offering him $1,000 to break up with the sweet-faced 21-year-old.

In Emery’s hometown of Corte Madera, a crowd threw bricks at Aoki and threatened to tar and feather him. When Emery left with her mother to marry Aoki, a mob met them at the train station, jeering and yelling, banging tin cans and throwing rotting flowers.

The couple faced not only societal disapproval, but a legal barrier. The California legislature passed an antimiscegenation law in 1850, prohibiting marriages between whites and blacks. With growing immigration from Asia, the legislature later amended the law to ban marriages between whites and Asians. Civil and religious authorities who performed marriages between whites and people of other races faced criminal prosecution.

The young couple also met resistance when they tried to marry in Portland and Tacoma. Finally, the mayor of Seattle gave them permission to marry there—under armed guard.

Nearly 40 years passed before the California Supreme Court struck down the antimiscegenation law as arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination against certain racial groups. Justice Roger Traynor stated, “Marriage is something more than a civil contract subject to regulations by the state. It is a fundamental right of free men.”

Just as the idea of interracial marriage made Californians uneasy for over a century, the prospect of Japanese American equality outraged a majority of Californians in the early 20th century.

Japanese Americans, like gay men and lesbians today, were the direct targets of a voter initiative—or “ballot measure”—to legalize inequality 88 years ago, when Nikkei were an unpopular minority.

In 1920, the Native Sons and Daughters of the Golden West and the American Legion qualified an initiative for the November ballot to expand the state’s existing “Alien Land Law,” which prohibited Issei from owning land. Issei had navigated around the law by transferring land titles to their Nisei children. So the 1920 initiative barred Issei from buying land in the names of their children and leasing land for any length of time.

During the months before the election, anti-Japanese groups led a blitzkrieg campaign with the catch phrase “Save California from the Japs.” Anti-Japanese organizations pushed a broad agenda, including not only the Alien Land Law initiative but also a federal Constitutional amendment denying citizenship to Nisei, exclusion of Japanese immigrants, and assurance that Asians would forever be barred from citizenship. To justify this political program, the anti-Japanese propaganda campaign accused Japanese men of being spies, sex fiends and rapists who debased white women.

The smears worked. California voters approved the initiative by a three to one margin.

It took several Supreme Court decisions, and another initiative vote to repeal the Alien Land Law 36 years later.

Imagine if the Alien Land Law and the interracial marriage prohibition were added to the constitution, the state’s governing document meant to define our rights, not to deny them to minority groups that happen to be disfavored at a given moment. The state supreme court would not have been able to rule those laws unconstitutional.

Just as the antimiscegenation law denied interracial couples the freedom to marry the partners they loved, and just as the Alien Land Law stripped Japanese Americans of the basic right to own and lease land, Proposition 8 would deny gay men and lesbians the right to marry, a right available to all other adults.

History has shown it is unjust to single out a group—whether Japanese Americans in the 1920s or lesbians and gay men today— for unequal legal treatment, let alone to enshrine that inequality in the constitution.

Nikkei can be on the right side of history by standing up for fairness and voting no on Proposition 8.

As we see it: NO ON 8 - Equal Treatment Under the law

Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

It's not about moral teaching. It's about equal treatment for all people under the laws of our state.

That's why we urge a "no" vote Nov. 4 on Proposition 8, the measure that would overturn a California Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. Proposition 8 would amend the state constitution to say that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

We have consistently stated that government should not discriminate against people based on their sexual preference.

At the same time, we understand many people feel that their beliefs, religious teaching and life experiences are leading them to vote for Proposition 8.

The measure does not, however, require any church or non-governmental entity to recognize same-sex marriage. People remain free to hold their own beliefs and practice their religion.

We also don't think that everyone supporting 8 is a bigot or homophobe, although measures such as this can attract such thinking. We have long wondered, for instance, why some people of faith concentrate their fervor on issues such as homosexuality, to the exclusion of other life situations.

Still, a strong case can be made that society has a vested interest in the welfare of children and that children do better in a home where they are raised by two parents who brought them into existence. Thus, the purpose of marriage becomes far more than a social contract or a state license to receive benefits. It becomes about children.

Unfortunately, this argument loses legitimacy in the world we live in. The ideal of parenthood can be a cruel disappointment and single-parent families remain all too prevalent.

Moreover, many gay and lesbian couples have successfully provided a loving home for children. Nothing in Proposition 8 would prevent gay couples from adopting or raising children; indeed, the measure is only concerned with the right to marry.

In the four months since the Supreme Court decision, we have not seen any evidence that allowing same-sex marriages somehow weakens heterosexual unions. Many Californians, who voted against legalizing same-sex marriage in 2000, seem to agree, and are shifting their views on this issue. A majority, watching as gays and lesbians have embraced their right to marry, see how society has not crumbled and are now stating they plan to vote against Proposition 8, according to polls.

Even people with reservations about same-sex marriage should consider the import of voting against a legal right.

We support the right under California law for gays and lesbians to marry. Vote no on Proposition 8.