Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

Marriage Equality Hangs in the Balance: Prop. 8 in a Dead Heat

By Karen Ocamb, AlterNet. Posted November 1, 2008.


This weekend's call to action from religious leaders to prevent the "destruction of Western civilization" could help push equality foes to victory.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Undecided voters.

For 16,000 married same-sex couples this Halloween, those two words -- undecided voters -- are the scariest goblins they've ever faced.

According to the final statewide Field Poll before the Nov. 4 election, 49 percent of Californians plan to vote against Prop. 8, the ballot initiative that would change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, and 44 percent plan to vote for it. However, the survey shows 7 percent undecided. With a margin of error of 3.3 percent, that's up to 10 percent undecided.

The Oct. 31 poll of 966 likely voters was conducted from Oct. 18 to Oct. 28. Both sides in the Prop. 8 battle reported a combined total of more than $63.4 million in campaign donations on Oct. 30. "A relatively large segment of voters are in conflict over this measure," Mark DiCamillo, the poll's director, told the San Francisco Chronicle. He noted that the Yes on 8 campaign had "raised some doubts and moved people over to their side" since the last Field Poll in September, which showed that 55 percent opposed Prop. 8 while only 38 percent supported it.

Each side tried to leverage the numbers to their advantage.

"We're moving in the right direction," Yes on 8 spokesperson Chip White told the Chronicle. "Momentum is clearly on our side in what's going to be a close race."

"The Field Poll shows that Prop. 8's deceptive campaign has failed to move their numbers much at all," No on Prop. 8 Senior Campaign Adviser Steve Smith said in a statement, referring to Prop. 8 campaign ads claiming that failure to pass the initiative would result in a mandate to teach schoolchildren about gay marriage. No on Prop. 8 countered with an ad in which California Superintendent of Schools Jack O'Connell called the Prop. 8 ads "scare tactics and lies." Smith also rejected "any suggestion that there will be a last-minute surge for Prop. 8 in a year where California is expected to go overwhelmingly for Sen. Barack Obama" for president over Sen. John McCain, his Republican rival. But the survey found that 22 percent had already voted and backed Prop. 8 by 50 to 44 percent. Therefore, DiCamillo told the San Jose Mercury News that Obama "turnout has to appear for the No side to prevail." According to the poll, Obama leads McCain by a 22-point margin.

But the poll is a snapshot of voter preferences taken before an expected surge of religious activism. On Nov. 1, Focus on the Family's James Dobson and the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins will join Yes on 8 leader Rev. Jim Garlow and Lou Engel, founder of "The Call" for a 10-hour religious revival-style rally at San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium with tens of thousands of Christians who were asked to pray and fast for 40 days.

On Oct. 30, Dobson devoted his radio program to promoting "The Call" rally, choking up as he said he felt the hand of God telling him to go. "The Lord must be involved in this," Dobson said. Garlow agreed, saying they were "crying out" to God in spiritual desperation to save California, as they were "watching the destruction of Western civilization."

The religious zeal to pass Prop. 8 is not restricted to these well-known Christian evangelicals. According to Californians Against Hate, an independent group not associated with the No on Prop. 8 campaign, other contributors to Yes on 8 include John Templeton Jr. and his wife, of Bryn Mawr, Penn., who contributed $1,000,000; and Elsa Prince of Holland, Mich., mother of Erik Prince, founder and head of the controversial private security firm Blackwater Worldwide, who gave $450,000.

The biggest funder of the Yes on 8 campaign has been the Church of Latter-day Saints (LDS), or the Mormon Church, which is estimated to have contributed $20 million so far.

"The LDS Church's campaign to pass Proposition 8 represents its most vigorous and widespread political involvement since the late 1970s, when it helped defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. It even departs from earlier efforts on behalf of traditional marriage, in which members felt more free to decide their level of involvement," the Salt Lake Tribune reported Oct. 26. "This time, LDS leaders have tapped every resource, including the church's built-in phone trees, e-mail lists and members' willingness to volunteer and donate money. Many California members consider it a directive from God and have pressured others to participate. Some leaders and members see it as a test of faith and loyalty."

The Catholic-affiliated Knights of Columbus has also contributed significantly. But it is the admonition from the pulpit on the Sunday before the election that could have a serious impact. According to Field Poll director DiCamillo, Catholics make up nearly a quarter of likely voters. And there could be a Bradley effect -- which is what happens when a voter misleads a pollster.

In 2000, for instance, Catholics were split evenly in the final pre-election poll on how they would vote on Prop. 22, the same-sex marriage ban on that year's ballot. But exit polls showed Catholics actually voted for Prop. 22 by a margin of 15 points, DiCamillo told the Chronicle. In the Oct. 31 poll, Catholics opposed Prop. 8 by a margin of 48 to 44 -- down from 55 to 36 percent in September.

"The Sunday before the election could be important, since people may hear priests and ministers preaching against same-sex marriage," DiCamillo said.

The poll also found nuanced confusion over support for "traditional marriage" and a desire not to discriminate against a group of people, as described in a new No on Prop. 8 ad voiced over by African American actor Samuel L. Jackson. The new ad notes the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and the onetime ban against interracial marriage.

And, in addition to a television spot featuring Sen. Dianne Feinstein urging a No vote, the No on Prop. 8 campaign just released a robo-call from former President Bill Clinton, who infamously signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

In the call, Clinton says: "Proposition 8 would use state law to single out one group of Californians to be treated differently -- discriminating against members of our family, our friends and our co-workers. If I know one thing about California, I know that is not what you're about. That is not what America is about. Please vote no on 8. It's unfair and it's wrong. Thank you."

The battle against Prop. 8 is not a partisan affair, however. The independent Republicans Against 8 produced an online ad reminding voters that Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan spoke out against the anti-gay Briggs Initiative 30 years ago and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes Prop. 8 now. No word yet if the campaign will put this ad on television.

But it's not just politics; for some it is a question of religious interpretation. The poll showed that 65 percent of likely voters believe that traditional marriage is "one of the cornerstones of the country's Judeo-Christian heritage," with 50 percent believing that Prop. 8 would restore traditional marriage while continuing to provide adequate domestic partnership rights.

On the other hand, 61 percent think Prop. 8 would deny one group of citizens "the dignity and responsibility of marriage," and 58 percent believe that domestic partnership laws don't provide "the same certainty and security that marriage laws provide."

"This race is in a dead heat," Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California and a leader in the No on Prop. 8 campaign, told AlterNet. "We see a slight increase in support for our side. But there is a question about the Bradley effect and turnout. Every poll shows us within the margin of error, and I think when it becomes clear that the Prop. 8 side is being so offensive as to equate same-sex marriage with Nazism, the voters of California will reject this kind of bigotry and discrimination, and they will reject Prop. 8 and reject this politics of division that's been around for too long. I think on Nov. 4, we will see a major change in California and in the country. It's time for healing."

For more information, go to NoOnProp8.com.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: marriage, gay marriage, california, marriage equality, proposition 8, prop 8

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Will gay unions destroy my marriage?
Posted by: USAFVeteran1966 on Nov 1, 2008 12:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having lived with the same lovely lady 50 years, I can answer emphatically, "No! Not even when we tied the knot in 1958."

My advice: straight people who believe otherwise, that gay marriages will destroy their sacred unions, should stay single.

Vietnam vet/Obama supporter
Eight reasons to vote against John McCain

PS: Hugh Scott asked me to thank the many AlterNet readers who visited his NONPROFIT website, www.UnfitMcCain.com, which received nearly two million hits since being launched in August 2008.

Having accomplished his goal of making UnfitMcCain.com one of the hottest anti-McCain sites on the Web, Scotty will no longer communicate on AlterNet, effective today.

I, too, am saying goodbye. So have a great life, everyone -- even lonely little pot-stirring troll, Karl.Rove.Ben.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Part of 'Mandated' Don't You Understand?
Posted by: Seth D on Nov 1, 2008 2:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is an actual quote from a slick, two-sided
color glossy which recently graced my mailbox...

"A 'Yes' Vote Restores Traditional Marriage

A 'No' Vote Means Gay Marriage is Still Mandated"

So, like, wait a minute. I'm really confused.
What if this prop 8 doesn't pass on Nov 4th?
I don't mind marrying another guy, if a majority
of liberal california voters say that I must...
But *when* will the deadline be to select my
same-sex partner? And if I miss the deadline,
will the government simply select one for me?

I'm going to call protectmarriage.com Monday,
and get this thing sorted out. (916)446-2956
If you're confused too, just give them a call!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mormon church
Posted by: brer on Nov 1, 2008 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The mormon church's support of this ammendment might just be the catylist that slows down the growth of the church even more than has been happening in the last 10 years.

People are sick of this narrowminded thinking. Not only are missionaries having less success with new converts, but long-time members are leaving because (among other things) of this very issue.

I think mormon leaders recognize this, as they pulled back in the last few weeks, telling out of state members that they don't need them any more in the California fight.

I think they finally realized what a mistake they made when they put the full force of a "worldwide" church against the will of the people in a state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: mormon church SUCKS! Posted by: johnbradleycopeland
The Polls
Posted by: judithk on Nov 1, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The mighty tidy polls still have no way of taking into account the youth vote who mostly rely on cell phones and not land lines.

Young Californians have grown up knowing and befriending gays and lesbians. They will not vote against the interests of their friends.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Facts: Schools and Same-Sex Marriage
Posted by: TruthRevealed on Nov 1, 2008 9:31 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, here we go again... with yet another liberal attempt to conceal the truth about the effects of same-sex marriage and sex education in our public schools. It is an out and out lie, that these are separate issues. And yet, those who oppose the YES on 8 campaign, continue to blatantly lie to the public, and try to convince otherwise. In fact, they don't debate,they just treat California citizens like idiots, and expect us to believe them.

Here is what you can believe, gay marriage has already infiltrated our educations system. That is a fact. In Mass. parents do not have a choice about their children being taught homosexuality/marriage - as the same. They are not even required to tell parents that this kind of discussion is happening -- as young as kindergarten.

So please, as much as you may not value traditional marriage, and are behaving desperately - DO NOT lie to the "people". This is an insult!

Jack O'Connell was invited to join a live debate about this very topic - and HE refused to go before the citizens of California - and tell they why "he" thinks that same-sex marriage has nothing to do with public education.

Now, if he is so truthful about this -- tell all of us WHY over a million dollars of the CTA monies, were donated to the NO on 8 campaign?

Wake up folks - and recognize when you are being lied to, by those with a major agenda; which IS to teach our children about the normalization of homosexuality in society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Facts: Schools and Same-Sex Marriage Posted by: stillgaymarried
8 = Hate, Shame on you!
Posted by: Fog on Nov 1, 2008 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's the sign we need to be holding up this weekend all over the state.

Hang it from a sheet from bridges so rush hour folks get a good dose of guilt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liam on the Left
Posted by: Liam on Nov 1, 2008 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I lived in California I would not vote for the "ban on gay marriage" but this is what bothers me as a "Leftist" and not a "Liberal". The whole approach to gay "marriage" is the typical liberal in your face political tactic.

Instead of "marriage licenses" every couple who is going to have a relationship that will include property, business, children - etc. need to get a civil document of some type to cover the legal aspects of the relationship. Could the right wing loonies object to that? The Republicans? After all it is just good business - right? Than go find a church who will marry you. (There are even Catholic Priests who will if you know where to look!) Many will and "marriage" is a religious rite the government needs to stay the hell out of. When my wife and I got our "marriage license" we were not married - we were "married" a week later in our church.

Use your brains people - take the argument away from the so-called christian right wing nuts. "KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY CHURCH!"

The Pro-choice advocates should use the same tactic. "Do you want the government to come between you and your doctor? Do you want the government in your doctor's office telling him what to do?"

As Saul Alinsky said: "Use your imagination against a system that has none!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Liam on the Left Posted by: catmandoo
» RE: Liam on the Left Posted by: lepidopteryx
Normalizing Abnormal Behavior
Posted by: pnsuitec on Nov 1, 2008 10:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the core of the argument in favor of homosexual marriage is the contention that sexual gratification is a birthright, and that people with non-traditional desires should have the same rights as heterosexuals to pursue fulfillment.

“How would you feel if you couldn’t marry the one you love?” has become a catch phrase in a well financed campaign to permanently amend the definition of marriage.

This philosophy, however, could also be used to justify behaviors that deviate even farther from the social norm than homosexuality. And if the gay community succeeds in defeating a ban on same-sex marriage, then we should prepare ourselves to make decisions about other subcultures vying for sexual equality.

Pedophiles, for instance, are already organizing to persuade society to de-criminalize their behavior by lowering, or abolishing altogether, the age of consent for minors. The next step would be to have their attraction to children re-classified as an “orientation” rather than a mental disorder.

The North American Man/Boy Love Association, on its website, states its position clearly: “We believe sexual feelings are a positive life force. We support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies.” And they go on to say: “We call for the fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults.”

Sounds like a long shot, but so did homosexual marriage twenty years ago.

And what about the gray areas that will be created if the definition of marriage is changed from a union of “one man and one woman” to a union of “two persons”?

Will the legalization of homosexual marriages make it possible for same-sex family members to unite with each other in holy matrimony? Incest laws, enacted to protect against offspring deformities associated with inbreeding, would become irrelevant and there would be no logical reason to prohibit these types of marriages.

Needless to say, the job of defining acceptable forms of sexual gratification, once the process of normalizing abnormal behavior gains traction, will become increasingly more difficult. How will society determine where to draw the line on the "orientations" of our relatives, neighbors, co-workers, and fellow citizens?

The possibility of having to periodically re-define normal human sexuality, however, could be eliminated if the line is simply allowed to remain where it has been for the vast majority of cultures since the beginning of recorded time: male/female sexual intimacy on one side, everything else on the other.

But we will miss the opportunity to settle the issue if we keep getting the concept of gratification rights confused with civil rights.

Paul Howard Nicholas
Natural Light Information Service

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Normalizing Abnormal Behavior Posted by: popsicle67
» Not my house Posted by: pnsuitec
» RE: Not my house Posted by: lepidopteryx
marriage defined like it has since the dawn of time . . .
Posted by: l_double_e on Nov 1, 2008 11:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that's sounds great, sign me up. Because if you follow that, if marriage is defined by cultural terms as male/female as it has been culturally followed since the dawn of time, that means i can start getting married to as many women as i would like. Since polygamy has only been outlawed for less than a century, and we should follow marriage as it has been defined since the dawn of time, multiple wives has been the norm, with no age of consent, only puberty. (just kidding i am against all marriage, since it is not in our animalistic way to be tied down to one mate, just ask the current Republican presidential candidate, he loves adultery)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The dawn of time . . . Posted by: dudelette
Just take a look
Posted by: willymack on Nov 1, 2008 11:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At what a small, lunatic fringe minority can accomplish when they UNITE for a cause (sick as it might be)! Now just think about what a majority of Americans can accomplish if we vote for change, equality under the law, and a healing of our bitter divisions, originated by and constantly being stirred up by that same lunatic fringe. We simply can't these nuts to push us around and rule our thoughts. We've got to use our majority to put these roaches where they belong-under a rock.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's see ...
Posted by: inprov73 on Nov 1, 2008 12:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... since Western Civilization can trace its roots back to Ancient Greece - a culture that was tolerant of and even encouraging of homosexual relationships - I find it ironic that gay marriage in California is going to bring it all crashing down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do you really want the Mormons running your private life?
Posted by: dudelette on Nov 1, 2008 3:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They've already taken over the Boy Scouts, so I haven't let my sons join. I was looking forward to introducing them to scouting, since I was a Girl Scout, but I'll never do that now.

These are people who wear sacred underwear, marry and baptize the dead by proxy, believe that the leaders of their church are prophets with direct lines to God and must be obeyed unquestioningly, and believe that dark-skinned people were all cursed by God and that is how we tell them apart from the perfect white people. Some of their beliefs make Scientology seem mainstream.

No, thank you. I prefer not to drink the Kool-Aid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about polygamy and incest?
Posted by: pdixon on Nov 1, 2008 4:25 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can you defend same-sex marriage and still criminalize incest and polygamy?

If 2 brothers wish to marry, what laws apply?

The same question applies for bestiality. Same sex marriage is about discriminating on sexual orientation and preference, so it's hypocritical to criminalize any sexually deviant crime. Why can't someone marry their horse, if they have a fulfilling sexual relationship?

If we are being tolerant, then the FLDS should move on over to California.

Be careful what you wish for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What about polygamy and incest? Posted by: lepidopteryx
» Polygamy, yes. Incest, no. Posted by: hurricane hugo
Remember: This is a Civil Rights Issue!
Posted by: pollen8 on Nov 3, 2008 12:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's always so difficult to bear when the bigoted elite in these institutions play the fear card to exercise their political muscle. Fear of gays, fear of marriage failure, fear of family collapse... The issue is pretty clear, no matter how you slice it - It's a matter of equality under the constitution. Here's a video that reminds us what the CORE issue in all of this is:
Equality and Civil Rights Video

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Minors and the new definition of "marriage"
Posted by: hthalljr on Nov 3, 2008 9:27 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Redefining the term "marriage" has very broad consequences, affecting every law and policy about marriage. One immediate consequence in California is a new and legal path for recruiting minors into homosexual relationships. (California has no minimum age of marriageability.)
http://tinyurl.com/6o8r9p

All that a forty-year-old man requires in order to marry a sixteen-year-old boy is the consent of one parent or guardian (who can be a practicing homosexual), a visit to a "marriage counselor" (who can be a leader of a homosexual "religious" congregation), and an appearance before a superior court judge (who can also be a practicing homosexual.)
http://tinyurl.com/6yytn7

As California's startling new definition of marriage now stands, the judge would be forbidden to consider homosexuality as a reason to block the "marriage" of adult "Party A" to minor "Party B."

I don't know whether or not homosexual marriage to minors has already been attempted or not, but unless Proposition 8 is passed, it remains a legal - and thus a real - possibility.

Tracy Hall Jr
hthalljr'gmail'com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marriage not taught in schools
Posted by: mounttallac on Nov 5, 2008 10:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In schools I have attended in Ca. growing, up sex education focused on health related issues, emotional issues. From border to border marriage itself gay or otherwise was not taught in schools. Thanks to all who voted yes on 8, you actually voted to legally discrtiminate against and entire population of people. People I might add pay the same taxes you do. You all need to worry about your own failing hetero marriages and keep out of the hearts and souls of people you don't even know. You used children to lie about prop 8, and you use God to hide your hate. Don't think we don't see through it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement