Proposition 8 Spending Surpasses $73 Million
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) ― Spending for and against a ballot initiative that would outlaw same-sex marriage in California has surpassed $73 million, almost twice the total that was spent in the 24 states where similar measures were put to voters since 2004, campaign finance records show.
Opponents of Proposition 8 had a slight lead in contributions as of Monday, having raised $37.6 million. Supporters of the gay marriage ban had raised $35.8 million.
A little less than $33 million was spent on campaigns to pass or defeat gay marriage bans in the 24 states where they appeared on ballots in 2004, 2005 and 2006, according to the National Organization on Money in State Politics.
Full Article Here
Showing posts with label voter issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voter issues. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
LA Times Editorial on Prop 8 - Couldn't have said it better myself.
November 2, 2008
Clever magicians practice the art of misdirection -- distracting the eyes of the audience to something attention-grabbing but irrelevant so that no one notices what the magician is really doing. Look over at that fuchsia scarf, up this sleeve, at anything besides the actual trick.
The campaign promoting Proposition 8, which proposes to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, has masterfully misdirected its audience, California voters. Look at the first-graders in San Francisco, attending their lesbian teacher's wedding! Look at Catholic Charities, halting its adoption services in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal! Look at the church that lost its tax exemption over gay marriage! Look at anything except what Proposition 8 is actually about: a group of people who are trying to impose on the state their belief that homosexuality is immoral and that gays and lesbians are not entitled to be treated equally under the law.
Clever magicians practice the art of misdirection -- distracting the eyes of the audience to something attention-grabbing but irrelevant so that no one notices what the magician is really doing. Look over at that fuchsia scarf, up this sleeve, at anything besides the actual trick.
The campaign promoting Proposition 8, which proposes to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, has masterfully misdirected its audience, California voters. Look at the first-graders in San Francisco, attending their lesbian teacher's wedding! Look at Catholic Charities, halting its adoption services in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal! Look at the church that lost its tax exemption over gay marriage! Look at anything except what Proposition 8 is actually about: a group of people who are trying to impose on the state their belief that homosexuality is immoral and that gays and lesbians are not entitled to be treated equally under the law.
That truth would never sell in tolerant, live-and-let-live California, and so it has been hidden behind a series of misleading half-truths. Once the sleight of hand is revealed, though, the campaign's illusions fall away.
Take the story of Catholic Charities. The service arm of the Roman Catholic Church closed its adoption program in Massachusetts not because of the state's gay marriage law but because of a gay anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier. In fact, the charity had voluntarily placed older foster children in gay and lesbian households -- among those most willing to take hard-to-place children -- until the church hierarchy was alerted and demanded that adoptions conform to the church's religious teaching, which was in conflict with state law. The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not mention that the Mormon church's adoption arm in Massachusetts is still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and lesbian households.
How can this be? It's a matter of public accountability, not infringement on religion. Catholic Charities acted as a state contractor, receiving state and federal money to find homes for special-needs children who were wards of the state, and it faced the loss of public funding if it did not comply with the anti-discrimination law. In contrast, LDS (for Latter-day Saints) Family Services runs a private adoption service without public funding. Its work, and its ability to follow its religious teachings, have not been altered.
That San Francisco field trip? The children who attended the wedding had their parents' signed permission, as law requires. A year ago, with the same permission, they could have traveled to their teacher's domestic-partnership ceremony. Proposition 8 does not change the rules about what children are exposed to in school. The state Education Code does not allow schools to teach comprehensive sex education -- which includes instruction about marriage -- to children whose parents object.
Another "Yes on 8" canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings -- of any religion -- could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.
The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it's not public. The ruling does not affect churches' religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn't about a wedding ceremony.
Much has been made about same-sex marriage changing the traditional definition of marriage. But marriage has evolved for thousands of years, from polygamous structures in which brides were so much chattel to today's idealized love matches. In seeking to add a sentence to California's Constitution that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized," Proposition 8 supporters seek to enforce adherence to their own religious or personal definition. The traditional makeup of families has changed too, in ways that many religious people find immoral. Single parents raise their children; couples divorce and blend families. Yet same-sex marriage is the only departure from tradition that has been targeted for constitutional eradication.
Religions and their believers are free to define marriage as they please; they are free to consider homosexuality a sin. But they are not free to impose their definitions of morality on the state. Proposition 8 proponents know this, which is why they have misdirected the debate with highly colored illusions about homosexuals trying to take away the rights of religious Californians. Since May, when the state Supreme Court overturned a proposed ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, more than 16,000 devoted gay and lesbian couples have celebrated the creation of stable, loving households, of equal legal stature with other households. Their happiness in no way diminishes the rights or happiness of others.
Californians must cast a clear eye on Proposition 8's real intentions. It seeks to change the state Constitution in a rare and terrible way, to impose a single moral belief on everyone and to deprive a targeted group of people of civil rights that are now guaranteed. This is something that no Californian, of any religious belief, should accept. Vote no to the bigotry of Proposition 8.
Original Article Here
Take the story of Catholic Charities. The service arm of the Roman Catholic Church closed its adoption program in Massachusetts not because of the state's gay marriage law but because of a gay anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier. In fact, the charity had voluntarily placed older foster children in gay and lesbian households -- among those most willing to take hard-to-place children -- until the church hierarchy was alerted and demanded that adoptions conform to the church's religious teaching, which was in conflict with state law. The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not mention that the Mormon church's adoption arm in Massachusetts is still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and lesbian households.
How can this be? It's a matter of public accountability, not infringement on religion. Catholic Charities acted as a state contractor, receiving state and federal money to find homes for special-needs children who were wards of the state, and it faced the loss of public funding if it did not comply with the anti-discrimination law. In contrast, LDS (for Latter-day Saints) Family Services runs a private adoption service without public funding. Its work, and its ability to follow its religious teachings, have not been altered.
That San Francisco field trip? The children who attended the wedding had their parents' signed permission, as law requires. A year ago, with the same permission, they could have traveled to their teacher's domestic-partnership ceremony. Proposition 8 does not change the rules about what children are exposed to in school. The state Education Code does not allow schools to teach comprehensive sex education -- which includes instruction about marriage -- to children whose parents object.
Another "Yes on 8" canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings -- of any religion -- could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.
The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it's not public. The ruling does not affect churches' religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn't about a wedding ceremony.
Much has been made about same-sex marriage changing the traditional definition of marriage. But marriage has evolved for thousands of years, from polygamous structures in which brides were so much chattel to today's idealized love matches. In seeking to add a sentence to California's Constitution that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized," Proposition 8 supporters seek to enforce adherence to their own religious or personal definition. The traditional makeup of families has changed too, in ways that many religious people find immoral. Single parents raise their children; couples divorce and blend families. Yet same-sex marriage is the only departure from tradition that has been targeted for constitutional eradication.
Religions and their believers are free to define marriage as they please; they are free to consider homosexuality a sin. But they are not free to impose their definitions of morality on the state. Proposition 8 proponents know this, which is why they have misdirected the debate with highly colored illusions about homosexuals trying to take away the rights of religious Californians. Since May, when the state Supreme Court overturned a proposed ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, more than 16,000 devoted gay and lesbian couples have celebrated the creation of stable, loving households, of equal legal stature with other households. Their happiness in no way diminishes the rights or happiness of others.
Californians must cast a clear eye on Proposition 8's real intentions. It seeks to change the state Constitution in a rare and terrible way, to impose a single moral belief on everyone and to deprive a targeted group of people of civil rights that are now guaranteed. This is something that no Californian, of any religious belief, should accept. Vote no to the bigotry of Proposition 8.
Original Article Here
Dixville Notch: results are in!
Obama 71%
McCain 29%
So... Obama got 15 of 21 votes! Wooooo! LOL.
At this time I'm gonna make two predictions: Obama will win with over 350 electoral votes and 51% of the popular vote, and Prop 8 will NOT pass.
Those are my prognostications of hope, and of risk. I know Obama will win, and I know that the Prop 8 vote will be reasonably close. But I'm going out on a limb to predict that, yes, things are gonna go my way.
We'll see!
McCain 29%
So... Obama got 15 of 21 votes! Wooooo! LOL.
At this time I'm gonna make two predictions: Obama will win with over 350 electoral votes and 51% of the popular vote, and Prop 8 will NOT pass.
Those are my prognostications of hope, and of risk. I know Obama will win, and I know that the Prop 8 vote will be reasonably close. But I'm going out on a limb to predict that, yes, things are gonna go my way.
We'll see!
Friday, October 24, 2008
Notes on my Friday... regarding CA Prop 8 and AZ Prop 102
This all started because a friend of mine wrote that an organization in which her dad's involved was a big supporter of CA Prop 8, aiming to constitutionally ban gay marriage and take away the marriages that have already been performed there. It's an interesting series of points about how fairly minute differences in state civics can make huge differences in how rights are protected in different states... in particular, the differences between states with "direct-democratic" principles like initiative, referendum, and recall, and states that adhere to the original representative frameworks. I've put it in temporal order for legibility's sake.
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Erika
Date: Oct 24, 2008 1:00 PM
Well, yeah, KofC is a Catholic organization. So... most of the big opponents are affiliated with religion in some way. Nothing helps a community like keeping non-traditional families weak, you know! It's gross. I spent a whole day the other day looking at all the people and organizations who've donated directly. You can look at it here:
http://www. latimes. com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220. htmlstory
The good news is that in the last few weeks we've pulled even with them money-wise. The bad news is that a higher percentage of our support comes from outside CA, though that may not necessarily translate to fewer votes, it may be just weaker organization within CA. I fear that come election day I'll have a mixed bag and be so happy about President Obama and be so sad about this. It could still get shot down though... I really hope it does.
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: (my friend)
Date: Oct 24, 2008 5:40 PM
i guess i don't totally understand prop 8. i mean, isn't gay marriage legal in ca now? are they trying to reverse that? it's just crazy. i keep thinking about the non-traditional thing too... i want to propose a ban on gay marriage and add "and inter-racial "marriage," because the bible preaches slavery" to the bottom of it... then we can see how many people check their "values"
but anyway - it's good to see that the contributions are neck and neck even though there's all those corporate supporters. easy answer: stop recognizing marriage as a legal bond and they can keep marriage. i would rather have it legal though.
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Erika
Date: Oct 24, 2008 1:00 PM
Well, yeah, KofC is a Catholic organization. So... most of the big opponents are affiliated with religion in some way. Nothing helps a community like keeping non-traditional families weak, you know! It's gross. I spent a whole day the other day looking at all the people and organizations who've donated directly. You can look at it here:
http://www. latimes. com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220. htmlstory
The good news is that in the last few weeks we've pulled even with them money-wise. The bad news is that a higher percentage of our support comes from outside CA, though that may not necessarily translate to fewer votes, it may be just weaker organization within CA. I fear that come election day I'll have a mixed bag and be so happy about President Obama and be so sad about this. It could still get shot down though... I really hope it does.
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: (my friend)
Date: Oct 24, 2008 5:40 PM
i guess i don't totally understand prop 8. i mean, isn't gay marriage legal in ca now? are they trying to reverse that? it's just crazy. i keep thinking about the non-traditional thing too... i want to propose a ban on gay marriage and add "and inter-racial "marriage," because the bible preaches slavery" to the bottom of it... then we can see how many people check their "values"
but anyway - it's good to see that the contributions are neck and neck even though there's all those corporate supporters. easy answer: stop recognizing marriage as a legal bond and they can keep marriage. i would rather have it legal though.
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Erika
Date: Oct 24, 2008 6:38 PM
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Equality for ALL in California
If you support the right of ALL loving couples to marry, please consider visiting my fundraising page for the group Equality for All. Any small donation will help this group buy ads to inform the public about the importance of voting NO ON PROP 8- the supporters of Prop 8 are currently outspending us many times over and it seems this has turned public opinion in their favor. Please help, any small contribution could make a huge difference!
Erika's fundraising page: Equality for all CA
Erika's fundraising page: Equality for all CA
Monday, October 13, 2008
ACORN, what's the dealio? Part 2
Gotta say, I'm kind of sick of the alarmist reaction circulating over the ACORN issue. Admittedly, my own reaction was alarmist, albeit for two reasons: One, I've been heavily involved with ACORN over the years, and have a lot of sweat invested in that affiliation, both literally and figuratively. Two, I hadn't really done any research yet, just reacted to the story without digging deeper. Not like me to do that, but again, it hit me emotionally. Turns out, this concern arises pretty much every election cycle, and ACORN is required by law to turn in all forms they receive, even those that are obviously fakies.
The truth is, falsified voter registrations, icky though they may be, and whether or not they were flagged as bad forms by ACORN, as the evidence now suggests they were, just don't add up to voter fraud at the polls on November 4th.
Here's why:
Mickey Mouse, Ronald Reagan, and Troy Aikman just can't show up and vote a hundred times. Or even once, without ID and positive address verification. Even John Smith can't do that. Duh, people. The only possible political gain for a group like ACORN would be creating the appearance of an advantage in terms of Democratic registrations, and that would be assuming that the nice people at the recorder's office didn't bother to do their jobs and keep false reg's off the rolls. Basically, you don't get political mo from submitting more Dem reg's, you get it from having more Dems ON THE ROLLS.
"Hey, I'm Troy Aikman, and she's Ronald Reagan, and we're here to cast our ballots, please."
(Since you asked, Philipsburg, St. Maarten)
The truth is, falsified voter registrations, icky though they may be, and whether or not they were flagged as bad forms by ACORN, as the evidence now suggests they were, just don't add up to voter fraud at the polls on November 4th.
Here's why:
Mickey Mouse, Ronald Reagan, and Troy Aikman just can't show up and vote a hundred times. Or even once, without ID and positive address verification. Even John Smith can't do that. Duh, people. The only possible political gain for a group like ACORN would be creating the appearance of an advantage in terms of Democratic registrations, and that would be assuming that the nice people at the recorder's office didn't bother to do their jobs and keep false reg's off the rolls. Basically, you don't get political mo from submitting more Dem reg's, you get it from having more Dems ON THE ROLLS.
"Hey, I'm Troy Aikman, and she's Ronald Reagan, and we're here to cast our ballots, please."(Since you asked, Philipsburg, St. Maarten)
Friday, October 10, 2008
This is just gross, dude...
Michigan GOP Using Foreclosures To Block Black Voters | HuffPost
Because, you know, they were foreclosed on, so their addresses of record aren't good anymore.
Because, you know, they were foreclosed on, so their addresses of record aren't good anymore.
Update: ACORN, what's the dealio?
A discussion of the ACORN problem, thanks to RBC & Prof. Mark Kleiman
Acorn Defends Itself | RBC
Thanks, man. I feel better.
Acorn Defends Itself | RBC
Thanks, man. I feel better.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Angry-Making, Part II
Just gotta say, this is getting to be a kee-razy election in these last few weeks....
People are PO'd all over the place. Did you see these clips of the Repubs' rally today in Wisconsin, where the odds are now in Obama's favor?
Video selections from the rally DailyKos
Jeez, man, you'd think that the political ascent of a liberal was the end of the world. Oh, wait, I used to belong to the group that thought that was true, and that was over fifteen years ago. Looks like the rhetoric hasn't changed. Whatever.
I'm just a tad freaked out over the tone this all has taken on... fear and anger over the economy are gonna hike up the stakes for everyone on both sides, and open up opportunities to twist the hearts of the voter in either direction. Gross. Nobody wins when things are this keyed-up.
Speaking of being PO'd: Dammit, ACORN, WTF? I hope that it turns out that these apparent commissions of fraud are the work of rogue activists, and not something that the organization or the local offices condoned. Quite frankly, the allegations and investigations are becoming kind of widespread to be nothing more than isolated chicanery, but that could be panic or political backlash, or so I'd like to believe. Anyway the name of the organization may have been irreparably tarnished... I've been so proud of my long work with ACORN in new voter registration and rebuilding in New Orleans. Now what? Do I take those credentials off of my law school applications? Thanks for making the rest of us look like a bunch of dirty cheaters, whomever you may be, you schmucks.
People are PO'd all over the place. Did you see these clips of the Repubs' rally today in Wisconsin, where the odds are now in Obama's favor?
Video selections from the rally DailyKos
Jeez, man, you'd think that the political ascent of a liberal was the end of the world. Oh, wait, I used to belong to the group that thought that was true, and that was over fifteen years ago. Looks like the rhetoric hasn't changed. Whatever.
I'm just a tad freaked out over the tone this all has taken on... fear and anger over the economy are gonna hike up the stakes for everyone on both sides, and open up opportunities to twist the hearts of the voter in either direction. Gross. Nobody wins when things are this keyed-up.
Speaking of being PO'd: Dammit, ACORN, WTF? I hope that it turns out that these apparent commissions of fraud are the work of rogue activists, and not something that the organization or the local offices condoned. Quite frankly, the allegations and investigations are becoming kind of widespread to be nothing more than isolated chicanery, but that could be panic or political backlash, or so I'd like to believe. Anyway the name of the organization may have been irreparably tarnished... I've been so proud of my long work with ACORN in new voter registration and rebuilding in New Orleans. Now what? Do I take those credentials off of my law school applications? Thanks for making the rest of us look like a bunch of dirty cheaters, whomever you may be, you schmucks.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
