Yes, that Cindy McCain – wife of 2008 Republican presidential nominee U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. She posed for a photo as part of the NoH8 (”No hate,” get it?) campaign begun by photographer Adam Bouska and partner Jeff Parshley of North Hollywood to build public support against Proposition 8, the voter-approved California constitutional amendment now being challenged in a federal trial in San Francisco.
“The McCains are one of the most well-known Republican families in recent history, and for Mrs. McCain to have reached out to us to offer her support truly means a lot,” the NoH8 organizers wrote today on their Web site. “Although we had worked with Meghan McCain before and were aware of her own position, we’d never really thought the cause might be something her mother would get behind. We have a huge amount of respect for both of these women for being brave enough to make it known they support equal marriage rights for all Americans.”
This, a day after Republican San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders testified at the Prop. 8 trial about his own support of same-sex marriage.
When examining the changes in voter attitudes on these social issues by party, Californians’ greater acceptance of same-sex marriage over the past thirty years has come entirely from the ranks of registered Democrats and non-partisans rather than Republicans. Democratic voter views about allowing same-sex marriage have shifted from greater than two to one opposition in 1977 to greater than two to one support this year. Similarly, while a five to three majority of non-partisans opposed allowing same-sex couples to marry in 1977, they are now in support by a five to three margin.
Republicans, on the other hand, have not changed their views on this issue, and if anything, are now more opposed than they were thirty years ago. A nearly three to one majority of Republicans (68% to 23%) currently opposes allowing same-sex marriage in California. This is marginally greater than their 65% to 30% opposition found in a 1977 Field Poll.
Last night’s “This Week in Northern California” on KQED Channel 9 included a reporters’ roundtable in which Scott Shafer, host of KQED Public Radio’s “California Report” spoke about the Prop. 8 trial; I spoke about Tom Campbell’s switch from the GOP gubernatorial primary to the GOP U.S. Senate primary; and San Jose Mercury News environment writer Paul Rogers spoke about California’s largest-ever dam removal project.
Same-sex marriage advocates are trying to build public support for televising this month’s trial of the federal court challenge to Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment restricting marriage to heterosexuals.
Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco has the trial scheduled to begin next Monday, Jan. 11, and has allowed until Friday for submission of comments for and against televising the proceedings, according to the Courage Campaign.
“This case presents issues that are very important to the public, and will affect millions of people. However, if the case is not televised, only a tiny fraction will ever be able to watch the trial in person,” Courage Campaign Chairman Rick Jacobs said in a news release. “By televising the trial, the public will be able to see for themselves the arguments and evidence presented by both sides, and will therefore have more confidence in the outcome of the trial.”
Northern California’s federal courts never used to allow cameras in the courtroom, but are experimenting with televising civil trials under a pilot program approved last month by the Judicial Council of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Courage Campaign says Prop. 8’s supporters don’t want the trial televised; I’ve left messages with several spokespeople and attorneys, but haven’t heard back from them yet.
Your thoughts? Will this kind of transparency create better understanding of the issues, or create a media circus?
As I report in today’s article, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco has set a trial date for the federal constitutional challenge to Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage.
And in arguing for and against both, attorneys again highlighted some of the tactical rifts that have formed on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate.
An attorney for the Campaign for California Families argued that Prop. 8’s proponents, who’ve already successfully intervened as proponents in this case (as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and various state and county defendants basically have declined to defend the measure’s constitutionality), may generally share CCF’s opposition to same-sex marriage but are making too many concessions in trying to defend the ban.
Stipulating, or leaving room for a future stipulation, that gays and lesbians form committed relationships, contribute to society just as heterosexuals do, don’t suffer from a psychological illness or disorder, and shouldn’t be encouraged to try to change their sexual orientations are examples of how the proponents are ceding too much ground, she said, and could compromise CCF’s efforts not only to keep marriage exclusively heterosexual but also to repeal existing domestic partnership laws granting certain marriage-like rights to same-sex couples.
But a lawyer for Prop. 8’s proponents urged Walker to deny CCF’s motion to intervene, saying doing so would cause “experts to multiply like locusts” and bog down the case’s trial in “battles that can’t be won.”
On the other side, an ACLU attorney argued his coalition of clients should be allowed to intervene because of the broad range of detailed experience their members have with discrimination and the desire to marry.
But former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, representing the case’s plaintiffs – specific couples denied the right to marry – said that although he respects the coalition’s legal counsel and values their advice and support, letting them intervene could dilute his clients’ control of their legal strategy while complicating and slowing the case’s progress. In a recent brief, he’d noted that the Our Family Coalition had argued against this lawsuit in the first place, calling it a risky and premature gambit and preferring to pursue a new ballot measure to repeal Prop. 8.
A new poll finds support for same-sex marriage in California evenly split, and finds a ballot measure to overturn Proposition 8’s constitution ban would have a slight advantage in 2012 over 2010.
When asked, “Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose allowing same-sex couples to be legally married,” 47 percent say favor and 48 percent say oppose, according to the poll commissioned by a coalition of pro-same-sex-marriage groups. Support for any given ballot measure depends on the specific language of that measure, the survey found; for example, results show support increases if the language specifically includes a provision that says no clergy will be required to perform a service that goes against their faith.
Modeling turnout scenarios for 2010 and 2012 show a small advantage for same-sex marriage supporters in a 2012 electorate, based on a considerably higher turnout expected in 2012 due to the Presidential election. But the survey notes the added voters drawn to a presidential vote are divided in their views on same-sex marriage: younger voters tend to support it, but older white, black and Latino religious voters would somewhat cancel them out. Overall, the survey projects same-sex marriage supporters would have a 1- to 2-percentage point advantage in 2012 over 2010.
Of course, that also could be influenced by other ballot measures that could affect 2010’s voter turnout and composition, as well as by top-of-the-ticket concerns: The Democratic gubernatorial nominee in 2010 is likely to be a same-sex marriage advocate, while it’s unclear what stance President Barack Obama would take during his presumed 2012 re-election campaign.
The poll, conducted by Goodwin Simon Victoria Research and David Binder Research, surveyed 1,794 California voters – 1,000 randomly selected voters who took part in last November’s election or have registered since then, plus oversamples with blacks, Latinos, Asian/Pacific Islanders and union members – between May 8 and May 15. Coalition members said they chose to do the survey before the Supreme Court issued its May 26 ruling to uphold Proposition 8 so that the results would reflect a “resting pulse” of the electorate, free of emotions riled by the ruling.
Tuesday’s California Supreme Court decision upholding Proposition 8, the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, continues to resonate through this weekend.
Peace Lutheran Church (at 3201 Camino Tassajara in Danville) in partnership with the Bay Area Coalition of Welcoming Congregations and California Faith for Equality will host an interfaith gathering at 7 p.m. Friday as an opportunity “for GLBTQ people, friends and allies to express our collective grief and anger, and then through prayer and healing ritual begin to transform our pain to hopeful determination, re-committing ourselves to the work that lies ahead.”
Although the event isn’t about the Supreme Court ruling per se, it’s sure to be a top topic of conversation as the National Center for Lesbian Rights – which had argued on behalf of plaintiffs seeking to overturn Proposition 8 – holds a fundraiser to mark its 32nd anniversary at 8 p.m. Saturday in the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, 700 Howard St. This is a costly one, with tickets ranging from $90 to $1,500; RSVP through NCLR’s Web site.
Of course, the biggest to-do this weekend will be the “Meet in the Middle 4 Equality” march and rally Saturday in Fresno, at which activists from all over the state will gather; Bay Area folks will be riding the “Equality Train” – a.k.a. Amtrak – or doing rideshares or hopping buses to get there.
If anyone knows of any other pro- or anti-Proposition 8 events this weekend, please share them in the comments section.
Lots of quotable quotes from near and far on today’s California Supreme Court ruling upholding the validity of Proposition 8, the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but allowing last year’s 18,000 same-sex marriages to stand.
“The truth is, the anti-marriage crowd is fighting a cause that is already lost. The arc of history bends toward justice and we will see justice for same sex couples in California and in the nation. It may not be as soon as we want – progress in civil rights never is. But despite this ruling, we will continue to fight for equality under the law for all Californians, and we will achieve it.”
“In America, we respect the results of fair elections. The California Supreme Court arrived at the only correct conclusion available: the people of California have a fundamental right to amend their own constitution. This is the second time California has voted to protect marriage. Once again, when marriage goes before the voters, they affirm that marriage means one man and one woman. All 30 states that have voted on whether to affirm marriage as one man and one woman in their state constitutions have done so.
“By allowing the previously-issued same-sex ‘marriage’ licenses to remain valid, the court is perpetuating the problem that it itself created. And it’s doing this despite the clear vote of the people that marriage means one man and one woman and that anything outside of that is not marriage.”
Equality California is rolling out a big grassroots organizing and media campaign called “Win Marriage Back: Make it Real!” aimed at moving public opinion toward acceptance of same-sex marriage.
The first television ads, featuring LGBT couples talking about why marriage matters to them, will hit the airwaves Monday; EQCA executive director Geoff Kors told reporters on a conference call just now that it’s a “significant” statewide ad buy, though he wouldn’t give specific dollar amounts and markets lest he tip the campaign’s hand to same-sex marriage opponents.
But it’s not all about ads. EQCA marriage director Marc Solomon said that in the next 100 days, his group intends to deploy 25 full-time field organizers across California to provide support to thousands of grass-roots activists conducting a door-knocking public education campaign; they’re looking to train 100,000 “equality ambassadors” to spread the word.
And EQCA coalition coordinator Andrea Shorter said they intend to identify and recruit a coalition of at least 1,000 clergy members to talk with their congregations and peers about marriage equality.
“We’re not preaching to the choir – we want to have a broad-based representation of all faith traditions,” she said, not just the progressive “welcoming congregations” already on board with same-sex marriage. They’ll be looking among Baptists, Methodists, Catholics and, yes, even Mormons for clergy and congregants “who are standing up to what they’ve been told about marriage equality and are saying, ‘No.’”
My story on this morning’s three hours of arguments to the California Supreme Court should be hitting the site imminently, but while it’s being edited, a few less-germaine-yet-colorful observations:
1.) Kenneth Starr was wearing a pink tie. Coincidence or stagecraft?
2.) Several of us wondered what Starr and attorney Gloria Allred were laughing and chatting about before the arguments began — how best to get and stay in front of a television camera?
3.) The court heard these arguments one day after its 159th anniversary.
4.) People began lining up for the courtroom’s few available public seats as early as 4 a.m.; three sets of 20 cycled through, each listening to an hour of the arguments.
5.) The state constitution says the court’s clerk can withhold the justices’ pay if they don’t issue a ruling within 90 days; he said that’s never been a problem.
And from outside the courtroom, some of the more imaginative or incendiary signs people held aloft:
As expected, I’ve received a lot of phone messages and e-mails about the story I had in Sunday’s editions about this week’s California Supreme Court arguments over Proposition 8. Sorry for the delayed response; I was out of the office on unpaid furlough yesterday, so chalk my silence up to the newspaper industry’s slow death-spiral. And while I don’t have time today to call or write back to each individual commenter, I thought I should address it collectively here.
First, a reiteration of something I noted in the article. I called and/or e-mailed more than a dozen East Bay donors to, or former public supporters of, Proposition 8; none would consent to be interviewed for this story. I also gave the Yes on 8 campaign more than a week to find me such a person in Alameda or Contra Costa counties; they also couldn’t find anyone to go on the record with me. I summarized the Yes on 8 side’s arguments based on the briefs so as not to leave that side unrepresented.
To those of you who saw fit to send me e-mails or leave me voice messages on your personal views, or the Bible’s views, about the morality of homosexuality: I don’t care. That is, you’re entitled to your opinion, but that’s not what this debate is about. The Bible is not the controlling legal foundation of this state; the California Constitution is, and this case is about how and when we make changes to that document.
One woman said she voted for Proposition 8 not because she has anything against gay people or same-sex marriage, but because she feared what allowing same-sex marriage would mean for public schools and churches. I’m not sure I understand that argument – you don’t have a problem with it, but you believe children must be shielded from it? As I blogged last year, public schools teach the law of the land; if the law of the land says gay people have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples, that’s what schools will teach (assuming they teach anything at all about any kind of marriage). As for churches, there’s no indication they’d be compelled to solemnize same-sex marriages any more than a Catholic church is currently required to hold a wedding Mass for a Jewish couple. Churches always have had choice in the rites they perform; that wasn’t going to change.
If you wrote or voice-mailed me with concerns about when the majority does and doesn’t rule, or about the judiciary’s role in interpreting constitutional rights – congratulations, you get what this week’s case is all about.
And to all of you, thanks for taking the time to read and comment on my work.
Yes, that Cindy McCain – wife of 2008 Republican presidential nominee U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. She posed for a photo as part of the NoH8 (”No hate,” get it?) campaign begun by photographer Adam Bouska and partner Jeff Parshley of North Hollywood to build public support against Proposition 8, the voter-approved California constitutional amendment now being challenged in a federal trial in San Francisco.