10/07/2008
Shift By Young Voters Gives Gay Marriage Ban an Edge in California
A new CBS poll by SurveyUSA has opponents of Proposition 8, the measure that would ban same-sex marriage in the state, understandably concerned:
"According to the poll, likely California voters overall now favor passage of Proposition 8 by a five-point margin, 47 percent to 42 percent. Ironically, a CBS 5 poll eleven days prior found a five-point margin in favor of the measure's opponents. The only demographic group to significantly change their views during this period were younger voters — considered the hardest to poll and the most unpredictable voters — who now support the measure after previously opposing it. It should be noted that the poll, conducted statewide Oct. 4 and 5 among 670 likely voters, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percent, and the pollster continued to label the race too close to call — just as it did eleven days ago."
As I mentioned last week, supporters of the anti-gay measure recently began hitting airwaves with an ad featuring San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom celebrating the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the state.
Watch it again, AFTER THE JUMP...
No on Prop 8 [official site]
Posted 9:39 AM EST by Andy Towle in California, Gay Marriage, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
>>I would consider your blog greatly improved if THE QUEEN's comments were removed as soon as they were posted...
Posted by: peterparker | Oct 7, 2008 11:32:26 AM
Or you could just ignore them, hon. Grow up and realize that people have different opinions than you do and can't bully people into thinking the same as you.
Now stick that in your peenut butter and smoke it, hon.
Posted by: LightningLord | Oct 7, 2008 8:08:17 PM
>>@DAN...yes, it is a solution when the poster has consistently shown in every post that they are nothing more than a Republican troll attempting to persuade towleroad readers to vote against themselves.
Um, so you think other towleroad readers are easily manipulated by anonymous internet comments - but you're not.
Wow.
Posted by: LightningLord | Oct 7, 2008 8:10:55 PM
FYI - Obama has come out in support of the NO on 8 camp.
Posted by: Tralfaz | Oct 7, 2008 8:19:05 PM
I was at the doctor's office yesterday and they had Oprah on during which the Yes on 8 ad ran and an older woman audibly gasped when the ad mentioned that gay marriage in California will result in churches losing their tax exempt status. She followed up her gasp by muttering, that's horrible that they trying to tell churches what to believe.
I calmly stated to her and others in the waiting room who would listen that tax-exempt status is a Federal designation whereas this is a State issue and the latter would have no bearing on the former. I also told her that it's not about forcing churches to do anything they don't want to, but it's about forcing the government to recognize marriages that are performed by civil servents and by churches who do allow same-sex marriage. She just nodded and didn't say anything and almost immediately after that I was called back to the doctor.
I don't know if anybody heard anything I said, but it's SO important to note that the Yes on 8 commercial's lies are getting through to people through fear. (As usual.)
The No on 8 org needs to recognize this and air new commercials that illustrate this distinction - and FAST.
Posted by: Rey | Oct 7, 2008 10:04:08 PM
I was at the doctor's office yesterday and they had Oprah on during which the Yes on 8 ad ran and an older woman audibly gasped when the ad mentioned that gay marriage in California will result in churches losing their tax exempt status. She followed up her gasp by muttering, that's horrible that they trying to tell churches what to believe.
I calmly stated to her and others in the waiting room who would listen that tax-exempt status is a Federal designation whereas this is a State issue and the latter would have no bearing on the former. I also told her that it's not about forcing churches to do anything they don't want to, but it's about forcing the government to recognize marriages that are performed by civil servents and by churches who do allow same-sex marriage. She just nodded and didn't say anything and almost immediately after that I was called back to the doctor.
I don't know if anybody heard anything I said, but it's SO important to note that the Yes on 8 commercial's lies are getting through to people through fear. (As usual.)
The No on 8 org needs to recognize this and air new commercials that illustrate this distinction - and FAST.
Posted by: Rey | Oct 7, 2008 10:04:37 PM
I'm gay but I can't understand why do gays need the marriage garbage.Civil unions that guarantees the rights to both parties should be enough.Leave the stupid marriage thing to straights. Why do we have to be like "them"?.Let them have their marriage "name" and lets concentrate on securing our rights to inheritance,equality under the law,etc...without calling it marriage.It is the rights what is important not the name.Just like Shakespeare said "a rose under any other name still smells as sweet".
Posted by: Oscar | Oct 8, 2008 12:33:06 AM
OSCAR, well said. Gay 'marriage' has been the worst issue pushed by the gay rights movement. And it came at such a horrible time.
Posted by: nikko | Oct 8, 2008 1:34:30 AM
to Leland Frances: I assume you mean Sir Elton John by Elton.
He is British national and for that reason excluded to financially support US or Californian campaigns.
Posted by: Alex from Germany | Oct 8, 2008 4:18:18 AM
OSCAR and NIKKO...the reason marriage is important is that it is the only union that is "portable" from city to city and state to state. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are valid only in the state or city in which they are created. Once a couple leaves the state or city in which their civil union/domestic partnership was created, they are strangers to each other in the eyes of the law and have none of the rights created by their civil union/domestic partnership. Married couples, on the other hand, retain their legal status as a couple, and all the rights that accompany it, no matter where they travel.
Posted by: peterparker | Oct 8, 2008 4:23:27 AM
^5 Leland, Agree with you completely about the deafening silence, in terms of financial support, of the Hollywood--especially gay Hollywood--community. Many of us have given out of our need, while the entertainment world elite have not given our of their surplus. Alex, you are sadly misinformed ("dead wrong") about the legal ability of Mr. John, et al., to provide financial support to defeat Prop. 8.
^5 Zeke, Hardly surprising that I am in full agreement with, and admiration for, you, Bud. Thanks for your efforts; do not lose hope. I believe that we will win in California, but probably not in AZ or FL. Winning in California, however, would provide a basis for challenging discriminatory laws in other jurisdictions, as was the process in the anti-miscegenation laws, see Loving v. Virginia.
^5 PeterParker, Exactly so. This campaign is among the worst managed I have seen in thirty years of political activism. The creativity and passion of our gay brethren is nowhere evident in this pathetically mismanaged campaign.
Building on PeterParker's comments:
The reason that marriage qua 'marriage' is important, indeed fundamental to our rights as full citizens who happen to be gay, is found in the common law principle of "comity". Comity is a legal doctrine that accords respect in a "foreign" jurisdiction (e.g., New York) to the judgments, rights, and privileges, drawn and recognized in another jurisdiction (e.g., Massachusetts). This principle has been particularly important in setting precedent in Family Law (see especally, marriage, divorce, custody). To do otherwise would be to create a patchwork of inconsistent laws, rulings, and status. Comity obviates the need for bilateral treaties among the states (and foreign governments). Put simply, comity impells a state to treat the citizens of another state as they are treated in their home state. That is, if a couple is legally married in one state, then the couple is married in all. Voting down Prop 8 in California would afford a legal basis for challenging the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, in that it stands in direct contradiction to the long-held principle of comity.
Moreover, the equal protection clauses found in all state and the federal Constitution prohibit government discrimination among discernable "classes" (i.e., status) of citizens in recognizing basic human rights such as marriage. (As held the by California Supreme Court.)
Nomenclature, in this matter "marriage," is thus important (see, e.g., New Jersey which afforded all the "rights and privileges" of 'marriage' without the term itself, but has recognized that separate is not equal in implementation) because it encapsulates the legal doctrine that all states will respect the legal judgment that a same-sex couple legally married in California does not lose all the rights and privileges that pertain thereto simply by travelling to a foreign (different) state.
Sorry about the length of this comment. It is simultaneously too long, yet too short, to convey the legal importance of "marriage" for same sex couples. Carry on my brothers and sisters: talk to people, donate money, please do whatever and all that you can to protect our rights as full citizens, whether you choose to exercise them or not.
Posted by: rudy | Oct 8, 2008 8:05:57 AM
We currently have an absurd patchwork of different laws in different states. Marriage is important because it is transportable IN THEORY, but practice means that it is only transportable to states that recognize out of state same-sex marriages, like New York.
If we had civil unions Federally, across all states (as the Obama campaign supports), I would have much less interest in gaining the status "marriage." Real benefits would be good. Symbolism is good too, of course, but the benefits are much more important.
Re Ellen: given that she has been promoting marriage on Extra, Letterman, etc., essentially giving FREE ADVERTISING to the marriage cause by a person sympathetic to most Americans, why should she also give money that would buy ads that might be LESS EFFECTIVE than her own appearances? Can we put a dollar value on her "ads"? Wouldn't that be more than her contributions would buy? I don't get it. Would you rather she not mention it but give $$?
As to the others in Hollywood, unless they're doing something, go for 'em.
Posted by: Kevinvt | Oct 8, 2008 9:29:20 AM
KevinVt, It is precisely because we "currently have an absurd patchwork of different laws in different states" that it is critical that the right to civil marriage be upheld in California by defeating Prop 8. We are never going to get "civil unions Federally" because marriage is a state licensing issue governed by state laws, which are only rationalized nationally through comity. See, e.g., the patchwork of laws regarding divorce in the 1940-60s (quickie "Nevada divorces" granted to non-residents were initially not recognized in the home states). See also, custody orders (those rendered in one state were often reversed in another state, initially.)
The Federal government cannot impose civil unions just as it cannot impose same sex marriage. In contrast, the Federal government can force states to recognize the judgments of other states within the union. See, e.g., the history of anti-miscegenation laws ((finally defeated at the federal (national) level following repeal at the state level, id. California)). Among other reasons that the Federal government can justifiably intervene where there exists a patchwork of inconsistent laws, is to discourage "forum shopping" because of the negative effects on interstate commerce.
I realize that you must not be an attorney, and therefore unaware of the effects and process of judicial precedent; nevertheless, you would be more convincing if you did not substitute random capitalization for analysis in stating your personal opnions.
Posted by: rudy | Oct 8, 2008 10:12:54 AM
Random? Hardly. It was for emphasis, since there's no way to italicize or underline and I hate the _alternatives_.
I find it odd that you can't see beyond your animosity that I am making the same argument you are when I say it would be nice if same-sex marriages were transportable in more than theory.
I'm not an attorney, but I am hardly unaware of the effects and process of judicial precedent. Obviously the Federal Government cannot "impose" civil unions. But it can end DOMA and recognize the status of CUs from states like VT as equivalent to marriage, which is how it's defined in the state law, for Federal purposes like taxes, inheritance, immigration, social security, etc.
Believe me, I made the argument for marriage in Vermont on pretty much exactly the grounds you describe. But now that we and several other states have CUs, it is unclear what will happen to those in other jurisdictions, or when we go to full marriage.
Posted by: Kevinvt | Oct 8, 2008 11:56:46 AM
"Nice" KevinVT? Having the basic human right to marry whom we gay men love is significantly more important than being merely "nice". It is a matter of basic human rights and the path to achieve it is through constitutional jurisprudence (law and procedure).
The legal procedure to make same-sex marriages "transportable" [sic] is to invoke the principle of comity, as I explained. Similarly, I addressed the repeal of DOMA in my initial post; i.e., voting down Prop 8 would afford a legally sustainable basis for challenging DOMA. Moreover, it is precisely to bring clarity to the status of CUs in foreign jusrisdictions that it is critical that Prop 8 be voted down in California. Although I am sure that you are aware, however it bears noting, that VT is not California or Florida, or even Arizona, in terms of political strength and societal persuasion.
If I exhibit any "animosity" it is directed toward the effort to take away marriage rights that were found to already exist in the Constitution of the State of California. I was merely attempting to bring the perspective of legal analysis to this discussion because, per force, the matter will ultimately be decided in the courts. The courts will undoubtedly invoke the judicial principle of comity as they did in the string of similar family law cases to which I cited in my previous comment.
It is unfortuante that your feelings appear to be hurt; that was not my intent. I apologize if you misconstrued my post. Please attribute my comment on capitalization not as a personal criticism but, rather, to having taught perhaps too many legal research and writing courses and graded too many law exams in my life. It is "not for nothing" that my students applied the sobriquet "Rhetoric/Grammar Vulture" to me. I may be naive--at my age that would be a tragedy--but I believed their assertion that it was a carinito (as we say in Spanish). (I share your frustration with the inability to add gramatical symbols, such as the tilde over the 'n' and the italics for the foreign word.)
Posted by: rudy | Oct 8, 2008 12:57:00 PM