All out fight to save gay marriage in California
31st October 2008
The campaigns for and against a ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage in California were clamoring this week to win the support of a small group of undecided voters that could decide the measure’s fate on Election Day.
The fight over the measure, known as Proposition 8, is being watched by activists around the country as a watershed in the fight for gay marriage. Earlier this year, California became the second and largest state to allow gay couples to marry. Proposition 8 attempts to turn back that milestone.
If voters defeat the attempt to again ban gay marriage, activists say it could help the cause of marriage equality around the country. Should the measure pass, overturning gay marriage in California, it would be a major setback for gay issues.
To reach undecided voters through television ads, the “No on 8” campaign called for continued donations to help keep up with funding for the “Yes on 8” campaign.
While “No on 8” last month began appealing to opponents of the ban for more donations to match funding raised by the other side, the “No on 8” campaign has now apparently taken the lead in raising money.
As of Monday, those working against the ban had raised a few million dollars more than their rivals, according to numbers from the Los Angeles Times. The “No on 8” campaign had received about $32.7 million, while the “Yes on 8” campaign had about $28.2 million.
During a conference call Oct. 24, Neil Giuliano, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, said “every penny will be spent” in donations to the “No on 8” campaign.
“We need people to contribute — there’s media that still needs to be bought for important markets within California,” he said. “This election is going to be won or lost on Election Day and that means having the resources to do everything you need to do in that last 24 to 36 hours before the election.”
Matt Cole, director of the gay rights project for the American Civil Liberties Union, said on the call that “the polls are all over the place” for the amendment, known as Proposition 8.
While about 40 percent of California residents were solidly against the amendment and another 40 percent were solidly favoring it, remaining voters respond differently to the issue at different moments.
A survey published Oct. 22 by the Public Policy Institute of California found that the amendment is losing among likely voters, with 52 percent opposing the measure and 44 percent supporting it.
But an Oct. 17 poll by SurveyUSA found Proposition 8 leading among California residents, 48-45. The poll’s authors noted that the measure’s three-point lead was within the margin of error and the findings should be interpreted as a statistical tie.
Cole said “No on 8” was trying to win over undecided voters with TV ads refuting accusations that the failure of Proposition 8 would mean same-sex marriage would have to be taught in public schools.
Additionally, “No on 8” was telling California voters that no matter their position on same-sex marriage, no one should have their rights taken away or suffer discrimination, Cole said.
FLA. FIGHT
While California’s Proposition 8 was the top issue for many gay activists, other states are facing gay-related Election Day votes.
Florida voters will vote on an amendment that would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage and civil unions. Gay nuptials are already outlawed by Florida state statute.
An Orlando Sentinel poll published Oct. 23 found that 56 percent of likely voters in Florida were supporting the measure, known as Amendment 2, while 37 percent oppose it.
The remaining seven percent of voters were to decide whether the amendment meets the 60 percent threshold of approval needed for the proposed amendment to become part of the state constitution.
Supporters of Amendment 2 were arguing that the failure of Florida’s amendment “could result in the indoctrination of schoolchildren into a gay lifestyle,” according to an Oct. 22 article in the Palm Beach Post.
Nadine Smith, a co-chair of the “Vote No on 2” committee, called the approach a “recycled argument” from opponents of gay nuptials in other states and said she doesn’t think most people would buy it.
“The good news is when people understand what this amendment actually does — that it strips away essential domestic partner benefits from all unmarried couples, gay and straight — they choose to vote ‘no,’” she said.
According to the Florida Division of Elections web site, the Florida4Marriage committee has dedicated about $1 million in favor of the amendment, while the Florida Red & Blue committee has allocated about $3.3 million to fight the measure.
But Smith said proponents of the ban might have used money they didn’t disclose.
She noted that Florida Red & Blue filed a complaint Oct. 21 with the Florida Election Commission, alleging that money was funneled from Florida Family Action — a non-profit organization not required to disclose its donations — to fund the TV ads favoring the amendment.
Florida Family Action did not respond to a request for comment.
ARIZ. AGAIN
Voters in Arizona also were to decide on Election Day the fate of another marriage amendment, known as Proposition 102.
If approved, the amendment would prohibit same-sex marriage in the state. Arizona voters narrowly rejected a similar amendment in 2006 that was broader and would have affected benefits for unmarried straight couples. The amendment on the ballot this fall was geared toward simply prohibiting same-sex marriage.
A Cronkite/Eight poll published Sept. 30 found that 49 percent of Arizona residents favor the amendment while 42 percent oppose it. Nine percent were undecided.
Arizona State Del. Kyrsten Sinema (D), who serves chair of the campaign to defeat the amendment, said the “No on 102” campaign was “happy to see” that a majority of Arizona residents did not favor the amendment.
“We think it’s really important to win California and Florida and Arizona this year,” she said. “It would send a clear message to the radical right and to the Mormon church that what they’re doing is not appropriate and that the American people are not going to stand for it.”
ARK. ADOPTION
Meanwhile, a call to think of the children was having a beneficial effect for opponents of an anti-gay amendment in Arkansas.
Arkansas voters on Election Day will decide the fate of a measure that would prevent unmarried cohabiting couples from adopting. The initiative, known as Proposed Initiated Act 1, was seen as an effort to prevent gay couples from adopting children in the state.
The initiative is a proposed state statute and would not be part of the Arkansas Constitution. The Arkansas Family Council last year tried to pass the measure through the Arkansas General Assembly, but failed.
Arkansas Families First, the group fighting the amendment, was airing a television ad featuring children and former foster children who say that thousands of children in Arkansas live in group homes and Act 1 would “make it harder” for potential parents to adopt these children.
Debbie Willhite, the lead consultant for Arkansas Families First, said her organization had an aggressive campaign from the beginning and just “in the last few weeks been able to get enough money together to go on the air.”
“Our message has been very simple - this act would deny children most in need every possible option they might have for a family and people that would care for them,” she said.
Source: Southern Voice