GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Mormons Trying To Influence Ballot Measures in Western States (AZ,CO,CA,NV)

The Mormon Church notoriously (and somewhat disastrously) got involved with a California ballot measure in 2008 called Proposition 8 that purported to amend the United States California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage that was eventually struck down in a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision on June 26, 2013. has decided that it didn't learn its lesson 8 years ago and is getting involved in opposing a series of ballot measures involving social issues in various West Coast states.

The Deseret News reports:

The LDS Church's First Presidency is asking the faith's members in four western states to oppose bills that would legalize doctor-assisted suicide and recreational marijuana use.
Church President Thomas S. Monson and his counselors sent a letter Wednesday to Mormons in Colorado, where Proposition 106 would legalize physician-assisted suicide. 

"We urge church members to let their voices be heard in opposition to measures that would legalize physician-assisted suicide," said the letter signed by President Monson, President Henry B. Eyring and President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, who make up the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

They sent a similar letter Wednesday to Mormons in Arizona, California and Nevada about marijuana legislation.
"We urge church members to let their voices be heard in opposition to the legalization of recreational marijuana use," the letter said.

The Mormon Church does not get involved in political issues very often (which is one reason their involvement in the Proposition 8 fight over same-sex marriage was so striking) so it is noteworthy that they are urging their adherents in California, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada to follow the Church's leadership instead of voting their conscience in these particular matters. It's also interesting that the LDS Church did not weigh in on Proposition 62 (abolish death penalty) and Proposition 66 (maintain death penalty) in California.

POLL: Virginia Voters Oppose 2006 Same-Sex Marriage Ban

A new poll indicates that Virginia's ban on marriage equality, enacted by voters in 2006, would not survive if voters could vote again on the measure in next month's election. 56 percent of Virginia voters say they oppose the state's same-sex marriage ban while 36 percent say they favor it.

Although voters will not be able to vote to impact marriage equality any time soon, there are two pending marriage lawsuits in federal court in Virginia, one that includes the participation of the very high profile duo of Ted Olson and David Boies who successfully sued to have  California's voter-approved same-sex marriage ban invalidated in federal court.

Last-Ditch Motion To Stop CA Marriage Equality Denied By SCOTUS

A desperate (and frankly frivolous) motion to (again) stop same-sex couples from marrying in California and resuscitate Proposition 8 that was filed by the heterosexual supremacists at ProtectMarriage.com on Saturday was denied without comment by Justice Anthony Kennedy a little after noon on Sunday. Kennedy, who wrote the 5-4 majority in the pro-gay marriage decision striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act United States v. Windsor was actually in the minority of Justices in the 5-4 Hollingsworth v. Perry  majority deciding the fate of Proposition 8. Perry effectively ended California's state constitutional same-sex marriage ban from 2008 by denying the Proposition 8 proponents legal standing to continue their appeal of Vaughn Walker's 2010 ruling declaring the measure violated  the federal constitution.

SCOTUS blog reports the delightful news of the final nail being hammered in Proposition 8's coffin:

Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court had ruled that the measure’s backers did not have a legal right to defend the measure in either the Supreme Court or, earlier, in the Ninth Circuit Court. While the Supreme Court considered that case, the 2010 decision by a federal judge in San Francisco striking down “Proposition 8″ had been on hold. It was that hold (or “stay”) that the three-judge Circuit Court panel lifted on Friday. Very soon after that, gay and lesbian couples started getting married in ceremonies across the state. Thousands of such couples have now obtained marriage licenses from officials in the state.

Since Justice Kennedy offered no explanation for denying an application claiming that the Ninth Circuit panel had no authority to lift its stay, there is no way to know what legal rationale he had used. It could have been that the sponsors of the measure lacked a legal right to pursue their challenge further, that even if they had such a right it was without legal merit, that the lower court did have the authority to decide for itself when to lift the stay, or perhaps that events had just moved too rapidly in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that it would be inappropriate to try to roll them back.

Although attorneys for the ballot measure’s sponsors have been creative in finding new ways to try to press the challenge, the brief action by Kennedy on Sunday may have removed the final barrier to the full achievement of marriage rights for gays and lesbians in the nation’s most populous state. California is the thirteenth state where same-sex marriages can occur now, or soon, when new laws in a few of the states take effect this summer. The District of Columbia also allows such marriages.

The Hollingsworth v. Perry case (which began as Perry v. Schwarznegger)  is finally over. Proposition 8 is dead. The bittersweet feeling from election night on 2008 (Obama wins! Marriage Equality loses!) is now dissipated. The kultukampf is finished in California and the forces of "equal justice under law" have won this battle.

 But the culture war goes on in the country because there are 37 states which do not have marriage equality, and the vast majority of those states (exactly thirty, according to Wikipedia)  have explicit state constitutional bans on recognizing or enacting same-sex civil marriages. New Mexico and New Jersey are the only two states, I believe, that have neither laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages. I guess there must be five states which only have statutes banning same-sex marriages (according to Freedom to Marry, these five are Illlinois, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia and Wyoming).

In fact, New Jersey currently has a civil unions law, and Lambda Legal announced it is refiling a case there, opening up the famous Lewis v Harris New Jersey State Supreme course case which ruled that the legislature had to offer all the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples as it does to different-sex couples. With the addition of federal benefits to same-sex married couples, no state that purports to claim that a civil union meet the Lewis v. Harris (and 1999's Baker v. Vermont) standard has a legal leg to stand on.

In New Mexico, which also does not have any law banning same-sex marriages, the question of whether county clerks have the right to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is being asked directly of the state Supreme Court. The Court has not decided whether it will take the case, and the state Legislature has repeatedly refused to pass legislation enacting marriage equality of even domestic partnerships.

And of course, in 29 states you can be fired (without a state-based legal recourse) if your employer merely thinks that you might be gay, lesbian or bisexual. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would make it illegal as a measure of federal law for that to be the case.

POLL: Support for Marriage in California At 55%

A new poll commissioned by Equality California from David Binder Research indicates that support for marriage equality in California is a majority position, with the number of people who strongly support equal civil marriage rights for same-sex couples outnumbering opponents for the first time, 42% to 31%. Overall, 55% of California voters respond positively (support marriage equality) while 37% respond unfavorable (oppose marriage equality) to the query: "Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose allowing same sex couples to be legally married?” This number is lower than the 61% support for marriage equality found by the Field Poll about 3 months ago prior to the Supreme Court oral arguments in the Hollingsworth v Perry case which will determine the federal constitutionality of California's Proposition 8.

Some key findings from the DBR polling memo on marriage are:

• Over the past four years, support for same sex marriage increased by 8, from 47% to 55%. At the same time, opposition dropped by 12, from 49% to 37%. This resulted in an increase in net support of +20.
  
• 
  Gains in support are greatest among Republicans (+12), middle aged voters (+13 for 30 to 44 year olds and +17 for 45 to 64 year olds), African Americans (+14), and those who know a gay or lesbian personally (+10). 
  
  Those who know gays or lesbians are significantly more likely to support same sex marriage. Those who know a gay or lesbian person are 62% supportive and only 32% opposed. Those that do not know anyone who is gay or lesbian are 36% supportive and 53% opposed. 
  

It will be interesting to see how this new data influences the discussion after the Supreme Court ruling comes out in the next 3-4 weeks.

Black Voter Turnout Won 2012 Election For Obama

A new report analyzing voter turnout in 2012 confirms that well-publicized efforts by Republicans to suppress voting by minorities (a.k.a. the GOP War on Voting) resulted in record Black turnout, handing the election to President Obama even though overall voter turnout was down over 2008 (and 2004). In fact, the most dramatic finding in the report is that turnout by Black voters surpassed turnout by White voters for the first time ever. For the second presidential election in a row, the Black percentage of the presidential vote (13%) exceeded the Black percentage of the electorate (12%).

This is the key excerpt from the Associated Press story:

Romney would have erased Obama's nearly 5 million-vote victory margin and narrowly won the popular vote if voters had turned out as they did in 2004, according to Frey's analysis. Then, white turnout was slightly higher and black voting lower.

More significantly, the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and Colorado would have tipped in favor of Romney, handing him the presidency if the outcome of other states remained the same.

There is a  lot of interesting information in the article for both Democrats and Republicans. First, the article notes that only only political party (Republicans) have managed to win the presidency three consecutive times in the last 60 years (1980, 1984, 1988) so that Democrats should not be confident about 2016. It also notes that Romney was a particular weak candidates, failing to energize white voters while Obama successfully energized black voters. The much vaunted Latino vote is still  only a potential factor at the presidential level, with Latino voters making up 17% of the electorate but only 11% of the vote. This could change sooner rather than later, depending on how immigration reform ends up impacting the citizenship status of the millions of undocumented immigrants of Hispanic descent living in the United States.

However my favorite oart of the story is this description of Mitt Romney by an African American voter from Cleveland, Ohio:

"A white Mormon swimming in money with offshore accounts buying up companies and laying off their employees just doesn't quite fit my idea of a president," she said. "Bottom line, Romney was not someone I was willing to trust with my future."

And that is a summation of the 2012 Republican presidential candidate in a nutshell: "a white mormon swimming in money with offshore accounts buying up companies and laying off their employees." David Axelrod must be very proud!

The Future of Marriage Equality: Nate Silver Predicts

Poll guru and data cruncher extraordinaire Nate Silver has decided to use the occasion of the recent Gaytterdämmerung (oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court of not one but two caes involving gay rights and marriage equality) to analyze recent polls about marriage equality, finally reveal what his predictions were for the 2012 marriage equality ballot measures and make some future predictions about how marriage equality would fare at the ballot box in 2016 and beyond.

Silver's model predicts that the four states (Maine, Maryland, Washington and Minnesota) which voted on the side of marriage equality in November 2012 would have done so, including 16 others. More interestingly, the model also has predictions for 2016. If one assumes a linear relationship between the 2012 and 2016 results one can interpolate a 2014 prediction as well.

Note that Silver's predictions for the results in 2012 are greater than the actual results that occurred at the ballot box for Maryland (55.0% predicted versus 52.4% actual; +2.6), Minnesota (52.3% predicted versus 51.2% actual; +1.1), Washington (55.7% predicted versus 53.7% actual; +2.0) but not Maine (51.1% predicted versus 51.5% actual; -0.4).

But his model also has good news for LGBT activists who may want to move forward with a pro-marriage equality measures in California and Oregon in 2014. A linear interpolation would indicate that California's measure would pass with approximately 57.5% of the vote while Oregon's would pass with 56.8%. Oregon's measure is much more likely to actually appear on the 2014 ballot than California's.

Another thing to notice about the list of states is that Rhode Island is at the top of the list, yet that state has not enacted marriage equality yet. Other states, like Illinois and Delaware, which are considering marriage equality legislation this year are also well into the blue territory of majority support for marriage equality.

The future of marriage equality is blue skies ahead!

Now There Are 4: 2 Red-State Senators Embrace Marriage Equality

Sen. Heitkamp (D-ND)	Sen. Donnelly (D-IN)

The rate at which Senators are endorsing marriage equality for same-sex couples is a bit dizzying. Last Saturday I blogged about the 9 Democratic Senators who had not endorsed marriage equality, and primarily paid my attention to the Senators from blue states who had not taken the plunge, reserving my most scorn for Delaware's Tom Carper, noting that majority of his constituents supported marriage equality, according to recent polls.

In the last 7 days, 6 Senators have issued statements supporting marriage equality, and many of these have not been from the "easy-to-get" categories. Carper joined the "equality caucus" on Tuesday April 2nd, the same day that Republican Senator Mark Kirk from Illinois did. But, amazingly, this was two days after Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, generally considered one of the most socially conservative members of the Democratic caucus, had announced his support for marriage.

Just yesterday, I tried to predict who would the next Senators to endorse marriage equality, noting there were still 6 Democratic Senators who had not done so at that time, but that they were all from red states. Since then, two of those Red-State Democratic Senators have endorsed marriage equality with public statements.

U.S. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-North Dakota) said:

“In speaking with North Dakotans from every corner of our great state, and much personal reflection, I have concluded the federal government should no longer discriminate against people who want to make lifelong, loving commitments to each other or interfere in personal, private, and intimate relationships.  I view the ability of anyone to marry as a logical extension of this belief. The makeup of families is changing, but the importance of family is enduring.” 

U.S. Sen. Joe Donnelly said:

“In recent years, our country has been involved in an important discussion on the issue of marriage equality. While serving in the House of Representatives, I had the opportunity to act on a core belief of mine: we are a stronger country when we draw on the strengths of all Americans. I voted to repeal ‘don't ask, don't tell’ and was an original supporter of the bill that would make it illegal to discriminate against someone in the workplace because of their sexual orientation. It is also for that reason that I oppose amending either Indiana’s or our nation’s constitution to enshrine in those documents an ‘us’ and a ‘them,’ instead of a ‘we.’ With the recent Supreme Court arguments and accompanying public discussion of same-sex marriage, I have been thinking about my past positions and votes. In doing so, I have concluded that the right thing to do is to support marriage equality for all.”

Both Donnelly and Heitkamp are freshman Senators from conservative states who are not up for re-election until 2018. The four remaining Democratic Senators who have not (yet) endorsed marriage equality are Tim Johnson of South Dakota, who has announced that he will not face the voters again (and thus has nothing to lose if he wants to support marriage equality); Joe Manchin of West Virginia (who just got re-elected to a full 6-year term in November 2012); Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas (who are both running for re-election in 2014).

The most interesting question now is which members of the Republican caucus will join the marriage equality caucus. According to the Washington Post's The Fix blog, there are a number of Republicans who represent blue states who may consider endorsing marriage equality soon:

1. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) 
2. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) 
3. Sen. Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) 
4. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire) 
5. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) 
6. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) 
7. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) 
8. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nevada) 
9. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

In addition to these nine Blue-state Republican Senators, the most likely red-state Republican senator to endorse marriage equality is Deb Fisher (R-Nebraska) (because she's female and because she was just elected to a full term in November 2012).

Currently there are only two Republican Senators who support marriage equality, Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Mark Kirk (R-Illinois), who (not coincidentally) both represent blue states.

Interestingly, former U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) announced on Friday that she supports marriage equality. I wonder whether her "Maine twin" will follow suit someday soon?

Saturday Politics: Even GOP Supports Popular Vote

It appears as if the Republican plan to attempt to rig the 2016 presidential election by changing how certain blue states (that have Republican-controlled legislatures and Republican governors) like Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin assign electoral votes by congressional district is not working. Only Pennsylvania has not decisively rejected that idea, but they are currently proposing a similarly GOP-skewed scheme.

Interestingly, some Republicans are coming around to supporting a plan to change how electoral votes are allotted that I would support, the National Popular Vote or NPV.

That said, there is polling evidence that GOP voters are become more interested in a national popular vote as 2000 fades into the distance and Democrats expand their reach into more swing states. A Gallup poll this month found 63 percent of respondents supported replacing the Electoral College with a national vote. But the big news was that 61 percent of Republicans now favor the change, a huge shift in support since 2000, when only 41 percent said they were were pro-popular vote. Even in 2011, only a slight majority of GOPers wanted to ditch the current system. 

This might have something to do with the previous race. A week before the 2012 election, Republicans were a lot more worried that Mitt Romney might win the popular vote and lose the election than Democrats were about President Obama thanks to the latter’s relative strength in Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa. 

Meanwhile, the conservative movement’s electoral reformers may not have the biggest megaphone in the party, but it is getting louder. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) came out for a national popular vote shortly after the election, complaining it put too much attention on swing states. (So did Donald Trump, for what it’s worth.)

I don't know how I feel about supporting an idea that both Jan Brewer and Donald Trump both support! But that doesn't mean that NPV is a bad idea; if it passed then every single person's vote everywhere in the country would have equal weight in deciding the presidential election, which is a much more democratic system than the system we have now based on the electoral college.

Hat/tip to Talking Points Memo.

GOP's Good News: "Americans Slightly More Racist"

MARK MARTURELLO/THE REGISTER

Wow, now here's a headline you don't see every day: "Americans Slightly More Racist." This is referring to the results of a new poll conducted by the Associated Press which compared a similar poll taken in 2008.

Here's the Washington Post's take:

In all, 51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56 percent, up from 49 percent during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell. 

[...] 

Most Americans expressed anti-Hispanic sentiments, too. In an AP survey done in 2011, 52 percent of non-Hispanic whites expressed anti-Hispanic attitudes. That figure rose to 57 percent in the implicit test. The survey on Hispanics had no past data for comparison.

There are immediate political implications, of course. And, unsurprisingly, there are differences in how racist adherents to the political parties are.

Overall, the survey found that by virtue of racial prejudice, Obama could lose 5 percentage points off his share of the popular vote in his Nov. 6 contest against Republican challenger Mitt Romney. But Obama also stands to benefit from a 3 percentage point gain due to pro-black sentiment, researchers said. Overall, that means an estimated net loss of 2 percentage points due to anti-black attitudes. 

The poll finds that racial prejudice is not limited to one group of partisans. Although Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit racism (79 percent among Republicans compared with 32 percent among Democrats), the implicit test found little difference between the two parties. That test showed a majority of both Democrats and Republicans held anti-black feelings (55 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans), as did about half of political independents (49 percent).

Read that again. "Republicans were more likely that Democrats to express racial prejudice in questions measuring explicit racism (79 percent among Republicans compared with 32 percent among Democrats)." Discuss!

Andrew Sullivan makes the connection, in case it is not as obvious to you as it is to me:

Close to 80 percent of Republican voters expressed "explicit racism." Maybe that's why they are comfortable with a candidate from a church whose theology remains based on white supremacy and that barred African-Americans from full membership as recently as 1978.

I was struck by the connection between the two stories as I read that Iowa's largest daily newspaper, The Des Moines Register, after endorsing every Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 (including Obama in 2008), has endorsed Mitt Romney for president in 2012. The results of the poll showing Americans are more racist in 2008 is clearly good news for the Republican Party's goal to re-take the Presidency, which is why I decided to lead this post with the stylized (hagiographic) portrait of Mitt Romney.

Reading the Register's reason(s) for endorsing Romney is like entering bizarro-world. They basically endorse all of the Republican's talking points regarding the rationale for his presidential run and ignore the President's. They attempt to divorce Romney's economic positions from his extremist views on social issues. When a decision is made that literally is not rationally related to the facts on the ground, I believe one can look to external reasons for the decision, and often times one can see an animating force for the decision fueled by animus. I hope that is not the case in this situations, but it's hard to think otherwise when you see things like this:

(Photo: A supporter of Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan waits for a campaign
event to begin on October 12, 2012 in Lancaster, Ohio.
By Jamie Sabau/Getty Images.)

Hat/tip to Political Wire and Andrew Sullivan.

EQCA: No Go On Prop 8 Re-Do In '12

Well! Equality California has finally acknowledged a repeal effort of 2008's Proposition 8 is not going to happen in 2012:

Equality California said that while public opinion on marriage for same-sex couples has increased since Proposition 8 passed in 2008, support continues to hover near 50 percent—indicating more work must be done before asking voters to overturn Proposition 8 through what would inevitably be  a very expensive and difficult campaign. In addition, the Perry v. Brown legal challenge to Proposition 8 has provided hope that the freedom to marry can be restored in California and create a legal precedent to protect marriage without the potential risks and expense of a multi-million dollar campaign in these very trying economic times. 

"With a challenge to Prop 8’s discrimination now before the courts, Freedom to Marry supports Equality California’s decision to forego a ballot campaign in 2012,” said Evan Wolfson, founder and President of Freedom to Marry. ”Freedom to Marry will continue to work with Equality California and our many other partners to engage Californians in the crucial conversations necessary to grow the pro-marriage majority and permanently restore the freedom to marry in California as soon as possible."

“We share the pain, frustration and discrimination that California same-sex couples and their families experience every day because they are denied the freedom to marry,” Palencia said. “Today, we are recommitting ourselves to doing the hard work of changing hearts and minds to be ready to change that reality should the courts fail to do their job.” 

Although I only live part-time in California, I am still registered to vote there, and I support the decision not to move forward with a ballot measure, especially since there will almost definitely be marriage equality fights in Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina and Oregon next year.

REPORT: Why 2012 Is Not Year To Repeal Prop 8

There is a debate going on in California (again) about when (or if) the LGBT community should attempt to repeal Proposition 8 by circulating and passing a constitutional amendment to restore marriage equality in 2012.

REPORT ON WEST HOLLYWOOD TOWN HALL
The state's largest LGBT political advocacy group, Equality California, is hosting 12 town halls around the state seeking LGBT community input on the momentous decision to attempt to pass a ballot measure which would enact marriage equality and overrule Proposition 8. To that end, MadProfessah was invited to attend the 2nd of these events at the West Hollywood Auditorium on Sunday May 22 (Harvey Milk Day) as part of the panel. Other members were David Codell, a leading gay attorney who participated in the California marriage case and is one of the smartest legal minds in the state, Jim Carroll, interim Executive Director of Equality California, and Andrea Shorter, Director of Coalitions and Marriage at EQCA.

About 75 people showed up for the event which started a bit late at 5:45pm. Incoming EQCA Executive Director Roland Palencia was introduced to the crowd but did not say anything. During the event David explained that if a new constitutional amendment were to be passed then that would immediately make the Perry v Brown lawsuit moot. He also gave his opinion on the disposition of that case, making it clear that he felt it was very unlikely that the California Supreme Court would rule that the Proposition 8 proponents have standing to pursue the federal lawsuit when the Attorney General and Governor of the state have declined to defend the ballot measure in federal court. According to his timeline, oral arguments should happen in September with a ruling in December and the 9th Circuit ruling soon after that in early 2012. That would lead to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling sometime before June 2013. David also thought that the U.S. District Judge James Ware would quickly dispose of the offensive challenge to the original Perry v Schwarzenegger decision based on the sexual orientation of the judge, saying he was looking forward to reading the decision to see just how sharply the judge smacks down the heterosexual supremacists for making the ridiculous claim that a gay judge's sexuality or relationship status would have any impact on his ruling. David also made the point repeatedly that never in the history of America has any state passed a ballot measure to enact legislation to provide a right to LGBT people. There was a question from the audience about this later and I explained that there have been pro-gay ballot measure results (Maine 2005, Arizona 2006, Washington State 2009). Maine 2005 was the defeat of the repeal of a statewide gay civil right bill on employment. Arizona 2006 was the defeat of a measure to ban domestic partnerships and same-sex marriage (in 2008 Arizona passed  a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage only). Washington 2009 was the statewide approval of a referendum on a comprehensive domestic partnership law recently passed by the state legislature and signed by the Governor. These are all different situations from asking voters to overturn a previously passed initiative statute and constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage while a lawsuit is pending.

Jim Carroll's job was to give the results of a new poll about marriage equality conducted by Binder Research paid for by former Ambassador James Hormel and Love Honor Cherish. You may recall LHC was the group who moved forward with a Repeal Prop 8 campaign in 2010 (and failed to turn in any signatures) despite most of the LGBT community deciding in summer 2009 that this was not the right time to raise and spend tens of millions of dollars to pass a pro-gay ballot measure that year. Carroll presented a powerpoint which demonstrated that there has been very little change in public support for marriage equality since the last time the LGBT community polled in 2009. Carroll tried to educate the audience about the difference between polls of "adults" and polls of likely voters. California has 37 million people, and about 24 million adults, of which 21 million are registered to vote and about 15 million who are likely to vote in the next election. These 15 million are, on average, whiter, older and more conservative than the population as a whole which is "majority minority." The poll results Carroll discussed were for this group of likely voters.

THE LATEST POLLING RESULTS ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN CALIFORNIA
The topline result is that on the question of marriage equality, i.e. "Do you support or oppose allowing same-sex couples to be legally married" the 2011 numbers are 45% Yes-45% No 10% Undecided compared to the 2009 numbers of 47% Yes 48% No 5% Undecided. This is a somewhat shocking result in the light of numerous national polls (Gallup, CNN)showing majority support in the adult population for marriage equality in the last 6 months or so.

Unsurprisingly, support for marriage equality varies depending on how you ask the question. For example, if the question is about repealing Proposition 8 there is majority support (51%). Note that the margin of error in the telephone poll of 900 likely voters May 10-14 (with oversampling in African-American and English-speaking Asian Pacific Islander communities) is 3.3 percentage points. Look at the graphic above to see that support in communities of color for marriage equality has slightly increased with opposition slightly decreasing.

Binder also polled on the question of explicitly adding a religious exemption to a ballot measure which legalizes same-sex marriage (and thus also implicitly repeals Proposition 8) and support went down from the repeal Prop 8 numbers.

Would you vote yes or no on a ballot initiative that would legalize civil marriage for same-sex couples, on the condition that clergy or religious institutions are never required to perform a marriage that goes against their religious beliefs?

47% Yes 43% No 10% Undecided

Binder calls this an increase in support because the 47% number is higher than the 45% baseline support for the marriage equality question. However, the question "Would you vote yes or no on a ballot initiative that would legalize civil marriage for same-sex couples" was not included in the poll. The assumption is that the results of this question would track identically with the results on the marriage equality question.

In fact, in a bizarre case of fallacious reasoning Binder lumps all the respondents who said they support marriage equality OR repealing Proposition 8 OR would vote yes on a ballot measure with a religious exemption and comes up with a support of 58% Yes and 34% No. The notion that you can presume that people who will vote for a measure that does ONE of these things will also vote for a measure which does ALL of these things is simply ridiculous. (Mathematical geek aside: There is a huge logical difference between an OR and an AND.)

WHY TRYING TO REPEAL PROP 8 IN 2012 IS A BAD IDEA
All in all, I went into the Town Hall undecided and left pretty convinced that a 2012 ballot measure campaign to restore marriage equality to California is a bad idea. Especially when there is a pending federal court challenge which may not only restore marriage equality in California but support the legal argument to strike down the 30 other constitutional amendments which ban marriage equality around the nation. There are numerous other states which will likely have anti-gay marriage measures on the ballot (Minnesota, North Carolina and Indiana) and there may be states which have affirmative pro-gay measures on the ballot (Oregon and Maine). For the amount of money it takes to expand California from civil unions to full marriage equality one could have a good shot of winning one or both of the affirmative measures and possibly defeating one or some of the anti-gay measures. Nationally, it just doesn't make sense to me to spend 30-plus million dollars to enact marriage equality in California when there are states which do not have basic laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (29) and gender identity (38).

We shall see what happens in the future, since EQCA says they will report back to the community in September 2011. LHC says that we can file ballot language and collect signatures before the California Supreme Court rules on the standing issue. Depending on the decision, the signatures do not have to be submitted. I'm not opposed to this idea, but I think it will be very very difficult to not submit the signatures to the secretary of state in March 2012 if either the Cal Sup. Ct. or  9th Circuit doesn't rule our way. Of course if a measure does get submitted and qualified I would support it, not monetarily but I would vote for it.

I just think that 2012 is not the right year to repeal Proposition 8. In order to make that decision to move forward I have three pre-conditions which need to be met: 1) Show majority support outside of the margin of error for marriage equality in the state in multiple polls 2) Significant (7 digit) quantities of money in the bank and 3) a open, accountable leadership structure and detailed plan for how to run a statewide ballot measure campaign.

Arkansas Supreme Court Strikes Down Anti-Gay Initiative

Great news out of Arkansas! (I don't think I have typed that sentence very many times before.) In November 2008, voters passed Initiative Act 1 by a vote of 57-43 but Thursday the Arkansas Supreme Court unanimously ruled it unconstitutional and struck the measure down in Arkansas Dep't of Human Services v. Cole. The ballot measure banned unmarried, cohabiting couples from being considered for the adoption or foster care of children in Arkansas. Of course, Arkansas also bans same-sex couples from marrying, so Initiative Act 1's passage implicitly banned all same-sex couples from adopting or fostering children in the state.

As always, Chris Geidner of Poliglot summarizes the legal issues perfectly:

The court noted: 

We hold that a fundamental right to privacy is at issue in this case and that, under the Arkansas Constitution, sexual cohabitors have the right to engage in private, consensual, noncommercial intimacy in the privacy of their homes. We further hold that this right is jeopardized by Act 1 which precludes all sexual cohabitors, without exception, from eligibility for parenthood, whether by means of adoption or foster care. We quickly note that in certain instances, such as in custody, visitation, or dependency-neglect matters, the State and the circuit courts of this state have a duty to protect the best interest of the child. We will discuss this issue more fully below.

Then: 

We strongly disagree with the State and FCAC’s conclusion that if this court finds that the categorical ban on adoption and fostering for sexual cohabitors put in place by Act 1 violates an individual’s fundamental right to sexual privacy in one’s home, state courts and DHS will be prohibited henceforth from considering and enforcing non-cohabitation agreements and orders in deciding child-custody and visitation cases as well as dependency- neglect cases. That simply is not the case. The overriding concern in all of these situations is the best interest of the child. 

Finally: 

Thus, Act 1 directly and substantially burdens the privacy rights of “opposite-sex and same-sex individuals” who engage in private, consensual sexual conduct in the bedroom by foreclosing their eligibility to foster or adopt children, should they choose to cohabit with their sexual partner. The pressure on such couples to live apart, should they wish to foster or adopt children, is clearly significant. ...

Here Act 1 presents a pernicious choice for Cole. She can either give up her fundamental right to sexual intimacy in her home free from investigation by the State into her sexual practices in order to adopt or foster or forego the privilege of having children by adoption or fostering. We hold that the burden inflicted on her is direct and substantial. 

The court, thus, concluded: 

We conclude that the individualized assessments by DHS and our trial courts are effective in addressing issues such as relationship instability, abuse, lack of social support, and other factors that could potentially create a risk to the child or otherwise render the applicant unsuitable to be a foster or adoptive parent. These would be the least restrictive means for addressing the compelling state interest of protecting the welfare, safety, and best interest of Arkansas’s children. By imposing a categorical ban on all persons who cohabit with a sexual partner, Act 1 removes the ability of the State and our courts to conduct these individualized assessments on these individuals, many of whom could qualify and be entirely suitable foster or adoptive parents. As a result, Act 1 fails to pass constitutional muster under a heightened-scrutiny analysis.

If an Arkansas Supreme Court will strike down such a statute it shows that heterosexual supremacists trying to pass similar ballot measures in other states would very likely face even more hostile courts in other jurisdictions.

An important win for the good guys! Another reason I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

Celebrity Friday: Rick Palacio, Openly Gay Chair of Colorado Dems

Rick Palacio, a 36-year-old openly gay, Latino man was recently elected Chairman of the Colorado Democratic Party.

The Denver Post reports:

Palacio, a sixth-generation Coloradan from Pueblo, received more than 50 percent of the vote from members of the state central committee of the Colorado Democratic Party at its biennial reorganizational meeting.

He defeated Polly Baca, a former state senator, and Adam Bowen, the former Larimer County Democratic chairman.

"I'm very excited," Palacio said after the vote. "I'm excited for our party. We have a lot of work ahead of us as Democrats. I look forward to working with Democrats from all 64 different counties to make sure that we succeed in 2012."

Palacio, who will resign his current position as deputy director of member services for U.S. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said it's also important to ensure that all divergent opinions within the party are heard so Democrats can all move forward in the same direction.

Colorado Democratic brass were among the 450 people who attended the morning event. Gov. John Hickenlooper, [Sen. Michael] Bennet and fellow Sen. Mark Udall all gave rousing speeches, trying to energize the base on a day of new beginnings for the state's Democratic Party.

Colorado went blue in the 2008 presidential election and currently has a Democratic Governor and two Democratic United States Senators. Republicans hold the lower state House by 1 vote (out of 65) and Democrats control the state Senate by 5 (out of 35).

DNC Ad Featuring Obama To Boost Democratic Turnout

Interview With Dave Fleischer: Prop 8 Report Author

Dave Fleischer is the author of the 509-page Prop 8 Report which was released publicly on Tuesday. I have known Dave for years and he agreed to this on the record interview with MadProfessah.com.

MadProfessah: What are the main results or ideas you want people to gain from this report?

Dave Fleischer:
* The No on 8 campaign made a smart decision to invest in research. As a result, for the first time ever, in any campaign, the LGBT community has daily tracking polling that measures increases and decreases in our support as voters were being exposed to the anti-gay opposition campaign. This is far superior to episodic polls taken when voters are considering the question out of context and have not recently been exposed to the vile but effective opposition campaign. The No on 8 tracking polling by Lake allows us to correlate voter movement to significant changes in the political environment including but not limited to strategic decisions made by the competing campaigns. That's why this report is the first report ever to seriously evaluate why we struggle to compete in these campaigns. It provides evidence that allows us to consider and evaluate the wide range of competing hypotheses offered by a wide variety of observers. Up until now, we just had the hypotheses, not the data. Now, we have significant data. With the data, we are able to reject some hypotheses, confirm others, and notice areas where we need more information. We are on our way to learning more about the electoral reality in which we are operating.

* Based on the data, we know why we lost. We lost because in the final six weeks, when TV ads from both campaigns saturated the airwaves, almost 700,000 votes switched sides and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. It seems fair to me to conclude that Yes on 8 outcampaigned us in the final six weeks. We went from even to losing in the final six weeks. And it's fair to give Yes on 8 credit for what they accomplished, because we lost the most ground by far among the exact group of voters they targeted: parents.

* No on 8 regained some of the ground we lost, but only when we directly rebutted the opposition fear-mongering. "O'Connell" was No on 8's belated rebuttal of the pernicious Yes on 8 ads that exploited and stimulated anti-gay prejudice by making people fear that kids were in danger. The effectiveness of the "O'Connell" ad, while limited, suggests that we can successfully rebut the longstanding lies, at least among some voters. And the fact that it improved the situation compared to how we were doing when we were avoiding the issue makes it clear that avoidance serves us poorly. When the opposition attacks the character of LGBT people, we have to rebut immediately, directly, and clearly.

* As we prepare to go back to the ballot, we have to commit ourselves to gaining insight into how to rebut those attacks effectively. We still have so much to learn; after all, does "O'Connell" represent the best we can do? We simply don't yet know. We need to try out, in real world circumstances that simulate the campaign, what rebuttals help us most with most of the voters who are susceptible to the opposition fear-mongering. Luckily, we have a great immediate opportunity to enlarge our learning, when we canvass. From my point of view, when we are canvassing, this leads to a practical imperative: we should talk about kids to as many voters as we can; test different messages to see what works; and consider the canvass an investment in qualitative research, the largest, longest focus group in social science history. My concern is that if we don't do this -- if we don't talk about kids now, when the stakes are low -- we will be tempted once again to avoid the issue in an campaign, when the stakes are so high. Then history will repeat itself, to our detriment.

MP: How long did the report take to research and write and who paid for it?

DF: 18 months. Paid for by the LGBT Mentoring Project. No money solicited from nor did any come from CA individuals or organizations or the No on 8 campaign on anyone evaluated in the report.

MP: When do you think we should return to the ballot to overturn Proposition 8?

DF: We should return to the ballot when we have a decent chance to win. So we have homework to do. Should only choose the year when we have finished the homework. That could be 2012, or a different year. To me, what's relevant is: have we done our homework?

MP: One of the key findings is in wrong-way voting. Apparently there were 6% of voters who voted No who opposed marriage equality as opposed to 4% of Yes voters who supported marriage equality. Thus there's a net gain of 2 percentage points for the No side. Can you explain how confident you are of this result?

DF: Very confident. The Lake polling data and our methodology to interpret it are all laid in out detail in the report in a special appendix. [Appendix K]

We acknowledge all of the limitations of the data. But here's what we calculate:

* approx 1.525 million people were wrong-way voters

* of those, 875,000 voted No and opposed same-sex marriage

* and 650,000 voted Yes though they favored same-sex marriage

* the difference, 225,000 voters, made the margin closer by approx. 450,000 votes

FYI, David Binder's polling during the No on 8 campaign, commissioned by the No on 8 campaign, corroborated Lake. In the one poll where he asked questions you could use to gauge wrong-way voting, conducted Sept. 2-4, he found that

* 13% of the voters who found same-sex marriage acceptable said they'd vote Yes, and

* 19% of the voters who found same-sex marriage unacceptable said they'd vote No.

This is a less reliable measure of wrong-way voting than because a) it was further in advance of election day, and some voters self-correct; and b) Binder's question gave three options to respondents, so the middle group is sizeable and there's no way to tell if any of them were likely to wrong-way vote. But Binder's finding here is consistent with the idea that our side was the likely net beneficiary of wrong-way voting.

And of course Binder's May 2009 attempt to gauge wrong-way voting is very unlikely to be of any value. Polls are best at detecting wrong-way voting as or before people vote, not afterwards, especially not six months afterwards, when accurate recollection of their confusion is unlikely.

You will also enjoy looking at Lewis & Gossett, cited in the Prop 8 Report. Their excellent paper analyzing the Field and PPIC data uses regression analysis to compare the plausibility of four competing hypotheses to explain the failure of the two polls to gauge what was happening. They make a compelling case for wrong-way voting as the most probable explanation.

MP: What do you say to people that your source of daily tracking poll data by Celinda Lake ends 5 days before the election and the election could have been decided in that time frame?

DF: The Lake data is the best data we have on Prop 8, and the best data set our community has ever had on any of these ballot measures. That said, it is imperfect in a variety of ways, including the one you mention. There could have been significant changes in voter opinion in those final days. The Lake data would of necessity not reveal that. However, to the extent that the Binder tracking polling data in the final days tell us anything, they do not suggest massive voter movement or anything other than trivial voter movement. See the charts in the report with Binder data and Lake data side by side and you'll see what I mean. Binder tracked until election day (but he didn't start until much much later than Lake, when most of the big movement had long occurred).

Thanks, Dave!

Everything You Know About Prop 8 Is Wrong

Finally, the definitive report on what happened during the 2008 proposition 8 ballot measure fight is being told by Dave Fleischer of the LGBT Mentoring Project (former of the National Gay and Lesbian task Force) in a report to be released on Monday August 2nd.

UPDATED MON 08/02/2010 09:37AM

Apparently the Fleischer briefing tonight is a private invitation-only event. There will be a public briefing next week. MadProfessah will attend and see what tidbits I can share with y'all.

The public briefing is Tuesday August 10 at 7pm at the Village at Ed Gould Plaza (1625 N. McCadden Ave, Los Angeles, CA)

POLL: 29% to 22% Think Prop 8 Was Bad For State

There's a new poll out from the Public Religion Research Institute that confirms that a majority of Californians support marriage equality right now. Additionally, the poll of 3,351 adults (including 350 African Americans and 200 Latino Protestants) asked about the 2008 ballot initiative Proposition 8. A stunning 45% of respondents said that it had no impact on the sate, while 29% said the measure's passage was bad for the state while 22% said it was good for the state.

Some other key findings of the report:

• One-in-four Californians report that their views on rights for gay and lesbian people has become more supportive over the last five years, compared to only 8% who say they have become more opposed. Among religious groups, ethnic minority groups showed slightly more overall movement than white religious groups. Among black Protestants, twice as many report becoming more supportive as report becoming more opposed (27% vs. 13%); among Latino Catholics, that ratio is 3-to-1 (31% more supportive vs. 9% more opposed) over this period.

• If another vote similar to Proposition 8 were held tomorrow, a majority (51%) say they would vote to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, compared to 45% who say they would vote to keep same-sex marriage illegal.

• There are major religious groups on both sides of the debate over same-sex marriage in California. Solid majorities of Latino Catholics and white mainline Protestants say they would vote to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, while solid majorities of white evangelical Protestants, Latino Protestants, and African American Protestants say they would vote to keep same-sex marriage illegal.

The PPRI poll joins other major polls which also show majority support for marriage equality in the state of California.