Voting 2012 (CA Ballot Measures and More)

The Election Protection site has a wealth of information on voting rights. Unfortunately, as usual, conservatives are trying to suppress the vote, and some Republican governors, legislatures and secretaries of state are really outdoing themselves – the *#&%@! scumbags. If you're challenged, or witness a problem, you can call 1-866-OUR-VOTE (or use their smartphone app if you've downloaded it).

Meanwhile, as usual in California, there are a bevy of ballot measures. Here's the official voter guide section on the measures. You can read brief summaries, arguments for and against, and the full text of the proposals.

Here's a chart of where various liberal and Democratic organizations stand on the measures (PDF).

(You can also google the yes and no sites for each measure.)

Finally, here's Bradley Whitford and Rick Jacobs on the two key provisions:

Get out there and vote! (Uh, if you haven't already.)

CA Ballot Propositions 2010

Yes, it's that time again if you live in California (unless you already voted early). Which ballot propositions are good, and which are horrible? And what about all the other races?

If you didn't receive the state's official Voter's Guide, which has arguments for and against the propositions, you can view or download PDF versions in several languages here.

Liberal site Calitics has a list of statewide endorsements and the Courage Campaign has a progressive voter guide.

The Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle also have voter guides and endorsements. (Not everyone's in agreement on every candidate or measure, obviously.)

CA Prop 8 Overturned

(AP Photo/Eric Risberg, via Digby.)

Exciting news this Wednesday, as federal district court judge Vaughn Walker has ruled that CA Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage in California on a narrow vote, is unconstitutional. Here's the key section:

CONCLUSION
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

REMEDIES
Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants anddefendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

You can read the whole decision (136 pages) here or here (PDF). I haven't read it yet, but have heard some general praise for its detail, thoroughness and persuasiveness. I'm sure more comprehensive analyses will be out shortly.

This is far from over. As David Dayen and karoli at Crooks and Liars note, Judge Walker has issued a temporary stay until Friday while the Prop 8 supporters file a request for a longer stay. They don't want his ruling to go into effect while they appeal Walker's decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, although it's likely this one will go all the way to Supreme Court. However, that process will probably take a few years. From what I've read so far, this means new gay marriages will probably remain illegal in California in the interim. (As the LA Times explains, "An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.") Still, this rulling is an important victory.

The LA Times has much, much more. Here's their main article, one on reactions, a timeline, a good photo gallery, and editorials - one and two.

World O' Crap passes on Truth Wins Out's roundup of initial far right reactions, and also links this fun, satirical piece on the trial:



Roy Edroso also finds some real wingnut gems – and I'm sure many, many more will be coming.

I wrote a couple of fairly extensive posts on Prop. 8 back in 2008: one and two. Oh, and don't forget the Prop. 8 musical! While mild homophobia is one thing, working to deny a minority group essential rights is quite another. And as the posts outline, the Prop. 8 proponents consistently lied. I also think this "No on 8" ad featuring Sam Jackson is worth revisiting:



It really puts it in perspective, doesn't it?

However, now that it's the homophobic Prop. 8 supporters facing the setback, we might as well admit that all their paranoid fantasies were true and their worst fears will now be realized. Don't be fooled by all those sweet photos of loving couples! Gay couples don't just want to live their lives in peace and happiness. They're power-mad, just like Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich, and prone to cackling evilly in trendy bistros and at art shows, mostly because they know that absolutely nothing can stop the spread of dance hall electronica gay cooties. The Great Gay Conspiracy has leaked the memo of their nefarious plans to liberal bloggers everywhere, and given the important victory today, the embargo on revealing this plot has finally been lifted. As noted in Judge Walker's decision (in a footnote missed by Michelle Malkin), effective immediately, all churches in California must now perform this song as a regular hymn:


(The video's out of synch, but it's still, what's the word? Fabulous.)

Of course, to perform the song in the proper style shown here, in some churches, some big hair women will have to tamp down their 'dos, and the preachers will to dress less flamboyantly.

Seriously, congratulations to all the gay couples out there, and here's hoping the appeals process yields swift and wise decisions. This ruling could have a positive ripple effect throughout the nation.


(Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times)

Another Look at No on 8

We've already taken a pretty detailed look at Prop. 8, which attempts to outlaw gay marriage, but the vote is going to be close. A number of new ads have also cropped up.

If Yes on 8 succeeds, it will be largely because of outright lies. As we examined before, Prop. 8 seeks to change the state's Constitution, and has nothing to do with education. California has broad opt-out laws, and parents who object to parts of sex ed, for example, can have their kid pulled out of those classes. Defeating Prop. 8 is important not just for California, but the nation.

I received a "Yes on 8" flyer last week with some interesting spin. The language to "Protect Marriage" is intentionally deceptive, as are the pitches that "A 'Yes' Vote Restores Traditional Marriage" and "A 'No' Vote Means Gay Marriage is Still Mandated." The language implies that "traditional marriage" has somehow gone away, and that people have been forced into gay marriages. It's ridiculous, but this sort of prejudicial language is typical of the right-wing, and it's a deliberately irrational appeal.

But perhaps they have a point. After all, we can all look back to when interracial marriages were made legal. Remember that? Suddenly, whites were no longer able to marry other whites! And who can forget how all those whites who were already married saw their marriages cheapened and sullied, because other people were allowed to marry! Imagine, other people marrying, and without their permission. And sure, they wouldn’t have given their permission, but that's beside the point. Arranging an interracial marriage was terribly rude. Didn't any of those people engaging in unnatural unions think of the children? Especially the impressionable white children, who might get the awful notion that such things were all right? Surely we can all remember how America fell apart from that travesty, never to recover. And that is why gay marriage is the greatest threat our nation has ever faced. (Even worse than that Negro devil music, rock and roll.)

Let's start with a look at the Yes on 8 ads.

"Have You Thought About It?" ad:



Why yes. Yes, we have thought about it. And many of these claims are illogical or false. As we've previously examined, there are churches who support gay marriage, and no church is forced to perform a gay marriage. If there's any conflict with "religious freedoms," it's the Yes on 8 campaign's attempts to ban gay marriage, stopping gay-friendly churches from performing gay weddings. Domestic partners do not have all the same rights as married couples. Your little moppet won't be taught that gay marriage exists if you chose to object – although you're free to teach her it exists and it's evil, evil, evil at home if you want.

I stumbled upon this on YouTube. "Marriage, It's Simple":



So here, your happy, heterosexual white daughter will have her childhood innocence destroyed by gay marriage, will turn into a lesbian, or even worse, play with same-sex dolls. Or, as Blue Gal puts it, "The rationale of this ad is, if we let the homos win, we are denying little blonde girls their natural inclination to play wedding with Ken and Barbie." Oh, for more innocent times, when teen girls practiced kissing. And lost their virginity on their wedding nights to their husbands, who always knew best.

Let's turn to this New York Times account now on Prop. 8:

“This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is Armageddon,” said Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and an eminent evangelical voice, speaking to pastors in a video promoting Proposition 8. “We lose this, we are going to lose in a lot of other ways, including freedom of religion.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobby based in Washington, said in an interview, “It’s more important than the presidential election.”

“We’ve picked bad presidents before, and we’ve survived as a nation,” said Mr. Perkins, who has made two trips to California in the last six weeks. “But we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage.”

That would be convicted Nixon felon Chuck Colson. I'd have more respect for him if he wasn't lying here. His freedom of religion isn't infringed upon in any way by gay marriage. He just doesn't like it, and he wants to dictate to other people – and other churches – what they can do. He's happy to attack others' civil rights, and if we adopt his framing, their freedom of religion. Colson either doesn't acknowledge, or doesn't understand, that there are Christians who support gay marriage, and that he has no exclusive claim on piety or godliness.

As for Tony Perkins, his statement is hyperbole as well as illogical. Since gay marriage is (duh) marriage, it cannot erode "the institution of marriage." It just offends Perkins' conception of it. It's extraordinary he would claim that gay marriage is more important than the presidency, and that somehow, equal treatment for gays will destroy America. Of course, the cries of religious persecution are particularly silly:

“The idea that we would be forced as clergy to perform a marriage that was against our conscience, or that a church would lose its tax-exempt status, is ridiculous,” said the Rev. Karen Sapio, the minister of Claremont Presbyterian Church in Southern California. “If you look dispassionately at the record, there are a lot of churches with policies that are at odds with civil law.”

She continued, “I have not heard of a single Catholic church forced to marry someone who has been divorced, or a rabbi forced to perform an interfaith marriage or an evangelical church forced to marry a couple who has been living together.”

Then there's these guys:

Preachers from other parts of the country have dropped everything and moved to California in recent months. Lou Engle, who leads TheCall, a charismatic prayer ministry in Washington and Kansas City, Mo., with a large following among youth, moved with his seven children to California in September. He is holding large prayer rallies up and down the state, urging people to pray and fast for the 40 days leading up to the election. Some people are giving up solid foods; others are giving up clothes shopping or their favorite television shows.

Here's their web spot, via Digby:



Yikes. It goes well with Colson's Armageddon rhetoric and Perkins' survival of the nation blather, doesn't it? Somehow, I find this ad scarier than gays marrying.

Over to the No on 8 crew now. Incertus has a good spot posted making the interracial marriage comparison, and Balloon Juice has video of the Republican Mayor of San Diego giving an emotional speech against Prop. 8. Happily, some of the No on 8 ads I posted before that I'd only seen online have aired on TV now, including the Latino and one of the Mac-PC type ads. Meanwhile, these two ads have also run quite a bit.

While I'm not a big fan of Dianne Feinstein, this is a good spot:



And Samuel L. Jackson really brings it home, in an ad that's been running often:



Make sure to vote!


(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

CA Proposition 8: Outlawing Gay Marriage

California ballot proposition 8, designed to outlaw gay marriage, is the one that's justifiably garnered national press. While California is solidly in Obama's column, twelve state propositions are on the ballot, and a strong turnout is essential to ensure a No on 4 and a No on 8 (here's a rundown on the entire twelve). If the "Yes on 8" movement succeeds, it'll be a serious setback for gay rights. Somehow, despite plenty of gay marriages here in California this year, the sky has not fallen, and despite allowing gay marriage years ago, Massachusetts is still intact and maintains the lowest divorce rates in the nation. Considering anti-gay ballot measures were a key method for getting out the conservative vote in 2004 to defeat Kerry, it'd be rather poetic if 2008 saw both an Obama victory and a defeat of Prop. 8.

The actual language of the summary is:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

• Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

• Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

I'd suggest reading the arguments and rebuttals. The Yes on 8 crew actually claim that Prop. 8 "is about traditional marriage; it is not an attack on gay relationships." That must come as news to some of its backers, and no one has ever offered a convincing argument for how gay marriage imperils "traditional" marriage. So why is this proposition even necessary? I'd also recommend the No on 8 site, which allows donations and a helpful Fact vs. Fiction page on the most common false claims by the Yes on 8 movement.

False Claims

The greatest fear-mongering from the Yes on 8 crew has been about the threat of gay marriage to the poor, defenseless children. From the aforementioned page:

Fiction: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop. 8.

Fact: Not one word in Prop. 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it, and the Yes on 8 campaign knows they are lying. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has already ruled that this claim by Prop. 8 proponents is “false and misleading.” The Orange County Register, traditionally one of the most conservative newspapers in the state, says this claim is false. So do lawyers for the California Department of Education...

Fiction: A Massachusetts case about a parent’s objection to the school curriculum will happen here.

Fact: Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop. 8 won’t affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts...

Fiction: Unless Prop. 8 passes, CA parents won’t have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.

Fact: California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.

The Sacramento Bee gives a similar overview. Here's Education Code Section 51890-51891. You can see that "marriage" is barely mentioned. Johnny California rounds up most of the other relevant statutes. Sex ed is decided on the local level, parents are informed of the curriculum, and they can opt out with their kids. What I find most interesting is Cal Ed. Code 51933(a)(7), which states "Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships." This only comes into play if sex ed is taught, but you'll notice that this particular line seems designed to appease people who feel students must be told to marry and stay monogamous. So a piece of law likely insisted on by conservatives is something they now claim will undermine the fabric of society. Interestingly enough, the law does not mention "gay" anywhere. That particular line is about monogamy, not about sexuality.

The No on 8 site also covers false and ridiculous claims about churches losing their tax-exempt status if they refuse to perform gay marriages. You probably won't be surprised to learn that the Yes on 8 crew has distorted, 180 degrees, a statement by a law professor to support this claim.

I want to return to the "teach gay marriage in schools" thing, though, because it's always seemed like an extremely misleading charge to me even if one buys some of the Yes on 8 gang's false premises. Some of it might be a generational or state education thing, because no one I've asked remembers being "taught" about marriage in school, whether in sex ed or otherwise. But say the schools did – what does "teach gay marriage" actually mean? They'll tell the kids the truth, that it exists? Don't homophobic families teach their kids that gay marriage exists as well, just that it's evil or unnatural? So what really is the issue?

The implication is what it always is from homophobes. Teachers will advocate for homosexuality somehow, convincing kids who aren't gay to try it out. Many socially conservative homophobes believe that homosexuality is a choice versus something innate, while other social conservatives do believe it's innate, but something sinful to be resisted. In either case, but especially with the "choice" folks, the notion of temptation is key. They hold the same general belief for most sin, that human beings are incapable of choosing what's right by themselves – for instance, they might have sex for pleasure versus procreation – so they must be controlled. In the case of homosexuality, many social conservatives truly believe, deep down, in "gay cooties." Homosexuality is like a disease you catch, and if you can just keep it away, you can stay straight and safe. In their world, little Oscar was a happy little straight boy until someone introduced him to Broadway show tunes and teh gay sex and he was corrupted and lost forever. Or, little Sylvia already was a budding lesbian, but the school didn't say that was wrong, so she was never shamed off that path (and pushed into living a lie in an unhappy marriage that would fall apart years later). Oh, and Ted Haggard was "cured" of his gayness. It's probably true that most teachers outside of extremely conservative areas are unlikely to condemn homosexuality as evil or unnatural, but that's hardly a bad thing. LGBT kids often have a hard enough time as it is, and depending on their circumstances, their schools may be more tolerant and accepting than their homes. Schools won't "make" a kid gay, but they may – one would hope – be accepting of a kid who is. That's really the issue for the Yes on 8 folks when it comes to schools – the schools might not be intolerant in the desired ways, and somehow basic tolerance of an individual's identity is seen as advancing an agenda (I delve more into arguments about social tolerance here, if it's needed). Somehow, the basic reality of a free society, that other people are free to make choices one might not agree with, is deemed shocking or radical.

Still, all of that assumes that those pushing Yes on 8 are arguing in some smidgen of good faith (intolerant thought that faith may be), and they're not. Even if their false claims were true, they haven't explained why changing California's educational codes, a far easier and less radical step than amending the state Constitution, wouldn't fix the problem. The Yes on 8 campaign has been unrelentingly dishonest. They have consistently pretended that there are no opt-out policies in California public schools for disapproving parents, and the main reason they're bringing up schools at all is a smokescreen to scare mildly homophobic parents with outright lying. Most of the Yes on 8 ads are targeting those parents and preying on some combination of four fears: One, you might have to talk to your kid about sex; two, you might have to talk to your kid about gay sex; three, your kid might be gay – and might come out; four, the schools will somehow turn your kid gay.

None of those fears are entirely rational, but the misleading Yes on 8 attacks tap into what can be deep-rooted discomfort, embarrassment and shame about human sexuality, most of all homosexuality. That can be hard to combat, even if progress has been made for basic tolerance and comfort with sexuality. I think the most successful ads for No on 8 to date have humanized being gay, have shown people who support equal rights for their gay children or friends, or give the message that, it's okay if you're not entirely comfortable with gay marriage, but do you support stripping people of their rights? Prop. 8 is about stripping rights, not about teaching or churches.

Unfortunately, the vote currently looks like it's going to be close, and not only are highly misleading Yes on 8 ads running constantly, the Yes on 8 movement is engaging in some astonishingly low tactics.

I'll link the No on 8 site again for more information, including how to volunteer and to donate. Meanwhile, blogs Mombian and PageOneQ have organized a blogswarm for No on Prop. 8: Write to Marry Day, October 29th. To participate, write a blog post in support of gay marriage opposing Prop. 8 today or tomorrow, and submit the post information here. You can also download and use the graphic below, created by Mike Tidmus.



Ad Watch

Feel free to skip this last section if you like. I find the ad wars interesting, especially because I've seen these ads around the clock and some of the Yes on 8 ads struck me as extremely fraudulent (and lo and behold, they are). If you don't live in California, you probably haven't seen these, apart from on blogs or perhaps in a news story. Not all of them have aired on TV, and if they're over 40 seconds, they're probably web-only. However, there are some that I've seen multiple times a night.

No on 8 "Gavin Newsom" ad (posted 9/10/08):



I believe this longer piece was web-only, but it outlines the stakes nicely.

No on 8 "I Decide" youth vote ad (posted 9/15/08):



There's a nice youth vote, tolerance and freedom message to this one.

Yes on 8 "Whether You Like It Or Not" ad (posted 9/29/08):



This ad ran around the clock (I believe before it was posted to the web). Newsom sounds pretty sinister, doesn't he? The claims being made in this ad struck me as preposterous, and they are. See the Fact vs. Fiction page for the debunks. My favorite line is the wounded "It's no longer about tolerance. Acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory." Um, so apparently, there's a type of "tolerance" of gays that doesn't allow them equal rights under the law and requires changing the state Constitution? I take it this is the "We allow you to exist as second-class citizens and won't kill you, but don't push it and get in our faces with your gay-ness" type of tolerance. It taps into the attitude that gays are uppity and encroaching on the rights of others. Of course, no one's suing churches for not performing gay weddings, or anything like that. Anyone would still be free to disapprove of those gay people and their fabulous weddings, they just couldn't outlaw them.

No on 8 "The Thorons – Don't Eliminate Marriage for Anyone" ad (posted 9/22/08):



This ad aired on TV fairly often after the Yes on 8 "Whether You Like It or Not" spot. I think this is one of the best ads, because it really personalizes the issue and the stakes. It turns out the Thorons wrote the argument against Prop. 8 in the Voter's Guide, and Sam is the former president of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

Yes on 8 "It's Already Happened" ad (posted 10/7/08):



This is my favorite of the Yes on 8 ads, and by "favorite," I mean the really loathsome ad that makes me chuckle sardonically. I've seen this one on TV more than any other ad, I think. As we've already covered, the charges this ad makes are misleading or outright lies. Still, what's key here is the subtext – if you don't vote yes on Prop. 8, the schools will turn your daughter into a lesbian!!! Aaaaah!!! The little girl also flubs her line, and her "mom" ain't a great actress, either. (The little girl in the Spanish version is better, actually.)

No On 8 "Conversation" ad (posted 10/8/08):



This ad aired a fair amount. It's a smart spot, because it allows people to admit discomfort while pointing out the real stakes.

No on 8 "Lies to Scare You" ad (posted 10/9/08):



This was a good one to add to the mix, especially because it points out the two biggest lies of the Yes on 8 ads.

No on 8 "Hello, I'm No On Prop. 8" ad (10/13/08):



I think I've only seen this online, but it's a fun spot with two followups.

No on 8 "Ellen Degeneres" ad (posted 10/14/08):



This is probably the most effective of the celebrity ads, because Ellen Degeneres is so well known and has won mainstream acceptance. It personalizes the stakes.

No on 8 "No Discrimination" ad (posted 10/15/08):



This is an okay ad which has aired a fair amount, and it's good to have a spot focusing on the core principles in the mix, but I think the more personal ads are far more effective.

Yes on 8 "Everything To Do With Schools" ad (posted 10/20/08):



As we've covered, this is a horribly misleading ad. Unlike Massachusetts, California has opt-out policies for parents. It's a sleazy spot.

No on 8 "Nothing to Do with Schools" ad (posted 10/22/08):



This is a key ad. I also have to note that the online "rebuttal" by the Yes on 8 campaign is awfully weak. Read the whole piece for greater context, but check out this gem:

Specifically, the discussed [sic] whether schools are "required" to teach anything about marriage, and states that they are not.

By this logic, presumably, they would argue that no one in California is required to have a drivers’ license, only the people who want to drive cars are.

If kids weren't required to receive some sort of schooling and instead chose to go or not, this analogy would make more sense, but the entire piece falls apart for other reasons as well, most notably because parents can have their kids opt-out of sex ed. If the Yes on 8 campaign introduces a law that allows one to opt out of getting a driver's license to drive a car legally, we can revisit this analogy, but funny, it would still fail.

No on 8 "Itzhak Perlman" ad (10/22/08):



Another celebrity ad. I like all the ads in this vein, because they put a human face on the issue.

No on 8 "California Clergy" ad (posted 10/22/08):



I haven't seen this one on TV, but I appreciate that it points out that Yes on 8 is not the only "religious" position.

Yes on 8 " Truth" ad (posted 10/24/08):



This is another extremely misleading ad. The Sacramento Bee has a little on the wedding in question, and The San Francisco Chronicle has a longer piece (as well as an op-ed by John Diaz claiming this was a dumb move by Gavin Newsom, who officiated). The kids didn't attend the wedding; they surprised their teacher, who was getting married, outside City Hall. The trip was arranged by two parents (Diaz calls them "well-intentioned but politically naïve"), and crucially, two of the students from the class stayed behind because their parents requested that. I agree that this was an unwise move politically, but even given that, the Yes on 8 crew is pretending kids were forced to attend when that was not the case at all. Oh, and it turns out that Brad Dacus, a key member of the Yes on 8 campaign, "promotes California’s broad opt out law, which allows parents to pull their child from any school activity that violates their religious or moral beliefs."

You can read the cited webpages here and here. We've covered them in general terms already, but you can see that marriage is barely mentioned and it's pretty standard sex ed stuff. The Yes on 8 claims are grossly misleading. As usual, when it comes to matters of curricula, teachers and superintendents are a more reliable authority than, oh, activists with a track record of lying.

You may have also noticed another interesting claim in this ad. It's that "A leading Prop. 8 opponent has warned parents cannot remove students from this instruction." The ad doesn't name this "opponent," who also didn't appear to be mentioned in any of the campaign's press releases as of this writing (if you can find it, let me know). Furthermore, the ad doesn't say this claim is accurate, only that this "opponent" made it.

No on 8 "Moms" ad (posted 10/24/08):



Another human, personal approach.

No on 8 "Ferrera, Plana & Ortiz" ad (posted 10/25/08):



I haven't seen this on TV yet, but I imagine the Spanish version is getting more play.

Parents Demand Prop. 8 ad Taken Down (posted 10/26/08):



This is web only, but it reaffirms the point that parents can opt out of their kids going on field trips (or receiving sex ed, for that matter).

While the lies about education are a smokescreen, they do need to be rebutted, and I think it's important to understand both the mentality of the Yes on 8 crew and who they're trying to target. Prop. 8 is the real radical move here – it would change the state Constitution to deny rights to a specific minority group. The Yes on 8 campaign has consistently lied in furtherance of this goal. Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education or churches – it removes rights. While some of the other California ballot propositions are important as well, Prop. 8 is likely to have the greatest national impact. No on Prop. 8.

Won't Someone Please Think of the Children?

As I was finishing up this piece, Glenn Greenwald posted the following Yes on Prop 8 video from "Clay Music Ministry":



Yikes. As Tim Gunn puts it, "Unattractive." Clearly, Yes on 8 endangers children. And this video obligates a response. So hey, everyone on the Yes on 8 crew!

- I know gay musicians who can kick your ass in song-writing.

- If you think "man" and "eight" rhyme, you really could use some more schoolin' yourself.

- I'm not sure "This Old Man" will help you sell Prop. 8 or your presidential choice on November 4th.

Feel free to add your own response in comments, and please work to ensure a No on 8.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

CA Proposition 4: Parental Notification

I'm dismayed to see this one come up again, because it's the third time in a four years, its proponents are very deceptive and its consequences could be dire. Here's the official summary:

WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Changes California Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent or legal guardian.

Permits notification to certain adult relatives if doctor reports parent to law enforcement or Child Protective Services.

Provides notification exceptions for medical emergency or parental waiver.

Permits courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.

Mandates reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors.

Authorizes damages against physicians for violation.

Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with exceptions.

Prop. 4 endangers teens, and is opposed by The American Academy of Pediatrics (California District), The California Medical Association, The California Association Of Family Physicians, The American College Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists (District Ix), The California Nurses Association, The California Teachers Association, The California Association of School Counselors and Planned Parenthood.

Calitics has a few posts on this, and Digby in "Punishment For Being Human" really covers it all:

It is very dispiriting that California's Prop 4 requiring parental notification for abortions seems to be in danger of passage considering how how high the stakes are for some of the most vulnerable people in our population. It seems that the anti-choice forces are on the verge of another successful chipping away of a woman's right to own her own body and choose her own reproductive future…

…Let me just say that it is a tragedy for any teenager to be forced to bear a child against her will. And that is a very likely outcome for some girls if this proposition passes.

Everyone would prefer that a young woman or girl would have a relationship with her parents that would allow her to seek their help and support if she became pregnant. Many girls probably have that. But an awful lot of them don't. They have abusive parents or those whose values would require them to make an irrevocable decision to bear a child against her will. Girls are, by definition, immature and don't always understand how time works --- they live in denial past the moment when they can explore all their options. Being kids, they don't fully understand the consequences of failing to face reality, and if they have to confide in their parents they may wait longer than they otherwise would, out of embarrassment or fear. And, of course, there is the problem of incest and abuse, which makes it nearly impossible for some girls to tell their parents…

The bottom line is that if this passes, a lot of girls lives are going to be ruined because they couldn't tell their parents, or thought they couldn't tell their parents, and they waited until it was too late. It's just how teenagers are. It could result in a new form of back alley abortion, with girls going to dicey, unregulated practitioners so they don't have to face their folks. It will cause tragedies in any numbers of ways.

Digby has more on how this measure fits into the larger anti-abortion movement and its agenda of social control, so I'd recommend reading the whole thing.

Here's the No on 4 website, which allows you to donate to the cause.

Prop. 4 Ad Watch

For what it's worth, I believe I've only seen one of these air to date. There are Spanish versions of some of them as well.

Yes on 4 "Sexual Predators" Ad (posted 10/2/08):



As Digby notes, the sexual predator ad is a "dishonest, manipulative piece of garbage." The No on 4 site and their rebuttal in the Voter Guide explains why.

No on 4 "Jane's Journey" Ad (posted 10/9/08):



Although it's low-tech, I think this does a good job of explaining the practical obstacles this law would impose.

No on 4 "Bubble" ad (posted 10/14/08). This is the only one I think I've seen air so far:



A similar ad ran back in 2006. I think it gets right to the point.

Yes on 4 "Bubble" Ad (posted 10/15/08):



No on 4 "Gloria Molina" Ad (posted 10/21/08):



No on 4 "Room" Ad (posted 10/22/08):



Editorials

The Voter Guide and No on 4 have more information, but this Mercury News Editorial (linked by the No on 4 site) really highlights how deceptive the backers are and the consequences:

From top to bottom, Proposition 4 is the most deceptive measure on the California ballot this fall.

It might look like yet another well-meaning but misguided effort - the third in four years - to force minors to notify their parents before seeking an abortion. But this year's version is more insidious. Voters should run to the polls in November to reject it.

The proposition's misleading nature starts out with its name: Sarah's Law. Supporters want you to hear the sobering story of "Sarah," a 15-year-old girl who didn't tell her parents she was pregnant and then died after an abortion. Except "Sarah" didn't live in California. She lived in Texas and was considered to be married under Texas law, so any parental notification law wouldn't have applied to her. And her name isn't Sarah, it's Jamie Garcia Yanez-Villegas.

Most telling of all, her tragic death took place in 1994. That means when Proposition 4 backers went looking for a story to illustrate the need for a parental notification law, they couldn't find a better example in the last decade.

The need for this kind of law in California is wildly exaggerated. Less than 3 percent of California's teenage girls become pregnant every year, and it's well-documented that the vast majority tell their parents. Those who don't often have a good reason. They fear violent reactions or being thrown out of their homes. They are also the most likely to be victims of rape or incest.

These are the girls who most need help. But Proposition 4 threatens to make their tragic circumstance worse by giving them two choices - one worse than the other.

Girls can go before a judge and try to persuade him or her that their parents shouldn't be informed. Navigating the courts scares the bejabbers out of most adults, let alone already frightened teenagers. And delays while they think it over could pose a threat to their health.

That's bad enough, but the alternative offered by Proposition 4 represents a new low. It says pregnant girls can tell "certain adult relatives" - but to be able to receive an abortion, they also have to tell a doctor in writing that they have been victims of child abuse. That would automatically trigger a response by police. So a girl trying to deal with a pregnancy could quickly be mired in a child abuse investigation involving the parents she was afraid to talk to in the first place.
Given those options, teenagers are far more likely to take matters into their own hands, either seeking an abortion in another state or, worse, looking for a back-room abortion. In the old days before Roe v. Wade established a woman's right to choose, these back-room, often unsanitary procedures were common. Many girls and women died or were left sterile as a result.

California has a proud history of putting the health and safety of a child before a parent's right to know - not just for abortions but in cases of drug abuse, mental illness and sexually transmitted disease.

Reducing the number of teenage abortions is an excellent goal. The way to make that happen is through education and effective contraception - not by preying on the most troubled of pregnant teens to make a political point.

I understand and am sympathetic to parental anxiety, but I'm also familiar with how parental anxiety can lead to very bad decisions with dire consequences – in some cases, the precise opposite of what was intended. Meanwhile, when a group lies as much as the Yes on Prop. 4 does, it's a little warning sign not to trust them. A family with trust and communications doesn't need Prop. 4. Girls without that type of family – and especially those subject to physical and/or sexual abuse – will be greatly harmed by it. No on Prop. 4 and this underhanded, dangerous effort yet again.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

CA Ballot Propositions (Fall 2008)

As I've written before, because California isn't a battleground state, we don't get many national political ads, but every election, we're absolutely deluged by ballot proposition ads. Most are fairly well made from a technical standpoint (the benefit of being in a film industry state), but some are simply propaganda, ranging from the clumsy to the slick. Here's some information for voting.

The California Secretary of State's voter guide online has the specific ballot language, fiscal impact, arguments for and against, and links to the for and against websites. Click on the individual ballot measures in the left hand column for more information. If nothing else, I find it useful to see who's for and against different measures.

On Which Way LA?, a local NPR show, host Warren Olney leads discussions on individual measures, inviting proponents for each side on. Scroll through to find a specific discussion.

The Los Angeles Times and Sacramento Bee don't have comprehensive guides up yet, but do offer some stories on individual measures.

Perhaps of most use to liberal Californians is Calitics, a site for progressive California politics. Here's a snapshot of their endorsements:


(Click the image for a slightly larger view.)

The actual entry explains their positions, and other posts in their endorsements category go further in depth.

I plan to cover some of the other propositions in greater depth myself (especially Prop. 8), but here's a start.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)