Opinions Do Change

Back in 2008 the voters of California passed Proposition 8 -- which denied gays/lesbians the right to marry the person they loved. At the time, opinion polls showed only 51% of Californians favored equal marriage rights (while 42% opposed). The proponents of Prop 8 spent a huge chunk of money to convince people that giving gays/lesbians the right to marry would mean that homosexuality would be taught in California schools. It was a lie (and a stupid argument), but convinced enough voters to allow Prop 8 to pass by a small margin.

Since then, the matter has been in the courts. Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional by a California judge, and his ruling has been upheld by an appeals court. The religious bigots who proposed Prop 8 might still appeal to the Supreme Court (and likely will), but it seems that bigotry is losing ground among Californians. As the top chart shows, that 51% who favored marriage equality has now grown to 59%. And the 42% who opposed it has now dropped to only 34%. In other words, a 9 point difference has now grown to a 25 point difference.

And as the bottom chart shows, the increase in support for equality cuts across all demographic lines. In every single group, including Republicans and religious organizations, the support for marriage equality has grown dramatically in the last couple of years. Part of the reason for this is the huge amount of publicity the issue has received since the passage of Prop 8. And people who once could avoid taking a stand on the issue, can no longer do that since it is a publicly discussed issue.

And once the issue tumbled out of the closet and the public was forced to confront it, more and more people began to come down on the side of equality rather than bigotry. So much so that if the issue were to go before the voters again, it is highly unlikely that anything like Prop 8 could pass in California again. And it is not just in California that public opinion is changing. It is changing across the country, even in red state bastions.

Bigotry can only survive when ordinarily decent people are able to ignore it. Oddly enough, it is the bigots themselves who are making this an issue that can't be ignored. And forced to choose, most people are choosing equality. All across the country the right-wing fundamentalists are once again waging a war, not just on equal marriage rights, but also on race and women's rights. It is a war they cannot win, because no decent person wants to return to this country's bigoted past.

Mormons Get A Slap On The Wrist

I haven't studied the teachings of the Mormon Church, but I had always assumed that it taught, just like the other christian sects do, that lying and breaking the law was wrong. I guess I was mistaken about that, or maybe it's only wrong for members and not wrong for the church itself.

A few days ago the California Ethics Commission found the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon Church) guilty of 13 counts of late campaign reporting. The charges had concerned the Mormon Church's involvement in campaigning for Prop 8 in California's last election. Prop 8 was the proposition that denied gays and lesbians the right to marry (a right enjoyed by all other Americans).

Right after the election, the Mormon Church said they had spent $2078 in the campaign for Prop 8. That was a lie, and lying about campaign expenditures is a violation of California law. Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, did not believe that and filed a complaint with the California Ethics Commission. The church instantly labeled Karger's charge as "false" -- which was another lie by the church.

Months later, the church finally admitted they had actually spent over $190,000 of church money in the campaign. But that was only the beginning. The church also raised over $30 million from Mormon families that was also spent on the Prop 8 campaign. That's a huge difference from their initial claim of spending only $2078.

According to the San Francisco Examiner, "The Mormon Church ran phone banks, sent out direct mail, had well designed web sites, produced 27 slick commercials, bussed people in from Utah and had lots of travel expenses by high ranking Church officials." (it's amazing that they expected people to believe all that was done on $2078).

So what was the penalty for all this lying and law-breaking? The California Ethics Commission fined the Mormon Church $5538. That's right. They were fined a whopping 0.00018% of the money they actually spent on the campaign. Think that will convince them not to lie and break the law in another campaign?

To be truthful, that's not even a real slap on the wrist. If anything, it's an affirmation of their right to play fast and loose with campaign laws.

Supreme Court Decisions Disappointing

The United States Supreme Court made a couple of decisions yesterday. One was a decision actually made by the court, while the other decision was made by the court's refusal to hear the case. I was a bit disappointed in both, and I think both showed the court's current right-wing bent.

In the first decision, the court issued an emergency stay which would prevent the U.S. District Court in California from releasing video of the trial to determine the constitutionally of California's Prop 8 (which denies equal protection to homosexuals and denies them the right to marry).

The justices halted any video streaming of the trial "except as it permits streaming to other rooms within the confines of the courthouse in which the trial is to be held. Any additional oder permitting broadcasting of the proceedings is also stayed pending further order of this court."

The court did not explain its reasoning, but one justice disagreed with the ruling. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, "In my view, the court's standard for granting a stay is not met. In particular, the papers filed, in my view, do not show a likelihood of 'irreparable harm.'"

Fortunately, the stay that was issued was only temporary and expires tomorrow (13th). Maybe the court will come to its senses and refuse to extend their stay. I certainly hope so. This is an important trial and should be available for the public to view.

The case the court refused to accept upholds the ruling of the lower court. That ruling backed the right of the Waxahachie (Texas) High School to ban t-shirts with political expressions. Student Pete Palmer had worn a shirt touting John Edwards for president, and was told he could not wear the shirt.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld the high school's rule, saying it was OK because its intent was to reduce distractions. I'm not exactly sure how this jibes with the court's decision in the seventies saying high school students have the right to express their own political opinions.

I guess the court is now saying that if any political opinions are allowed, then all must be allowed -- but the school has the right to ban clothing with political opinions as long as all opinions are equally banned (and I assume that would include religious or social opinions).

I'm not real comfortable with this court decision. I would personally like to see student's have the ability to express themselves politically, but as long as the ban includes all opinions I can live with it.

Homophobes Afraid Of Open Trial

There is a very important trial starting on Monday in California. The trial will decide the constitutionality of Prop 8 that denied the right to marry to homosexuals in California. Those opposed to Prop 8 believe it is unconstitutional for voters to deny a right to a class of people when that right is guaranteed to all other classes of people.

This is a simple concept. It simply means that rights are to be shared equally by all people. Since the constitution in California guarantees the right to marry to California citizens, then it is wrong for voters to deny that right to a specific group of people. This is an important concept, because if one group can be denied a constitutional right then any other group could be denied the same or another right.

Because this trial is so important to all citizens, the opponents of Prop 8 (140,000 of them in a petition) asked U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to open the trial to video cameras so all citizens can view the trial. Because of a recent rule change by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allowing TV coverage of civil trials, Judge Walker approved the request for cameras -- sort of.

What he actually did was allow the trial to be videotaped. The tapes will be made available to YouTube after court is over each day. This makes sense, because anything that happens in the trial is public record anyway.

But those who want to keep Prop 8 don't like the judge's ruling. That's not surprising. People who are trying to deny equal rights to any group certainly wouldn't want their vile effort exposed to the light of day. That would expose the reality of what they are trying to do to all the citizens of the state.

Those who would deny the equal rights have now appealed Judge Walker's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. They have filed an emergency appeal with Justice Anthony Kennedy, arguing their right to a fair trial would be jeopardized by the video cameras. Hogwash! No one's rights are violated by a free, fair and open trial that can be viewed by the public. In fact, the videos of the trial is more likely to guarantee both sides are treated fairly by the court.

The real reason they want to hide this trial is because of the unfair and generally untrue statements and advertisements they used during the Prop 8 campaign will most likely be exposed in the trial. They will be seen for the liars they truly are.

I hope Justice Kennedy will deny this effort to hide the trial from the people. The concept of equal rights is too important to all citizens and those citizens have a right to see this trial.

The Fight Over Prop 8

On November 4th, California voters passed Prop 8. This proposition changed California law, and made it illegal for same-sex couples to marry. Right-wing fundamentalists across the country celebrated their apparent victory. But the celebration was short-lived, because opponents of the proposition filed suit and asked the California Supreme Court to overturn the new law.

Then last month, Attorney General Brown (pictured) surprised many people by siding with the opponents of Prop 8. Brown reasoned that the California constitution contained certain inalienable rights, including the right to privacy. He went on to state that California courts have already decided that the right to marry was included in the right to privacy.

That meant that Prop 8 had removed an inalienable right from a class or group of people. It was Brown's contention that it was unconstitutional for voters to deny an inalienable right to anyone. It was a brilliant bit of legal reasoning, and may well result in Prop 8 being overturned.

Yesterday, the supporters of Prop 8 filed their response to Brown with the California Supreme Court. Frankly, the response sounds weak. Their response said, "The people have the final word on what the California Constitution says. The practical result of the Attorney General's theory is that the people can never amend the Constitution to overrule judicial interpretations of inalienable rights."

Is this the best they could do? Do they really believe that voters have the right to deny inalienable rights to anyone they want to? Do they believe voters have the right to deny equal rights to African-Americans or Hispanics? How about women or the elderly? This is just a silly argument!

Before they filed such a ridiculous answer with the court, they really should have looked up the meaning of "inalienable" in the dictionary. According to the Oxford American Desk Dictionary, it means "untransferable, nonnegotiable, inviolable, sacrosanct, unchallengeable, absolute".

That seems pretty clear to me. An inalienable right is just what Brown said it was -- a right that voters cannot deny to any group or class of people. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of homosexuals, they are entitled to the same inalienable rights as all other citizens.

AG Brown Opposes Prop 8

California's current attorney general, Jerry Brown, has a reputation as a progressive and a free-thinker, who is not afraid to do what's right instead of what's popular. That's why his latest action didn't surprise me as much as it did some people.

When Prop 8 passed with a slim majority in the November election, most pundits believed Brown would support the majority when opponents of Prop 8 took it to the California Supreme Court in an effort to overturn the new law. Prop 8 denies homosexuals the right to marry in California. But Brown didn't do as expected. He is once again marching to his own drum beat.

Last Friday, right before the court's deadline, Brown filed a 111 page brief asking the court to overturn Prop 8. The Los Angeles Times called Brown's argument a "novel legal theory". I just call it a brilliant defense of individual rights.

Attorney General Brown (pictured above) says California's constitution guarantees the citizens of the state certain inalienable rights to liberty and to privacy. California courts have already decided that the right to marry is included in the right to privacy. This sets up a conflict between the voter's right to change the constitution and the inalienable rights of all citizens, since Prop 8 removes the right of a specific class of citizens to marry.

Brown says that while California voters have the ability to change or amend their constitution, they do not have the ability to deny or remove the inalienable rights of any group or class of people. Allowing voters to remove a group's rights would create a "tyranny of the majority" and place all of the inalienable rights in danger.

That is a clear and concise bit of legal thinking, and goes to the crux of the problem. It is now up to the California Supreme Court to act to protect the rights of ALL of California's citizens.

Picking On The Mormons (Not)

Normally I don't read Jonah Goldberg, knowing he's one of those right-wing nuts that has little use for fairness, facts or truth. But I got sucked in yesterday by the title of his piece, and I have to admit that the stupidity was overwhelming. He seems to think that those mean old gays are picking on the poor Mormons.

He was particularly upset by what he called "An Ugly Attack on Mormons" - a TV ad that was run in the final days of the campaign. He talks about a TV ad "in which two smarmy Mormon missionaries knock on the door of an attractive lesbian couple. 'Hi, we're from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!' says the blond one with a toothy smile. 'We're here to take away your rights.' The Mormon zealots yank the couple's wedding rings from their fingers and then tear up their marriage license. As the thugs leave, one says to the other, 'That was too easy.' His smirking comrade replies, 'Yeah, what should we ban next?' The voice-over implores viewers: 'Say no to a church taking over your government.' "

Goldberg calls the ad "slander" and says it is just because "Mormons are the most vulnerable of the culturally conservative religious denominations and therefore the easiest targets for an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience."

That's the biggest load of horse crap I've heard in quite a while. The Mormons have the right to believe whatever they want to about gays and vote however they want in any election. But that is not all they did. They intentionally jumped into the political arena.

When the church donated huge sums of money and campaigned against proposition 8 in California, they went from the religous arena to the political arena. While politics is the life-blood of our democracy, it is also a rather brutal endeavor. You cannot expect to throw a political punch and not get punched back politically.

The Mormons acted to deprive homosexuals of their right to equal treatment under the law. To now act like they're being picked on because the other side struck back is either incredibly naive or just plain disingenuous. It's like the bully who picked a fight, but wimps out when he starts to get his butt kicked.

No one is picking on the Mormons. They're just getting a little payback.