|
 |
CHRIS JOHNSON
Friday, September 05, 2008
DENVER
—
A
majority
of
likely
California
voters
oppose
a
proposed
state
constitutional
amendment
that
would
ban
same-sex
marriage
in
the
state,
according
to
a
recent
survey.
The
survey,
published
Aug.
27
by
the
Public
Policy
Institute
of
California,
found
that
54
percent
of
California
voters
oppose
the
measure,
known
as
Proposition
8,
while
40
percent
support
it.
The
findings
of
the
survey,
conducted
via
phone
interviews
with
2,001
California
residents
from
Aug.
12
to
Aug.
19,
are
consistent
with
earlier
polls
showing
that
a
majority
of
California
voters
oppose
the
amendment,
which
will
be
on
the
state
ballot
in
November.
Steve
Smith,
a
campaign
consultant
for
Equality
for
All,
the
coalition
fighting
the
amendment,
said
the
survey
results
show
that
California
voters
are
“not
willing
to
eliminate”
the
right
for
gay
couples
to
marry.
“They’re
no
longer
willing
to
treat
people
differently
under
the
law
in
the
state
of
California,”
he
said.
But
the
survey
also
found
that
California
voters
are
evenly
split
on
same-sex
marriage
in
general.
Same-sex
nuptials
are
favored
by
47
percent
of
respondents
and
opposed
by
another
47
percent.
Additionally,
the
survey
found
that
eight
in
10
believe
that
the
outcome
of
Proposition
8
“is
important.”
The
survey’s
results
were
released
as
Democrats
met
in
Denver
for
the
Democratic
National
Convention.
For
gay
delegates
attending
the
convention,
the
marriage
amendments
facing
several
states
were
hot
topics.
In
addition
to
California,
voters
in
Florida
and
Arizona
must
decide
whether
to
accept
or
reject
marriage
amendments
this
November.
California
is
the
only
state
among
the
three
where
same-sex
marriage
is
permitted.
During
a
gay
caucus
meeting
Aug.
25,
Arizona
State
Del.
Kyrsten
Sinema
(D),
a
bisexual
and
convention
delegate,
and
Shannon
Minter,
legal
director
for
the
National
Center
for
Lesbian
Rights,
urged
delegates
to
work
together
to
defeat
the
initiatives.
In
an
interview
with
the
Blade
following
the
caucus,
Sinema
said
she
thinks
the
fate
of
the
three
marriage
amendments
facing
different
states
“are
all
intertwined.”
“We
have
a
duty
as
a
community
to
do
a
trifecta
and
win
all
three,”
she
said.
“I
think
a
loss
in
any
of
those
states
will
have
a
long-lasting,
negative
impact
on
our
community.”
Sinema
said
poll
numbers
on
the
Arizona
amendment
“are
looking
better
than
they
ever
had
before”
because
Arizona
residents
have
seen
gay
couples
getting
married
in
California
in
the
past
few
months.
Gay
couples
began
exchanging
vows
in
June
after
the
California
Supreme
Court
ruled
in
May
that
they
had
a
fundamental
right
to
marry.
In
her
speech
before
gay
delegates,
Sinema
noted
that
Arizona
defeated
in
2006
an
amendment
to
ban
same-sex
marriage
that
included
more
restrictive
language
than
the
current
initiative.
The
failure
of
the
2006
proposal
was
the
first
time
a
state
constitutional
amendment
banning
same-sex
marriage
failed
at
the
polls.
Three
‘M’s
The
delegate
said
Arizona
rejected
the
2006
amendment
because
opponents
of
the
measure
had
three
‘M’s:
message,
messengers
and
money.
Sinema
said
marriage
amendments
could
be
defeated
in
any
state
throughout
the
country
by
using
these
“three
‘M’s.”
For
their
message,
Sinema
said,
Arizona
activists
“learned
how
to
research
and
find
the
messages”
to
persuade
swing
voters
to
join
with
same-sex
marriage
supporters
to
defeat
the
amendment.
As
far
as
messengers,
Sinema
asked
gay
delegates
to
return
home
and
talk
about
how
the
measures
would
be
detrimental
to
their
families.
Sinema
called
money
her
most
important
“M”
because
it’s
necessary
to
exceed
the
finances
that
anti-gay
groups
“have
enjoyed
over
the
years.”
“The
truth
is,
that
just
outside
these
doors,
the
radical
right
is
scared
to
hell
about
the
people
in
this
room,”
she
said.
“And
because
they
are
scared
of
you
and
me
and
all
of
us
in
this
room,
they
will
fight
tooth-and-nail
to
keep
what
they
have
and
keep
you
from
getting
what
you
deserve.”Minter
spoke
specifically
about
the
proposed
amendment
banning
same-sex
marriage
in
California.
He
said
the
gay
community
must
have
“leadership
and
unequivocal
support”
to
defeat
the
California
initiative.
“It
is
intended
to
take
away
our
dignity,
to
take
away
our
hope,
to
put
us
back
into
our
place
as
second-class
citizens,”
he
said.
“Make
no
mistake,
the
political
stakes
for
our
community
in
California
could
not
possibly
be
higher.”
In
her
interview
with
the
Blade,
Sinema
also
denied
that
the
multiple
campaigns
against
measures
in
different
states
were
competing
with
resources
from
the
gay
community.
“I
think
that’s
people
who
just
want
some
salacious
story
—
I’ll
be
honest,”
she
said.
In
July,
Stephen
Gaskill,
then-spokesperson
for
Florida
Red
and
Blue,
said
the
situation
in
California
has
made
fundraising
more
of
a
challenge
in
Florida
and
said,
“if
the
California
effort
was
not
underway,
it
would
be
easier
for
Florida
to
raise
money.”
A
number
of
other
gay
delegates
at
the
convention
said
the
fate
of
Proposition
8
was
important
to
them,
even
delegates
who
don’t
live
in
California.
Mike
Nelson,
a
delegate
from
North
Carolina
and
member
of
the
Orange
County
Board
of
Commissioners,
noted
that
“there
are
nationwide
implications”
for
the
California
amendment.
“Most
of
us
in
the
South
are
looking
to
the
states
outside
of
the
South
like
California
and
Massachusetts
to
lead
the
way,”
he
said.
“We’re
counting
on
the
people
of
California
to
do
the
right
thing.”
Carla
“K.C.”
Hanson,
a
lesbian
delegate
from
Oregon
and
automobile
painter,
also
said
Proposition
8
has
implications
for
the
rest
of
the
country.
“If
the
anti-gay
forces
do
win,
you
can
bet
your
bottom
dollar
—
not
just
in
Oregon
but
in
other
states
—
that
they’re
going
to
rub
their
hands
and
chomp
at
the
bit
to
get
more
measures
and
more
initiatives,”
she
said.
But
at
least
one
delegate
said
the
marriage
amendments
were
of
less
importance
than
setting
up
non-discrimination
laws
for
the
workplace.
Alycia
Broz,
a
lesbian
delegate
from
Ohio
and
an
attorney,
said
her
state
already
passed
a
...
|
 |
