Prop 8 supporters call for last-minute help
Supporters of Proposition 8, the initiative to ban same-sex marriage in California, called for last-minute fundraising as a late surge by No on 8 erased a $10 million edge in campaign cash.
From Oct. 1-25, the No on 8 campaign reported more than 1,500 contributions of more than $1,000. Supporters include Hollywood notables Ellen DeGeneres, George Lucas and Barbara Streisand and Google’s president, Sergey Brin. On Oct. 7, a fund-raising message from the No on 8 campaign called for financial help to turn back the Yes on 8 offensive and prevent “our worst nightmares from coming true.”
“They have caught up with us if not surpassed us,” Yes on 8 spokesman Chip White said. “We sent out an emergency appeal a few days ago, and people are responding. It’s our hope that supporters of traditional marriage would continue to dig deep.”
Prop 8 would overturn last May’s California Supreme Court ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to designate their unions as marriage.
Yes on 8 has gained in the polls on an advertising blitz that began Sept. 29, White said. He said the race is essentially even.
“From everything I know, this race is neck and neck – an extremely tight race,” he said. “It could be decided by a just a few thousand votes.”
Both campaigns poured most of their cash into TV ads, with Yes on 8 continuing to make public school curriculum the main theme of its effort to reach undecided voters.
Yes on 8 maintains that the teaching of same-sex marriage will enter public school instruction and materials if the Supreme Court decision is not overturned. “Our campaign believes this is an issue parents should get to teach their kids about according to their own beliefs,” White said.
The controversy concerns the California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Act, which is intended to provide a public school student with the knowledge necessary to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. The law also is designed to encourage a pupil to develop healthy attitudes on adolescent growth and development, body image, gender roles, sexual orientation, dating and marriage.
The law states that “instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.” Any instruction must be appropriate by age and must not reflect any bias or promote religious doctrine, according to the law.
No on 8 counters that the concerns raised by Yes on 8 are misleading, maintaining that parents can opt out if they disapprove of the instruction and that local school authorities have wide discretion over how to present sexual health education. In a No on 8 TV spot, state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell said: “Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids. Our schools aren’t required to teach anything about marriage, and using kids to lie about that is shameful.”
The Yes on 8 campaign sent a letter to O’Connell and Ted Mitchell, chairman of the California State Board of Education, “to correct their recent statement to media about Prop 8 and the teaching of gay marriage in public schools.”
Their statements do not “refute the assertion in Yes on 8 advertising that gay marriage will be taught in public schools,” the Yes on 8 campaign countered.
Carol Hogan, pastoral projects director for the California Catholic Conference, sent out the following clarification for media:
“The ‘no’ side is claiming that the ‘yes’ is lying about children being taught about gay marriage in school. The ‘yes’ side is not lying and what the ‘no’ side is doing is sidestepping the issue — as ‘gay marriage isn’t necessarily going to be taught in health or sex ed classes (for which parents can opt-out their children) – but will be taught in ‘diversity’ lessons (we don’t discriminate against people with disabilities, people of different races, people who marry people of the same sex) starting with children in primary grades. That has already happened in Massachusetts. Parents sued and were told they had no right to object.”
Last week, the No on 8 campaign also expressed outrage over a Yes on 8 fundraising letter targeting No on 8 contributors. The letter asked the donors to change sides and said the names of those who do not switch will be published. “It is only fair for Proposition 8 supporters to know which companies and organizations oppose traditional marriage,” the letter stated.
In response, No on 8 executive committee member Geoff Kors said of the Yes on 8 campaign: “This outrageous attempt to raise money by using threats reveals their true agenda: permanently to harm the LGBT community, our organizations, our allies and our supporters.”
The letter was not a threat, as donor information is already public, the CCC’s Hogan said.
“In addition, it is also interesting that the press is concerned about this letter but did virtually no reporting on the widespread intimidation and harassment of countless Yes on 8 contributors who have been subjected to phone calls at home, calls to their place of employment and even boycotts of their businesses,” she said.
“Of course, the California Catholic Conference has no intention of encouraging any boycott or other action that would in any way suppress the free expression of individuals on the issue of Proposition 8,” she said. “At this time, passions are running high in the campaign which has such major implications for society and for the children in California.”
Prop 8 “remains a fierce fight that could be decided either way by a handful of voters,” A SurveyUSA poll of 800 likely voters found. The organization said the measure has been effectively even in three separate surveys over the past month, and voters are divided geographically.
“What remains clear today: those in the Inland Empire and the Central Valley continue to want the law changed,” SurveyUSA said. “Those in the Bay Area continue to want the law left alone. Those in greater LA remain split. Men, seniors, gun owners, the less well- educated and the more religious support 8. Women, Democrats, liberals and pro-choice voters oppose. Young voters, upper-income voters, white voters, moderates and independents split.” The electorate also is divided on Prop 4, the pre-abortion parental notification measure for pregnant girls under 18, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found.
Likely voters are strongly divided along party lines, with Republicans in favor (61% to 28%) and Democrats opposed (35% to 54%). Half of independents are opposed (51% to 43%). Regionally, a majority of Bay Area likely voters (56%) are opposed, while about half of those in Los Angeles (52%), the Central Valley (52%), and the “Other Southern California” region (51%) are in favor.
However, a separate poll by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, found a 19-point lead for Prop 4 among likely voters.
Under Prop 4, doctors would be required to alert a pregnant minor’s parent or legal guardian at least 48 hours before performing an abortion. If the minor fears she would be abused by a parent for the disclosure, the law would allow another adult relative to be notified.
Father John Corapi of Catholic Radio called upon Catholics to make a novena and pray the Rosary to Our Lady of Victory between Oct. 27 and Election Day.
“Pray that God’s will be done and the most innocent and utterly vulnerable of our brothers and sisters will be protected from this barbaric and grossly sinful blight on society that is abortion,” he said.
A third initiative on the Nov. 4 ballot, Proposition 6, is opposed by the California bishops. The measure would require a minimum of $965 million a year to be allocated from the state general fund for police, sheriffs, district attorneys, adult probation, jails and juvenile probation facilities. It would toughen criminal laws dealing with gang-related offenses and felons carrying guns under certain conditions.
In a statement, the California bishops said:
“Although Proposition 6 was introduced in good faith by those with legitimate concerns about ‘safe neighborhoods,’ it offers more of the same criminal justice policies which have failed in the past — and it will cost Californians billions of dollars without increasing public safety. We encourage those who deal with criminal justice issues in California to join with each other to craft a wise, humane and effective policy for dealing with crime in our state. We as bishops in the state of California will continue to work toward a true spirit of restorative justice, believing that only by addressing the issue from the perspective of ‘restoration’ can our neighborhoods truly be safe.”
(By Rick DelVecchio)
