Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Gay marriage foes step up battle in Calif.
08.25.2008 9:27am EDT
(Fresno, California) Michael Bumgarner says he’s never campaigned for a political cause before, but his strong opposition to same-sex marriage has prompted him to join thousands of volunteers going door-to-door in support of a ballot initiative that would ban gay nuptials here.
“I’ve never stumped before, but I want to be a part of this,” Bumgarner said. The retired insurance executive and devout Mormon said his late mother would “turn over in her grave” if she knew that gays and lesbians could marry.With less than 11 weeks until Election Day, supporters of Proposition 8 are ramping up their field organization and refining their message as they seek to persuade California voters to shut the door on same-sex marriage. It’s the first time voters will be asked to weigh in on the issue in either California or Massachusetts – the states where gays have won the right to wed.
An estimated 15,000 backers of the measure, most of them members of Mormon, Catholic and evangelical Christian churches, knocked on doors and distributed campaign literature to registered voters throughout the state this weekend and last, according to Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Yes on 8 campaign.
The initiative is a constitutional amendment, similar to ones already enacted in 26 other states, that would overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage. It needs a simple majority of votes to pass.
Ron Prentice, director of the coalition of religious and social conservative groups that qualified the amendment for the November ballot, said the group has ordered 1 million yard signs and 1 million bumper stickers.
“Unless the people are angry, nothing will happen,” Prentice said. “We are going to change the Constitution and say on Nov. 4, ‘Judges, you can’t touch this.’”
For now, the campaign’s goal is to identify supporters and voters who are unaware or haven’t made up their minds about the measure, said Al Almendariz, a retired air traffic controller and a Mormon.
Almendariz led a team of five people canvassing a suburban neighborhood southeast of Sacramento on Saturday, and their script was concise. The volunteers told people who answered their doors they were with the Proposition 8 campaign, an effort that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman. They didn’t mention same-sex marriage unless a resident brought it up.
“We’re just polling – yes or no, not trying to find converts or change people’s minds,” said Christina Hirst, 28, a photographer with three young children. Hirst and her husband, Justin, 33, a high-school Spanish teacher, said they joined the door-knocking Saturday because they don’t want their children hearing about gay relationships at school.
The literature that volunteers distributed was intended to reinforce the campaign’s message that the amendment is “pro-marriage and children” instead of anti-gay.
“California should do more to encourage families to stay together,” reads the pamphlets illustrated with close-ups of heterosexual couples posed cheek-to-cheek.
Frank Schubert, who is co-managing the Yes on 8 campaign, said the outreach effort is designed to counter the principle message of gay rights advocates, who are portraying the upcoming vote as a matter of fairness and equality.
“They want people to feel like you are a bad person if you support what has been the definition of marriage since the dawn of time,” Schubert said. By having face-to-face conversations about why the amendment is necessary, organizers hope to reach potential supporters who may worry that voting for the measure would get them labeled as “bigots or homophobes,” he said.
Bumgarner distributed handouts listing “Six Consequences if Proposition 8 Fails” that volunteers were encouraged to use as talking points. They included warnings that ministers who preach against same-sex marriage could be sued for hate speech, churches would be sued for refusing to host wedding ceremonies for gays, and that “children in schools will be taught that same-sex marriage is OK.”
The amendment’s opponents dispute those claims, saying that the Supreme Court specifically exempted churches from having to participate in same-sex weddings and that nothing in state law requires teachers to discuss marriage – straight or gay – with students.
Recent polls suggest the election could be close. A Field Poll taken last month found that 51 percent of likely voters said they would vote against Proposition 8, while 42 percent said they would vote for it.
So Mr. Bumgarner thinks that his mother would turn over in her grave if she knew that gays and lesbians could marry; well, sir, we’ve had gay marriage in this country (Canada)for some time! To date, I’ve only heard of 2 cases where someone actually rolled in their graves, because we homosexuals are allowed to marry; in each case, the fire department was called in, and quickly re-positioned the bodies to their “normal” resting positions.
Roll, baby, roll!
I agree with Bonnie. Ban all straights who can’t procreate or don’t want children from marrying, since procreation is the primary purpose of what these right wing bigots construe marriage as being. While they’re at it, ban divorce too and if someone commits adultery, ban them from marrying again. Straights are the threat to marriage, not our right to marry. Marriage was invented by men to control society and to treat women as chattel, property and to raise children, ideally boys to fight their tribal wars, it hasn’t changed that much.
Another thing, these right wingers believe that the world is only 6,000 years old, that Adam & Eve were the first parents of the human race. Now we all know that Adam & Eve purportedly had three children, Cain, Able and Seth, ALL boys. Does this not imply then that in order for Adam & Eve to have populate the planet, their sons would have had to have had incestuous relationships with their own mother?
I find it so ironic that Moromons are so gun-hoe on one man – one woman when their religion promoted polygamy and though they still don’t practise, they believe that it will be “reinstated” when they become gods.
It just amazes me that they say:
“California should do more to encourage families to stay together,” reads the pamphlets illustrated with close-ups of heterosexual couples posed cheek-to-cheek.
What are we? Aren’t we also families? Shouldn’t they encourage ALL families to stay together (actually, why do they have to be in our business in the first place? Why don’t they worry about their own families and keep them together!)
Marriage is for children? I can NEVER understand this lame argument. If that was the case, why aren’t they fighting to dissolve the various celebrity marriages, marriages of people who can’t have children, the marriages of people who don’t want children, etc. What do they mean by PROTECTING MARRIAGE?
Bumgarner is worried about his mother turning over in her grave? I think he has more important issues he needs to deal with instead of fighting to deny the rights of 2 loving adults.
“We must never give up the fight for all can be lost with the simple stroke of a pen”
Keep a smile on your face and love in your heart!
Someone here asked for a valid reason they are against our marriages. Someone else asked why they have so much time to devote to this, why not work on things that matter. I’ve pondered both while watching parents load their children on RCC funded hate-buses going to Boston to march against marriage equality. Think of it…put your children on a bus to hold signs screaming inequality and hate.
So here is what I’ve concluded:
To the second question, we need to remember these are religious idealogues. Pushing their religious agenda without regards to reason is their SINGULAR purpose in life. Basically, they lived a life of guilt, found “god” and pledged to work to do his work, whatever form that takes, depending on the level of hate-spewing the cult they joined aspires to. Fighting equality for them is just getting their ticket punched, the 29 virgins et all in waiting.
For the first question, if you read between the lines, it is very clear what their motivation is. THEY DON’T WANT THEIR CHILDREN EXPOSED TO US. They always mention the children. They don’t want me and my spouse to come to school for family day, they don’t want Billy explaining to Tommy he has two moms and its ok. For similar reasons to the religious idealog argument, since we are soooo bad for society, if their children learn early on that we are not a threat, their entire house of cards built around hate crumbles. Its a defense mechanism. First you buy the snake oil, then you start to maybe realize it was a lie, then you get real defensive and defend the lie vehemently so nobody questions your faith.
These people are very simple minded, have you ever argued with one of them? Very, very simple people. They don’t think for themselves, every answer they need was written in books thousands of years ago.
The thought of their children thinking and reasoning, and reasoning that this doesn’t matter, scares the hell out of them.
Fear, idealogy and being a dumb victim of hate-mongering. Those are the reasons they fight this.
What is so crazy to me is that these people have this much time on their hands to pursue a matter such as this. Is it this what really upsets people in the world. When so many other things could be fought for?
ARE U SERIOUS? Give me a break this is suppossed to be a country that gives equal rights to everyone. Well we all no that one is as imperfect as the people who thought it up.
Yet in still why do “you” care what goes on in my home as long as I am happy, being an exammple citizen and taking care of my family.
In the bible it speaks of “Coveting your neighbors ass”..So in other words why are u in our business????
These people have no fucking clue, they are useless to society.Mind your business and dont worry about what goes on in my home!!!!
This article makes me sick — I just can not stand that religious people are always the ones out to promote hate. Plus — I don’t understand why civil rights are up for a vote. If the guy believes his mother is rolling over in her grave, he has a more immediate issue to take care of.
I wonder if they went door to dooo to some of the residents of cali that are gay and got married….How would they have reacted to the “citizen concerned about marriage”????
Of course that Task Force a.k.a. equality for all isn’t canvassing door-to-door. Sarah Reece, the worthless director of the campaign has said we don’t have time and that if we were going to go door-to-door we should have started two years ago. Well, I know from the mouth of several Task Force employees that they knew this was coming as early as December 2005. Don’t tell me they didn’t have time. Please. The task force is a worthless org. It is no accident that Arizona, the only state to defeat one of these things, did not follow their rules.
“The retired insurance executive and devout Mormon said his late mother would “turn over in her grave” if she knew that gays and lesbians could marry.”
It’s funny that a Mormon, those followers of a religion founded on polygamy, should be bothering other people… Oh well, maybe they’ve decided that since they can’t have any fun they’ll try and spoil things for everyone else.
Mormons, Catholics and Neocon Southern Baptists… Time for you to shut up and work on things like poverty and homelessness.
tristanrobin Said:
“With a big election year….”
Your bring up some really valid points. Points which I have not thought of myself. Now if we could only inform the general public of those points.
Reading articles like this make me want to go out and torch every catholic, mormon and evangelical church’s in sight during Sunday worship services.
With a big election year – and the recent court rulings in both CA and MA – I’ve already started to hear and read the use-the-gays-as-political-scapegoats strategies gearing up. I only wish that we all would demand the issue be addressed and discussed honestly, without the rhetoric and dishonest catch phrases that always are included in such discussions and speeches.
Perhaps the phrase that annoys me, personally, the most is “redefining marriage.” I’m truly surprised that intelligent people have fallen for this disingenuous phrase.
When gay couples marry, the marriage license applications, the marriage licenses themselves, and the vows used to enter into the legally binding contract of marriage, are exactly the same as those used by straight couples. The rights, benefits, privileges and responsibilities stay exactly the same. In other words, nothing changes at all.
If something stays exactly the same, it is hardly being redefined.
At one time, blacks and women were barred from voting. When the restrictions were lifted, the definition of voting didn’t change – ‘voting’ was not ‘redefined.’ Just as nothing changes with the definition of marriage when the restriction from gay couples marrying is lifted.
Usually, the charge of “redefining marriage” is accompanied with another disingenuous phrase: ‘defending traditional marriage.’ To the best of my knowledge, the only way you can defend something is if it’s being attacked. I have never seen/read/heard anybody suggesting that traditional marriages be banned when gays gain the right to marry. When there are same sex marriages, my parents traditional marriage will still be a traditional marriage. It’s quite obvious that nobody is “attacking” traditional marriage, even though the phrase is thrown around enough to almost give it some kind of legitimacy.
There may be some kind of legitimate reason for people to want to deny gays the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice…I have never read one – but I’m open to the idea that somebody might have one. However, if the reason is valid, can’t it be expressed without hysterical rhetoric and dishonest catch phrases and sound bytes?
Hopefully, this year, the issue will be dealt with a lot more honestly.
Oh, well, who am I kidding?
Frank Schubert says that we want him to feel like a bad person for supporting traditional marriage. Excuse me, Mr. Schubert but aren’t you proposing the same thing but in reverse? Aren’t you telling me that I should feel bad for wanting to be married to the person I love, just because it happens to be another female?
Stop the lies and just tell the truth. You don’t want gays getting married. You want to preserve that all for you and all heterosexuals. Just be honest.
It amazes me when people bring up the fact that the definition of marriage “hasn’t changed since the beginning of time”.
I would like to know who defined marriage as “one man + one woman.” In the history that is common to both Christians and Moslems, multiple wives were common.
As to the man whose mother would turn over in her grave at the thought of same-sex marriage, the same was said when interracial marriage was an issue back in the post war years.