Prop 8

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, known as the Mormons, officially opposes same-sex marriage. But the church also acknowledges that members may think differently about the issue. Some of those members have put together a site, Mormons For Marriage, that is worth a look. The site says they stand "in respectful opposition" to California's Prop 8, the proposed initiative ban on same-sex marriage.

The LA Times reports on a plane for churches of all kinds to plant Yes on Prop 8 signs all at the same time in September.

The Federalist Society convened an on-line debate between legal scholars over same-sex marriage. It's a high-level and fascinating discussion. And paging Justice Scalia: there is a conservative case for same-sex marriage.

Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage and a leading strategist among opponents of same-sex marriage, writes in Human Events that Calif. Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown's change of the Prop 8 ballot title to say the initiative would "eliminate" the right of same-sex marriage has a "silver lining."

That silver lining is "clarity. Only one marriage amendment has ever been defeated, and that happened in Arizona in 2006. Polls taken after the election suggest that the ballot language confused voters about whether a “yes” or a “no” vote protected marriage as one man and one woman." Her side -- the Prop 8 supporters -- had fought the initiative in court.

She also sees advantage in the "No on Prop 8" strategy of emphasizing the fact that the passage of Prop 8 could threaten the marriages of gay couples that are currently taking place. She writes: "For better or for worse, Jerry Brown’s ballot language, along with the Supreme Court decision, the highly publicized flood of same-sex unions, and even several planned celebrity same-sex unions slated for October, locks anti-Prop. 8 opponents into a messaging strategy that has never worked for them in any other state marriage amendment battle: Focus relentless attention on the same-sex couples and the rights they stand to lose. It’s a risky gamble with an uncertain payoff this November for gay marriage advocates."

Writing in the LA Times, Jessica Garrison describes how school boards have become the latest battleground for endorsements in the campaigns for and against Prop 8, the California initiative to ban same sex marriage.

Those words appear on the screen at the end of this TV ad, a spot in which no voice is spoken. The advertisement does not mention Prop 8, the California ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage, but it doesn't have to. The organization that put together the ad and the donors funding its broadcast are all opponents of Prop 8. The ad is indirect and effective, making a classic "golden rule" argument. A bride approaches the marriage altar but is stopped by a variety of forces from reaching it. When the groom tries to go to her, he's held back by the grooming party.

The one problem: this ad represents a bit of a dodge around legal and campaign finance rules. Dan Morains explains this in the Los Angeles Times.

On the financial front, the answer is yes, as out of state money pours into both the campaigns for an against Prop 8, the California ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage. But so far, the initiative campaign has been low-key on both sides, with appeals targeted to the very narrow set of Californians who remain undecided.

Polling suggests that the final result in Prop 8 will be close. And momentum is with opponents of the initiative (that is, supporters of same-sex marriage rights). If Prop's 8 defeat continues to look more and more likely as the election approaches in California, social conservative, Christian groups and others on the right may be tempted to turn their defeat to their advantage by nationalizing the gay marriage issue. The triumph of same-sex marriage in California would be pitched as a threat.

Supporters of the initiative to ban same-sex marriage in California had lost twice in court last week. They had claimed that the new title added by Attorney General Jerry Brown, which says the initiative "eliminates" a constitutional right, was argumentative. Now, says a spokeswoman, they'll let the people decide.

Supporters of Prop 8, the California ballot initiative to ban same sex marriage, have gone to court to reverse changes in the official title and summary. Their petition is available here.

After reading the briefs, I think the supporters have a strong case. The original title and summary, approved before the state supreme court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, read simply, "LIMIT ON MARRIAGE. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Amends the California constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." After the court decision, the title now says, "ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME SEX COUPLES TO MARRY..." That's very, very argumentative. Whether there is such a right in the California constitution is the focus of the legal and political dispute that voters will decide in November.

Attorney General Jerry Brown has some justification for he change. The court identified a constitutional right to marry that includes same-sex couples. But the first title remains accurate, and the Prop 8 supporters should be able to put Brown on the defensive. The attorney general has publicly taken sides in the controversy. Your blogger thinks he's on the correct side, but in ballot initiative titles, the a.g. is supposed to accurately describe the measure, not argue the case. The outcome is important, as these titles do affect undecided voters.

The utility PG&E has given $250,000 to defeat Prop 8, the initiative to ban same-sex marriage in California. Expect more businesses to follow suit. Yes, it's dangerous for companies to take sides on a controversial social issues; consumer boycotts could follow. But I'm hearing from business executives who see the state's legalization of same-sex marriage as providing an advantage in recruiting and retaining workers--a tough endeavor, given California's lousy economics and high cost of living. A vote for Prop 8 could hurt recruitment and retention in a similar way.