What a difference a (Prop. 8) ad makes
Never, ever underestimate the power of advertising. If they can sell you on his-and-hers personal lubricants, they can even sell you on changing state law to forbid same-sex couples to marry. The latest CBS 5 poll (conducted by SurveyUSA for a San Francisco TV station) finds that support for Proposition 8, the initiative that would embed a ban on gay marriage into the California constitution, leads by five percentage points. Eleven days ago--before a blast of ads for the proposition--it trailed by five points.
Now, the change was among young voters, who can be hard to gauge on polls. Initiatives can be particularly hard to poll accurately. They tend to do worse on Election Day than over a telephone survey. On the other hand, people tend to be uncomfortable about saying they don't like homosexuality.
But the lesson to take home on this one is that Proposition 8, which the Times editorial board is dead set against, is no sure bet one way or the other. Second lesson: Incredibly, some people--especially young people, apparently--actually believe and are swayed by campaign ads. I've been reading about the Proposition 8 ads--the claims (false) that California schools would have to teach gay marriage to children, that it paves the way (false) for people to be sued over their personal beliefs and that churches would lose their tax status (false) if they refused to change their policies to conform with same sex marriage.
I have to read about the ads because they tend to be so irritatingly misleading (not to mention scream-out-loud repetitive) that watching or listening to them is out of the question. Campaign season is no time to be without a "mute" button.
It disturbs me that so many people want to put a purely religious issue--a discriminatory one, at that--into law. When religious authorities, like the Church, control lives through the state, you have a theocracy, just like in Iran. Proposition 8 is something I'd expect approved in Iran, not America. People need to understand that A VOTE FOR 8 IS A VOTE TO BE LIKE IRAN. They need to think: Do they want to be like Iran and Iranian terrorists? Do they want to be like them?
Posted by: atty79 | October 07, 2008 at 07:58 PM
Traditional marriage has nothing to do with Iran or being a terrorist. It is about a definition that has been in place for centuries. Please look to our presidential and vice-presidential candidates. None of the four support gay marriage. Studies have shown that a child is best raised by a mother and a father. Even though this ideal is not as common as it used to be, let's continue the battle for the ideal. The ideal family is worth fighting for. Just because people are obese doesn't mean we all throw our hands in the air and give up the fight.
Posted by: Mike | October 07, 2008 at 09:53 PM
Mike, I agree with your comment. We should be looking toward the ideal. Though I would normally agree that political ads are generally misleading, I think that the "Yes on Prop 8" ads are resonating with people because of that ideal. This is not just a religious issue, but a societal one. Keeping traditional marriage intact is vital to protecting the family-- protecting the ideal of having a father and a mother rear their children together. Trying to redefine such a functional and deeply-rooted institution, which has been at the core of humanity since its beginning, is asking to experiment on the foundation of society. The effects of such experimentation could quite possibly be disastrous.
Posted by: Jeannie | October 07, 2008 at 11:27 PM
Excellent news. An ad that points out the obvious consequences of legalizing gay marriage, is turning people in favor of Prop 8.
OBVIOUSLY, putting gay marriage in state law means that kids will be taught gay marriage in state schools.
Karin Klein says this is "FALSE," but she doesn't offer any reasoning on evidence. Not very persuasive, Karin! Why don't you just be honest and say - candidly - that you'd have no problem with schools teaching gay marriage. You wouldn't, would you?
But because most voters would have a problem with it, there's a growing hope that Prop. 8 will pass. The wonders of truth-telling commercials!
Posted by: edward | October 07, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Edward,
Actually, you would find the full explanation of why this claim about the schools is false by following the link there. It will take you here: http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/08/what-same-sex-m.html
a previous blogpost that explains the issue. Aside from which, schools cannot teach students about family matters without a parent's permission.
Karin
Posted by: Karin Klein | October 08, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Karin,
Your statement regarding parent's permission obviously would be the ideal result of this legislation, but unfortunately that will not be the case. As we've already clearly seen in the state of Massachusetts, schools curriculum becomes even more broad in its teachings of social relationships, and ultimately includes the teaching of homosexuality to young children
Posted by: Sam | October 08, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Sam, that certainly sounds like the sort of thing that theoretically COULD happen, but I doubt very much it would. Truth is, schools are too busy trying to get kids ready for standardized tests to deal much with this sort of thing. I kind of "tested" my own three kids on this--one in grad school, one a high school senior, one a 6th grader--and none has been taught anything in public school about marriage. That age spread covers a lot of public schooling.
That said, parents will always have the right not to have their children taught matters of a personal nature, such as family, sex and so forth, if they choose not to. And school leaders are very concerned about not writing curriculum standards that go over the line on this; that's why the Education Code is so restricted on what's taught about marriage at all.
Posted by: Karin Klein | October 08, 2008 at 12:38 AM
It's a matter of fairness and equality. Gays should be allow the same rights as straights. Love and companionship is universal. It's already been talked about time and time again that it's impossible for churches to lose tax-free status if they oppose marrying gays. And they teach about marriage in schools at all, so I don't know why they would begin teaching about same sex marriages.
Posted by: david | October 08, 2008 at 01:02 AM
Thank you Karin for directing me to the explanation from your previous blog post.
Sorry to say that it reads to me like articulate hair-splitting. Whether the teaching of gay marriage will be technically "mandated" isn't really the question; simple common sense tells me that when state law contorts the definition of "marriage" to include same-sex unions, this will end up being taught in health and family-life classes in state schools. In fact, it would be remiss of teachers, when talking about parents and kids and home life, to leave it out!
Apparently parents would be "free" to draw attention to themselves and their kids by removing their kids from the classroom during these lessons. I suspect a lot of voters might not see this fact as a slam-dunk debating point for the Prop8 foes.
Bottom line: I think it's going to be hard to defuse the power of the Prop 8 ad.
Posted by: edward | October 08, 2008 at 07:21 AM
To Edward and Sam, I really do think it's pushing the outside boundaries to say that schools are going to "teach gay marriage." When you look at what schools teach about marriage under the Education Code, this just isn't realistic. When they bother teaching about marriage at all. They teach the financial and legal responsibilities of marriage--things like community property, the legal difference between dating and marriage.
But I think it might be more helpful to view this issue in terms of the 1948 California Supreme Court ruling that recognized the right of interracial couples to marry. The parallels are striking. Californians complained about activist judges who ignored the will of the people. They said that interracial marriage was immoral, that it was againsy God's will. In fact, a judge in another state made a ruling against interracial marriage on exactly those religious grounds, in great detail. How did this affect schools? It affected the right of people who had been the victims of prejudice to live in an equal state of marriage to others. This was nearly 20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court made the same ruling.
I would expect that schools that do teach about marriage would mention that gay marriage is legal in the state of California. If they don't, they would surely be asked about it by students, who probably know anyway. Beyond that, it's up to parents to put whatever values construct they want on that. By the way, it's my experience that some kids don't attend sex ed, and theyre not victimized over it or made to feel different. These days, it seems like every kid's got something that makes him or her different from the pack.
Posted by: Karin Klein | October 08, 2008 at 07:39 AM
All,
Aren't we forgetting one fundamental problem? California has already spoken, and the majority of it's voting residents said 8 years ago that Gay marraige should not be allowed in California. If we don't like the outcome of the vote, do we sue for change? I'm more concerned about sending this message to my kids than the gay issue itself.
Posted by: Gordon | October 08, 2008 at 07:48 AM
Thank you! That "Yes on 8" ad was so full of blatant lies and hysteria it was disgusting. But they have nothing else to work with considering they have no facts on their side. Their only desire is to eradicate the right of same-sex couples to marry thereby imposing their religious beliefs on others. There is no scientific evidence that children are adversely affected by having same-sex parents (studies show they're just as happy and healthy as those raised by opposite-sex parents) and the claims that children will be taught about "gay marriage" in school are outright lies.
Face it, the only arguments against same-sex marriage are religious. All others are fabricated and simply not based on facts. No legitimate physicians, psychologists, anthropologists, etc. make the claim that only heterosexual marriage is good for society or children. Only those with an anti-gay agenda do that.
http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2008/10/04/today-boys-and-girls-we%E2%80%99re-going-to-learn-about-passive-aggressive-behavior-related-to-laundry/
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm
Posted by: Buffy | October 08, 2008 at 08:47 AM
People opposing gay marriage or even discussion of it with young people obviously haven't had much to go on about gay people other than what they see in the media. Calling marriage between a man and a woman the 'ideal' shows an incapacity to look beyond an archetype of perfection to the reality that normal, upstanding people sometimes happen to be gay and many times desire a full life filled with love, marriage, and family just like anybody else. Love between two people is universal, and so are family values and morals. Being born gay doesn't exclude you from these things, and denying people the same shot at happiness as straight couples is a narrow way of thinking about society and societal good. As to whether gay marriage is taught in schools or not, I've never even heard of straight marriage being taught. But if marriage were to come up, what would be so bad about talking about gay people? It's not contagious.
Posted by: Erika | October 08, 2008 at 09:26 AM
to the hard core biggots out there.
'gay marriage' won't be taught in schools
no 'gay marriage' propositions don't restrict church's freedom of speech. tho the government needs to step in and stop most the radicial christian's from using their church's as breeding growns for political terrorism.
from a purely economic perspective, we need prop 8 to fail and fuel our declining economy.
Posted by: tom | October 08, 2008 at 09:31 AM
Karen,
you should look at link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1352578267/bctid1784521903
Since Mass. has already been dealing with this issue, you can see the affect in the schools (based on the clip above). We really should be looking at the states that have already put this law into affect and see how things have changed. When my kids were in kindergarden a couple of years ago as part of their Social Studies they talk about families and held discussions regarding the different types of families. So I have no doubt there will be particular attention to gay marriage as being taught as part of the curriculum. I just read something about the LA School District supporting No on Prop 8. So no doubt LA schools will be at the forefront!
Posted by: Kel | October 08, 2008 at 09:37 AM
Honestly people, grow up! From reading some of the comments I would conclude some people would be more comfortable in denial land rather than "equality for all". I know it's not very popular to point out the obvious... it's safer to go into distraction mode and high morals.. but should you look at the state of things, a family is formed by those who love and care for you. The right to marry the person who you love is a personal right, not a state right. It is among those IDEALS this country was founded upon. Equality for all. This is why we no longer see "white only" signs in the South anymore, this is why women can actually vote, and why Americans with disabilities have the right to access the work force just like any other citizen without disabilities. Morally we strive for equality. Morally we have come to terms with inequalities and have adjusted accordingly. You pull these bogus studies that "prove" children do better with a mother and a father, but these studies have no way of measuring how a child does under same sex parents because there is no one to study here in the States. It may be unpopular for an isolationist nation like ours to look for examples beyond our borders. But if there were an honest attempt at addressing this irreverent example of immoral discrimination of citizens, you may look to Denmark, Holland, or even Spain to see how they are doing with same sex marriages. Going back to Spain, 30 years ago it was the most conservative dictatorship in the planet. Now, after living through the consequences of those doctrines... of rights for some and intolerance for all others, well, they have stayed true to their moral values and have been able to overcome social hurdles much higher and much more ingrained in their society than we could find here in the U.S. If Spain can accept same sex marriage, how can it STILL be an issue here in the "Land Of The Free"? WE should be setting the example, and yet we sell out to excuses and third world mentality which states that we will say we are the bastion of TRUTH, EQUALITY, and FREEDOM when in reality its whenever we are either against the wall, or whenever its convenient to live up to these supposed ideals. Live up to what you preach! Discrimination has no place in our society. Not for blacks, not for women, and not for gays. You demand gays contribute in taxes, work force, armed forces, and society the same way everyone else does... then give them the same rights you grant everyone else who contributes to the same society we all belong to! Otherwise, give them exemptions! Im sure that will get you moving! Tax break for gays in exchange for unequal treatment under the law. Hmm! something to think about!
Posted by: Alexis | October 08, 2008 at 09:39 AM
The words bigot and hate are simply just cheap shots. Because one side would like to keep the definition of marriage the same you're telling me (who you don't even know) that I hate people. Really, then my sister who is lesbian I hate. No, I don't think so. You're right this is America and we should BE the example! The BEST example of a "family" is the traditional, long standing definition of a mother and a father. That's the example. We may not all live to the utmost example, but that's what examples are there for. For us to strive for. In addition, opening the definition of marriage would then have the potential to open the door to include ANY alternative lifestyle. That's why there is domestic partnership or civil unions. ADD rights,exemptions, etc to THOSE laws instead of trying to change a definition that has been around for ever. Prop. 8 really has MANY more implications than simply giving tax exemptions to gays. Prop 8 does not TAKE any rights away! It's a definition we're preserving, remember?
Posted by: sharon | October 08, 2008 at 10:30 AM
For Kel--I did try to look at the video, but it wouldn't come up. I'll try again later.
I'm assuming it has something to do with teachers in Massachusetts saying things to kids about gay marriage. There was the case of a teacher who read a picture book to her class about a king who was looking for a wife but ended up picking a prince. Remember that teachers who are inclined to read these kinds of books can do it with or without a ban on gay marriage. These are community issues to be resolved by communities.
Kids are going to hear some things in school that their parents disagree with. Happens with my kids and serves as a great opportunity for family discussions about our values and beliefs and why they're different from the teacher's (or whoever's). But that's not the same as a curriculum that demands the "teaching of gay marriage" to California's children rehgardless of their parents' beliefs.
Posted by: Karin Klein | October 08, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Gordon, on the issue of which way voters went on gay marriage, I would refer again to the history of interracial marriage. The California Supreme Court caused an uproar when it ruled in 1948 that the law against interracial marriage was unconstitutional.
It was the court's job then, as it was the court's job this year, to rule on whether a law voiolated the state constitution. That's not judicial activism; it's the most basic job of the Supreme Court, both state and U.S.
The arguments were the same then as they are now, that interracial marriage would bring upheaval to societal order, that this was against God's plan and so forth. If the voters of California had at that point passed a constitutional amendment like Prop. 8, refusing to recognize interracial marriage, such couples would have been left without recourse for 19 years, until the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled on the matter. Is this something we would be proud of, looking back?
Posted by: Karin Klein | October 08, 2008 at 10:57 AM
I firmly believe we need to keep the traditional definition of marriage which has been around for thousands of years. After all, shouldn't women become the property of their husbands after they get married?
Posted by: Tim | October 08, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Mike,
Traditionally, marriage has meant ownership of the wife by the husband. Should we write that into the California constitution as well?
Posted by: Ellen Evans | October 08, 2008 at 11:16 AM
It seems many of you don't realize the implications that Prop 8 already has. I have heard from KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS that they already have to say Mom & Mom, or Dad & Dad if they mention Mom & Dad. I would say that it has already affected our children and their curriculum. Unless I send my children to a religious private school, or begin to homeschool, how do I keep my child from learning a different DEFINITION of marriage? Learning happens outside of school too, & I teach my children all the time- that's what a parent does. I don't want to teach my child that their teacher is wrong about a definition.
It's difficult to try to discuss a subject when right away people see you as close-minded. We all have our personal beliefs. The gay & lesbian community have the rights that I have, they can have a partnership, it's called a civil union. I am just asking (along with many other people) that the DEFINITION of marriage remain unchanged.
Posted by: debbie | October 08, 2008 at 11:32 AM
If a child is best raised by a father and mother, why not put a measure on the ballot to ban divorce while we're at it? I wonder how Prop 8 supporters would feel about people trying to take away THEIR fundamental rights...?
Posted by: Darcy | October 08, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Ellen and Tim
if you see marriage as such a negative, why would you want to have it re-defined to include anyone else?
You should vote yes on 8 to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else!
Posted by: sharon | October 08, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Doesnt anyone realize that we dont want gay marriage. We just want to marry with no extra rights or privledges. Just marry. The laws in this country in order to have the same protections make you have to marry. The answer is to eliminate the word Marriage in all government documents and make everyone have civil unions. Then the churches can have there word Marry if they want in a religious aspect. It is only a word. Get over it already. This country is in deep trouble.
Posted by: brian sullivan | October 08, 2008 at 11:52 AM