9/29 UPDATE: New TV ads here: Yes on prop 8 | No on prop 8
Both sides of the campaign have released videos on Youtube in the last week or so (the newest one came out this weekend). Here's a little fact checking to see how the sides are stacking up.
SUPPORT
Men in black
There's little to fact check in this ad, since most of it is opinion. But I'll give it a whirl.
Misleading: "61 percent of California voters ... voted in favor of proposition 22."
The folks supporting proposition 8 could make this more accurate by noting that it wasn't 61 percent of California voters, but actually only 61 percent of those who voted. The state had 15.7 million registered voters in the year 2000 -- but only 7.5 million weighed in on proposition 22 either way. That means that in reality, only 30 percent of California voters voted in favor of proposition 22, almost 20 percent voted against it and almost 50 percent didn't vote on it.
Inaccurate: "4,300,000 people ..."
I don't know where this number comes from, but the Secretary of State's office says it's wrong. The exact number is 4,618,673.
Almost accurate: "Which stated that marriage is between a man and a woman"
A simplification and somewhat of a misstatement. The actual text of proposition 22, which matches the text of proposition 8, is "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Proposition 22 didn't really define marriage, as much as it defined what kinds of marriages the state could recognize: those between people of the opposite-sex.
Misleading: "Four activist judges ... decided that the democratic voice of 4.3 million California voters was irrelevant and overturned the people's vote..."
An "activist" judge is a matter of opinion, but what did their decision really say? Did they overturn the "people's vote?" Well, it's a lot more complicated and nuanced than the supporters of proposition 8 seem to want us to believe in this add.
The court's decision said that the California constitution doesn't allow the state to designate a relationship between opposite sex couples as a "marriage" while granting same-sex couples all the rights of marriage, but instead calling it a "domestic partnership." That, in the court's view, posed the risk of denying the family relationships of same-sex couples the dignity and respect given to opposite-sex couples.
The court did say, however, that any attempt to limit "marriage" to apply only to opposite sex couples is unconstitutional. That directly affected the language some voters inserted into state law through proposition 22, but also gender specific language that the legislature had added to the California Family Code years before.
Attempting to attribute the judges' decision as a direct attack on California voters is suspect, thus the "semi-accurate" label -- it's close to an "innaccurate" label.
AGAINST
I Decide
This ad is a substantially different beast than the one above, yet it, too, has little to fact check.
Almost accurate: "Proposition 8 will stop thousands of couples ... from getting married ... would take away marriage rights that we have right now ..."
Earlier this year, the attorney general amended the title of proposition 8 to say "Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry" because of the Supreme Court's May decision. Proposition 8 supporters sued to change it back, but a Superior Court judge in Sacramento ruled that the new wording is accurate.
Still, it's difficult to predict exactly how many same-sex couples in California would marry if they could, or won't if they can't, so I'm not sure where the number came from. It's likely a guess, but not necessarily inaccurate or accurate. This one's close, but I still can't give it a green light.
Both sides of the campaign have released videos on Youtube in the last week or so (the newest one came out this weekend). Here's a little fact checking to see how the sides are stacking up.
SUPPORT
Men in black
There's little to fact check in this ad, since most of it is opinion. But I'll give it a whirl.
Misleading: "61 percent of California voters ... voted in favor of proposition 22."The folks supporting proposition 8 could make this more accurate by noting that it wasn't 61 percent of California voters, but actually only 61 percent of those who voted. The state had 15.7 million registered voters in the year 2000 -- but only 7.5 million weighed in on proposition 22 either way. That means that in reality, only 30 percent of California voters voted in favor of proposition 22, almost 20 percent voted against it and almost 50 percent didn't vote on it.
Inaccurate: "4,300,000 people ..."I don't know where this number comes from, but the Secretary of State's office says it's wrong. The exact number is 4,618,673.
Almost accurate: "Which stated that marriage is between a man and a woman"A simplification and somewhat of a misstatement. The actual text of proposition 22, which matches the text of proposition 8, is "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Proposition 22 didn't really define marriage, as much as it defined what kinds of marriages the state could recognize: those between people of the opposite-sex.
Misleading: "Four activist judges ... decided that the democratic voice of 4.3 million California voters was irrelevant and overturned the people's vote..."An "activist" judge is a matter of opinion, but what did their decision really say? Did they overturn the "people's vote?" Well, it's a lot more complicated and nuanced than the supporters of proposition 8 seem to want us to believe in this add.
The court's decision said that the California constitution doesn't allow the state to designate a relationship between opposite sex couples as a "marriage" while granting same-sex couples all the rights of marriage, but instead calling it a "domestic partnership." That, in the court's view, posed the risk of denying the family relationships of same-sex couples the dignity and respect given to opposite-sex couples.
The court did say, however, that any attempt to limit "marriage" to apply only to opposite sex couples is unconstitutional. That directly affected the language some voters inserted into state law through proposition 22, but also gender specific language that the legislature had added to the California Family Code years before.
Attempting to attribute the judges' decision as a direct attack on California voters is suspect, thus the "semi-accurate" label -- it's close to an "innaccurate" label.
AGAINST
I Decide
This ad is a substantially different beast than the one above, yet it, too, has little to fact check.
Almost accurate: "Proposition 8 will stop thousands of couples ... from getting married ... would take away marriage rights that we have right now ..."Earlier this year, the attorney general amended the title of proposition 8 to say "Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry" because of the Supreme Court's May decision. Proposition 8 supporters sued to change it back, but a Superior Court judge in Sacramento ruled that the new wording is accurate.
Still, it's difficult to predict exactly how many same-sex couples in California would marry if they could, or won't if they can't, so I'm not sure where the number came from. It's likely a guess, but not necessarily inaccurate or accurate. This one's close, but I still can't give it a green light.
Good work with this. I guess we see where the real truth-tellers are in this campaign.
It’s been estimated that 1/2 of the approx. 100,000 same-sex couples in CA will choose to marry during the next 3 years (in 2000, the census identified 92,138 same-sex couples residing in California). As of March 2007, there were about 38,000 registered domestic partnerships in CA (the figure on which the 50,000 marriages within three years estimate is based).
That works out to roughly 100,000 gay Californians planning to enjoy their right to marry.
Thanks. I was wondering where that number might have come from. I still think that "thousands" is too much of a generalization to be called accurate. If they'd been as specific as you have, I'd've given them a little more leeway.
It's funny, they only complains about activist judges when they decide against their issues. But, they were silent when activist judges put Bush in as president.
Chris - that makes no sense. Anyway, regardless of how things are worded and all the BLAH BLAH BLAH in these ads for and against Prop 8, I'd just like to point out that the way these judges have defined the marriage relationship since they overturned 22 will now make it possible for anyone who loves anyone (or thing) to get married. So if prop 8 doesn't pass, I am free to marry my first cousin. It's okay! The judges said I could. As long as I'm in love. Or how about my brother? Or the dog? I love them too?!?! There has to be some greater definition of marriage going on here.
As I said in my email to you, I'm publishing this, but with the disclaimer that you've completely distorted the decision in In re: Marriage cases and it doesn't allow you to marry your cousin "as long as" you're "in love." The case wasn't about defining marriage, it was about reconciling the disparation between two separate but (almost) equal institutions: marriage and domestic partnerships.
I take a very dim view of these kinds of deceptive political tactics and I won't be as nice about it next time. Do not do it again.
Oh! Smackdown! Justin, your response to AGO rocks.
Well, I just have little patience for that kind of stuff. If you've got facts, go on -- mumbling tripe about marrying dogs is disrespectful, alarmist, inaccurate and manipulative.
ago,
It has been legal to marry your first cousin in CA and over 20 other states for a while now. I doubt people and animals will ever be allowed by law to marry. While polygamy is technically illegal, a good number of fundamentalist LDS groups practice it privately in common law. What's your point?
Should the values of one religious group trump all civil laws?
Marrying outside one's race used to be illegal.
Allowing gay and lesbian couples the right to marry legally doesn't hurt marriage and family -- it strengthens both institutions by diversifying their legitimacy.
If we want to "protect" marriage, make divorce more difficult.
How (and why) did something as simple as a sexual choice get elevated to an issue of civil rights? I have never understood how this happened. I don't try to tell people how to live their (very personal) intimate lives - but I don't think sexual preference is on par with race. Therefore, why do they have to have special civil rights? I don't run around trying to get special rights because I prefer missionary position.
So, you chose to be straight?
The "homosexuality" is a choice rhetoric doesn't fly with me. Why in God's name would any would choose a life of constant rejection, pain, disparagement, discrimination and belittlement by people like you, where their loving relationships and the desire to have them treated and respected like yours are considered to be "special rights?"
And, if it was so easy to change -- don't you think more would do it?
Justin, I don't know whether you're gay. I appreciate the spirit of your response to Laura Wright, but I am always disappointed when people talk about being gay as a life full of constant rejection, pain, etc--a life that no one would choose. I'm happy being gay. I haven't known many gay people who would want to trade their lives for that of straight people.
Talking about being gay as if it's so terrible that no one in their right minds would want to be gay isn't helpful.
I think you misunderstood my response -- I never said that no one wants or would want to be gay. And if you think there aren't thousands of men and women out their who have been conditioned to be unhappy with their sexuality -- by parents, by the church, whoever, well -- you're wrong. It's a real issue.
What I meant was that if there was a real choice, which there obviously isn't, very few people faced with that choice, knowing their odds, would take it. I stand by that. It's not about being proud of who you are, it's about actively choosing a life that is more likely to bring your hardship than the alternative.
I'm glad that seem to have not faced the rejection and the pain that many gay men and woman face everyday -- from political activists in California, to their religious leaders to their families. If it weren't out there at an alarming rate, then gay teenagers wouldn't be committing suicide, gay men and woman wouldn't be hiding their relationships from their families and ex-gay ministries wouldn't be the booming business they are. Pretending like it doesn't exist, just because you haven't faced it, isn't helpful either.
Look at it this way. Someday I come to you and say -- door a, or door b. Behind A, you get to be married to someone of the opposite sex, your church and your family will almost certainly except your life, you'll be treated with respect when it comes to end of life decisions, healthcare, insurance and tax benefits. You won't face discrimination from anyone because of who you love, because it's widely accepted as okay.
But, behind door B, you run the risk of rampant discrimination from those who don't approve of you loving the person you love. Your marriage might be recognized in this state, but not in that one. The federal government, however, will treat you as unmarried. Your religious community might reject you. So might your friends and family. You might have to hide your relationship from some people and if you don't live in the US -- well, you might die because of going through this door.
If you had that choice, which would you take? I know it's a simplification, but it's very real for many gay men and women. Don't minimize that.
But really, it's a moot issue. Did you choose to be gay? Can anyone choose to be gay? Can anyone choose to be straight? I think the answer is pretty obvious.
Good for you. Glad you're happy with who you are. But your reality is not the reality for a lot of gay people.
I know tons who'd change if they could. They were in exgay camp with me. It doesn't meant they can't live happy productive lives being gay. They could. But they're faced with the constant pain and rejection that Justin talks about.
Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it's not there.