2008 State Ballot Initiatives: June 2008 Archives

As we discussed previously, media outlets in Arizona have been missing the mark when reporting on what has become a contentious political battle in that state. After long delays, and by a single vote, the Arizona State Senate voted to place an anti-gay constitutional amendment on the ballot.  Voters rejected a similar measure in 2006.  Senate President Tim Bee, also a Republican candidate for Congress, called this year’s debate on the measure “divisive” shortly before casting the key vote that sent the measure to the ballot.

Rather than focus on political motivations that pushed this amendment through, and the impact of this legislation on everyday Arizonans, the Arizona Daily Star recounted the school-yard taunts that legislators leveled at each other.  When groups like Equality Arizona highlighted the alleged rule breaking in the Senate used to pass such a measure, Arizona media ignored the issue. The Arizona Daily Star and The Arizona Republic, which primarily highlighted the very basics of the Senate action, did not provide responsible, investigative and informative reporting on this key electoral issue.

In stark comparison to the Arizona papers on the anti-gay amendment was the Associated Press story by reporter Jennifer Dobner.  Dobner’s excellent piece on the real-life impact of anti-gay measures on everyday Mormons, and their churches’ position on those amendments, clearly shows the opportunities for good journalism that can emerge from these divisive measures.

Paul Karr is Director of Media Field Strategy.

In previous elections, the Mormon Church and its members have contributed significantly to pass anti-gay measures in states across the country. This election year is no different.

Yesterday, the Deseret Morning News reported that the governing presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church) has directed local leaders in every congregation to read a directive imploring members of the faith to help pass the anti-gay constitutional amendment in California that will prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying. The call to action, which cites specific religious beliefs, encourages members to put their money and time behind the efforts to exclude gay couples from the legal security that marriage provides.

However, the media has also given voice to differences of opinion within the Mormon faith. The Deseret Morning News article quotes Affirmation, an organization for gay and transgender Mormons. According to David Melson, the assistant executive director of Affirmation, “We are extremely disappointed in their action…This is a matter of civil marriage. It doesn't affect religious marriage."

As public debates on LGBT issues related to the election continue, it is important for the media to continue acknowledging the diversity of opinions that exist within different communities of faith on these issues.

Paul Karr is Director of Media Field Strategy.

Every June, the LGBT community puts on celebratory Pride events across the country, but this year, St. Petersburg, Fla., is taking Pride to a new level, the St. Petersburg Times reported this weekend.

This year’s St. Pete’s Pride will be celebratory, and will also focus on proactive organizing and advocacy work to defeat Amendment 2, the statewide marriage ban that will go before voters on November’s ballot. The proposed anti-gay marriage ban is one of the most restrictive nationwide. Marriage for gay and lesbian couples in Florida is already illegal; this current ban may be used to take away benefits from residents whose employers offer heath care and pensions for gay employees. It could also dissolve domestic partnership registries in Tampa, Gainesville, Miami Beach, and other municipalities. Amendment 2 Pride organizers decided that Pride, scheduled for this Saturday, was the best time to rally the community. It will be the largest statewide protest of Amendment 2.

The Times’ coverage of Pride went beyond the sometimes sensational media portrayals of Prides, delving into political tensions and accurately portraying the LGBT community as multifaceted yet unified against a harmful marriage ban. Editorials across the state have called the ban “needless” and described it as an attempt to “slip bigotry into the state constitution under the guise of Christian values.” These editorials show that media professionals see the true impact of the anti-gay ballot initiative, and the media’s news coverage illustrates a commitment to fair, accurate and inclusive coverage of the LGBT community.

Paul Karr is the Director of Media Field Strategy

LGBT community members in Maine can breathe a little easier this morning.  The Christian Civic League of Maine has decided to abandon its efforts to roll back a myriad of protections that currently exist to protect LGBT folks in Maine. The repeal would have removed sexual orientation from the state’s anti-discrimination law, prohibited unmarried couples from adopting children, barred the state from recognizing civil unions, explicitly banned municipal officials from issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples wanting to marry and eliminated funding for state’s civil rights teams.

The Christian Civic League of Maine needed to collect approximately 55,000 valid signatures from registered voters by January of next year, which would have then sent the proposal to the Legislature for review.  The soonest the proposal was likely to be put on the ballot was November 2009.   After the state’s June 10th primary election, Michael Heath, the executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, admitted that their efforts produced less than 5,000 signatures, which was well below the 15,000 signature goal they had hoped for on a day where voters headed to the polls and were a captive audience.

Heath may have said it best when he was quoted by The Associated Press saying that their volunteer efforts were hampered because people “don’t want to be aligned with bigotry and homophobia and hatred.”

The media coverage since mid-May has been mainly focused on the political process and the legal battles that may have loomed.  Now the media can focus on telling the stories of LGBT people and their families, and Mainers can begin to understand why taking away protections from LGBT people has an impact on the real lives of their neighbors, family, friends and co-workers.

Paul Karr is the Director of Media Field Strategy at GLAAD

With the state of Arizona likely facing a constitutional amendment proposal to exclude gay and lesbian couples from marriage, the media today is reporting on the political advocacy work of the local gay and transgender community, highlighting a voter registration drive aimed at getting LGBT people to vote. Focusing on the efforts of gay and transgender leaders to ensure that members of their community are counted at the ballot box is a unique and refreshing approach to the examination of the relationship between LGBT issues and the 2008 election.

It is still uncertain whether the Arizona State Senate will follow the lead of the House and forward an anti-gay constitutional amendment proposal to the voters of that state. Voters in Arizona did reject a similar measure on the ballot in 2006. Regardless of what the Senate decides to do, however, the media should continue to focus on similar stories that show the real life impacts of this divisive measure on gay and transgender families across the state.

Paul Karr is Direct of Media Field Strategy.

Oregon media outlets are reporting that there will be no anti-gay ballot measures in the state’s November elections, despite the political activism of former State Senator Marylin Shannon (see photo on left) to overturn the employment discrimination law passed by fair-minded Oregonians last year. In 2007, the state of Oregon passed two laws to protect gay and transgender people in that state.  The first of these would give basic legal protections to families headed by gay couples through domestic partnerships.  The second made it illegal to fire someone based on his or her sexual orientation.  Due largely to legal challenges over the proposed wording of the ballot measure, former State Sen. Shannon – the lead petitioner in the attempt to again make it legal to fire someone for their sexual orientation – admitted defeat earlier this week.

The media has regularly reported on these laws as well as the efforts to repeal them. However, both The Oregonian and the Associated Press stories on the latest news regarding the anti-gay initiatives paint an unfair picture about the struggle for fairness in the state.The Associated Press story says, “…that [the] ruling now is being appealed by a group that advocates for Christian legal issues.”  Unfortunately, statements like this assume that anti-gay activists have a monopoly on Christian values and beliefs.  Both papers would have been more accurate to state that such groups do not represent universal Christian values, but rather a specific political agenda.

Oregon media outlets should be commended for their constant attention to these issues, but should not let anti-gay activists get away with representing themselves as speaking for broad theological groups, such as Christianity.  There are many Christian leaders in Oregon that the media could speak to about their support for the laws that political activists like former Senator Shannon are trying to repeal.

Paul Karr is the Director of Media Field Strategy.

(Photo credit: justout.com)

In Montgomery County, Maryland the campaign is heating up to safeguard a measure that was passed last year which added gender identity to the list of classifications included in the county’s anti-discrimination statute.  The measure also banned bias against transgender people in the areas of housing, employment, taxicab service and public accommodations.

After passing the County Legislature unanimously and being signed into law by the County Executive, an anti-transgender campaign to put the measure on the ballot and attempt to repeal it is now winding its ways through the courts. The so-called “Citizens for Responsible Government,” stalled the law from being enacted in February by collecting 25,000 signatures of county voters.

Montgomery County Judge Robert Greenberg ruled that Equality Maryland--the statewide LGBT organization and plaintiffs in the case--who are seeking to block the referendum, had missed a key deadline for challenging the first of two batches of signatures on the petitions and he rejected the claims that the petition language was intentionally misleading.  Greenberg’s decision did not indicate a ruling on whether or not Montgomery County voters will end up voting for repeal of the law in November. If the ruling is upheld, it’s likely that voters will be faced with a November question on the ballot that will force them to vote on whether to repeal the protections or keep the provisions in place.

Instead of focusing so heavily on the politics and process of the situation, the local media serving Montgomery Country have an opportunity to begin reporting on the impact the proposed ballot initiative will have on the lives of transgender people who live there.

Paul Karr is the Director of Media Field Strategy

Missouri's Attorney General, Democrat Jay Nixon, is one of ten Attorneys General across the country who last week publicly requested that the California Supreme Court stay its decision to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.  Many bloggers suspect that Missouri governor Matt Blunt pressured Nixon to speak out, due to Blunt's press releases accusing Nixon of “ignoring the will of the people by not joining the other states' attorneys general in their request to the court.”

The public conversation of Nixon and Blunt parallels coverage of Missouri Rep. Sam Graves’ ridiculous attempt to smear former Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes with low-budget commercials that connected her support of gays and lesbians with so-called “San Francisco Values.” Both stories have encountered media scrutiny.

Today the Vice Chairman of the Democratic Central Committee in Boone County criticized the current gay-baiting political climate, urging Missourians to really look carefully at why local candidates are spending so much energy talking about marriage for gay and lesbian couples in California: “It might be that they are simply trying to… distract us with the ‘threat’ of gay marriage while they work with their corporate backers to pass legislation to give away public resources to private interests.”

The fact that a large, mainstream publication, the Columbia Tribune, published the above quote suggests that in 2008, the media aren’t going to use LGBT issues as wedge issues, as some did the 2004 presidential election.

Paul Karr is Director of Media Field Strategy

Although June 16 marks the day that gay and lesbian couples will begin marrying in California, some couples are refraining from marriage due to one large concern: if the November ballot initiative passes, it would jeopardize those marriages performed between June 16 and Election Day.

The Press Enterprise features a couple who explain their choice to wait until after November to get married; the story discusses the fear and frustration that their license could be revoked in just five months.

The San Francisco Chronicle provides further insight, as it highlights the painful experiences that two San Francisco women endured after having their marriage license voided in 2004. That year, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom challenged state law by extended marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples; nearly 4,000 couples wedded in six months, until the Supreme Court invalidated these unions. The featured coupled discussed the joyful experience of their marriage, followed by the pain and disappointment that came when their marriage was nullified.

The recent media coverage does a good job of presenting the challenges facing everyday gay and lesbian couples in California struggling to figure out how to proceed in light of the ballot initiative.

Paul Karr is Director of Media Field Strategy

Yesterday California Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced that anti-gay activists have successfully placed an initiative on the November 4 ballot that would ban marriage for gay and lesbian couples if passed. Although the initiative does not include language that would affect California domestic partnerships, it would overturn the California Supreme Court’s landmark ruling for marriage equality by amending the state constitution to define marriage as “only between a man and a woman”. State officials are preparing to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian families on June 17.

Meanwhile, 10 states have requested a stay of the California Supreme Court’s decision. California attorney general, Jerry Brown had this to say: “Same-sex marriage is a deeply contentious issue, but in California the matter has now been resolved by the state Supreme Court."

As the anti-gay ballot initiative moves forward, the media has an obligation to continue not only reporting on what voters really believe about the California ruling, but on the lives of everyday gay and lesbian families across California that will be hurt if this marriage ban passes.

Paul Karr is Director of Media Field Strategy.

(Photo credit: Robert Gauthier)

The conversation surrounding marriage for gay couples in many media outlets has documented an apparent phenomenon  - that anti-gay activists around the country are hoping to use the recent California ruling as the impetus to spark a re-run of 2004. In 2004, media outlets documented anti-gay activists’ attempts to turn out socially conservative voters by putting marriage bans on the ballot in 13 states. This time around, the media are delving deeper into what voters really believe, rather than assuming that so-called “values voters” will swarm the polls.

The AP reports that exploiting the California marriage decision is not as realistic as the anti-gay industry believes, with fewer anti-gay initiatives on state ballots. Additionally, though McCain is not a supporter of marriage for gay and lesbian families, he is also opposed to a federal marriage ban (in favor of letting the state’s decide the issue).   Meanwhile, he isn’t taking many steps to integrate anti-gay rhetoric into his public campaign.

Research has suggested a broad range of factors went into the 2004 election, and researchers are divided on whether or not the marriage bans actually served social conservatives well at the ballot box in ‘04. Media report that some of this research suggested the anti-marriage ballot issue actually did turn out more voters in Ohio in 2004. However, the AP interviewed one researcher at Georgetown University who said that the “conservatives’ ‘raw fear’ of gay marriage has declined” in the past four years.

With New York’s recent announcement that the state will honor marriages performed in other jurisdictions, Americans are left to wonder what’s next. The Huffington Post put words to the question late last week, asking: Which state will be next in allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry? The fact that a mainstream media outlet asks this question, bypasses anti-gay rhetoric, and frames the question in a hopeful, positive light, speaks volumes.

The media coverage of voters’ reactions to the California marriage decision on local and national levels suggests that while voters won’t ignore gay ballot measures this fall, voters certainly aren’t negatively consumed by them the way they were in 2004—and neither are journalists.

Paul Karr is the Director of Media Field Strategy.