Recently in Anti-Gay Activists Category

The Associated Press reported that anti-gay groups claim to have collected enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment banning marriage for gay and lesbian couples on California’s November ballot.

Proponents of the measure say they have exceeded the 1.1 million signatures needed to qualify for the ballot, however, they haven’t revealed the exact amount of signatures they’ve actually gathered. They are expected to deliver the petitions this week ahead of the April 28 deadline with the Secretary of State’s signature verification process to follow.

Oftentimes when the media covers anti-gay ballot campaigns, anti-gay extremists tend to dominate the coverage with their controversial, sensational positions. But in California the coverage seems more nuanced. Rather than simply allowing ballot measure proponents to claim their victory unchallenged, the story presents a more complicated picture.

And the story didn’t relegate LGBT advocacy groups to the standard one quote response. Instead, they were able to deliver powerful messages suggesting that despite the potentially successful signature drive, anti-gay groups are likely out of step with mainstream California voters. Hopefully if the ballot measure does, in fact, appear on the November ballot, the media will continue to provide a thorough analysis of where Californians stand on this issue and look at how the amendment would have an impact on LGBT families. 

Openly gay candidates and politicians are not unheard of in the Midwest—Wisconsin Rep. Tammy Baldwin has been widely profiled in the media for more than 10 years, and Ohio judge, the honorable Mary Wiseman has garnered media attention in the past six months. But unfortunately attacks on these openly gay politicians are becoming as common as openly gay politicians themselves.

Milwaukee’s Patrick Flaherty, a candidate for Common Council in the city’s Third Aldermanic District, has found himself the latest openly gay Midwestern candidate to experience such attacks. The Pilgrim’s Covenant Church, which a Victory Fund called “Wisconsin’s own version of Fred Phelps,” has started dropping anti-gay literature in key precincts in Flaherty’s district. The incident has been covered in the blogosphere, but mainstream media has not yet covered it. Though previously the mainstream media coverage of Flaherty’s campaign didn’t focus on his orientation, it may become an issue in light of the Pilgrim Covenant Church’s antics. Flaherty is open about his orientation, and before becoming a full-time candidate this year, served as Director of Community Relations at the Milwaukee LGBT Community Center.

Mary Wiseman, Ohio’s first openly gay judge, received her share of anti-gay sentiments when she was appointed late last year. Her anti-gay opponent for the position of Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge took his anti-gay words to the media after her appointment, calling for Wiseman to abstain from ruling on any gay-related case.  A week after LGBT and mainstream press picked up on the issue, Wiseman’s anti-gay opponent dropped out of the race. Wiseman is running to defend her seat in the November 4th election.

The most well-known out Midwestern politician, Tammy Baldwin, is also up for re-election this year. Baldwin, who became the first openly gay first-time candidate elected to Congress, was also Wisconsin’s first female representative. Throughout her political career, the media have focused less and less on Baldwin’s orientation. In fact, her orientation is not even mentioned in recent articles and letters to the editor concerning her.

Baldwin has been in Congress for a decade, while Wiseman and Flaherty are relatively new to the political scene. In Baldwin’s case, her orientation is basically a non-issue for the media. In both Flaherty and Wiseman’s cases, orientation has not been a media issue unless an anti-gay activist attacks them. As gay people become more visible in the media, more Americans change their hearts and minds about their gay neighbors. Americans also change their hearts and minds about politicians representing them who happen to be gay. With at least eight openly gay candidates up for election this year in the Midwest, it will be interesting to see how and when candidates’ orientations are mentioned in the media as the elections progress. 

Paul Karr is the Director of Media Field Strategy

In 2007’s legislative session, Oregon lawmakers took an important step forward by passing domestic partnership laws and the Oregon Equality Act, which added gay and transgender folks to existing anti-discrimination laws. Out-of-state anti-gay activists who were unhappy with these laws circulated petitions to force the laws to a referendum vote, but failed to reach the required number of signatures to stop the implementation of the law. 

Still unhappy that the laws were going into effect, this same anti-gay group sued to change the rules on counting signatures.  Thousands of Oregonians have utilized the basic protections and security that domestic partnerships afford their families; countless others feel more secure in their jobs because of the Oregon Equality Act.

Since their attempt failed, a small band of state legislators have filed initiative petitions to repeal those laws through an election in November 2008.

One of those legislators, Senator Gary George (R-McMinnville), spoke to Oregon’s LGBT newspaper Just Out.  George is the chief petitioner to repeal the Oregon Equality Act.  When asked why he sought a vote to repeal a law that protects someone from being fired from his or her job based on their sexual orientation, Senator George had some advice for the gay community: “My advice to the gay community is SHUT UP, just don’t talk about it. If you walk around talking about what you do in the bedroom, you should be on the pervert channel.”

Senator George’s response shows just how much he hopes the LGBT community will shut up about their wish to have their job performance based on merit, or to be able to put up a picture of their partner on their desk without worrying that they will be fired.  The media have a responsibility here to report on what the Oregon Equality Act really does and just how apparent the political motives are of those that are looking to repeal this law. 

Paul Karr is the Director of Media Field Strategy

Social conservatives in California are trying to appeal directly to voters in an effort to push through measures that have been stifled by the legislature’s Democratic majority. If they succeed, the LBGT community could suffer enormous setbacks. The San Jose Mercury News reported last week that conservatives have raised almost $9 million for a set of ballot measures, including a constitutional ban on marriage for LGBT couples.

Anti-gay activists behind the campaign must gather almost 700,000 signatures by late April to qualify for the November election. Because the proposed ballot initiative would change the state constitution, the legislature would be prohibited from passing another bill in the future despite the passage of a marriage bill in 2005 and 2007, erasing years of progress. And since constitutional amendments take precedence over legislation and limit the authority of courts, current cases that might lead to marriage would be stopped or reversed.

Although the media has not covered the proposed ballot initiative extensively, newspapers have discussed local business owners’ financial contributions to the campaign.

Whether or not anti-gay groups succeed in their signature gathering efforts, the media should go beyond framing the issue simply as a political fight, “wedge issue” or tactic to advance anti-gay efforts, and instead take a deeper look at how this initiative would harm LGBT couples and their families for years to come. Media will play a key role in educating voters on the constitutional amendment, and it will be more crucial than ever for the state’s LGBT community to speak out and ensure their voices are heard.

 Paul Karr is the Director of Media Field Strategy

In recent weeks, the media have been busy scrutinizing controversial statements made by the supporters and associates of the leading presidential candidates. We recently noted the work of journalists who brought to light the extreme anti-gay statements made by John McCain supporter and televangelist John Hagee. On the March 14 broadcast of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, correspondent Tom Foreman continued to take a close look at the anti-gay backgrounds of McCain's high-profile supporters. Foreman brought attention to the alarming anti-gay comments made by televangelist and McCain supporter Rod Parsley, who McCain has called a "spiritual guide."  Parsley was quoted as saying in the report, "I will lift my voice against the agenda of America's tortured and angry homosexual population."

It is encouraging that the media keep raising awareness of the anti-gay comments made by these high-level political supporters.  We hope they continue to question whether this divisive rhetoric reflects the candidates' platforms as well as the views of most Americans.

Paul Karr is the Director of Media Field Strategy

In the last presidential election, the media often portrayed issues related to equality for the LGBT community as “wedge issues” in states all around the country.  Largely due to the work of anti-gay groups, bans for marriage for gay and lesbian couples were put on the ballot in 11 states in 2004: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. All 11 ballot initiatives passed, and many claimed the Ohio marriage ban motivated conservative voters to go the polls, stating the ballot initiative played a key role in the re-election of President George W. Bush.

This presidential election season, media are again exploring the role of LGBT issues on the presidential race. The first anti-gay initiative to officially get on the ballot this year is a ban on marriage for gay and lesbian couples in Florida. Other states have anti-gay initiatives making their way to the ballot as well, but media coverage of these issues has been more limited, as these initiatives are not officially on the ballot in their respective states:

• Anti-gay activists are in the midst of placing an initiative on the Arkansas ballot that would ban unmarried couples from adopting a child or serving as foster parents. 

• Anti-gay activists in California are collecting signatures to place a marriage ban on November’s ballot.

• The Arizona Republic recently reported that almost half of Arizona’s residents support Arizona’s proposed marriage ban. However, The Tucson Citizen has come out against the proposed ban in a recent editorial: “We urge legislators to scuttle this proposal, with haste.”

• Anti-gay activists in Oregon are also busy collecting signatures—but in this case, for the reversal of the newly-enacted domestic partnership registry. Anti-gay activists as well as advocates for fairness who support domestic partnerships have been getting their voices out in the media. 

Currently, the Florida initiative is the only one on the ballot, but the others may make it there by November. Check back here at Between the Lines for updates on ballot initiatives and how media cover them.

Paul Karr is the Director of Media Field Strategy

Conventional wisdom has been that having an anti-gay initiative on the ballot increases turnout among conservative voters, but now that theory is being called into question.  An article in The Tampa Tribune from February 24th quotes political scientists and experts on ballot issues and they seem to believe that the mere presence on the ballot may be of no significant influence on driving more voters to the polls on either side.

This coming November in Florida there will be such an amendment on the ballot, which would amend the state’s constitution to explicitly ban marriage or any other similar legal arrangement for gay and lesbian couples.  After the 2004 election came down to the state of Ohio, which had a similar amendment on the ballot at the time, many observers were quick to point out that President Bush’s slim victory in the battleground state may have been aided by conservative voters turning out in higher numbers because of the initiative.

Citing a wide range of nuanced studies from an array of states, Dan Smith, a University of Florida political scientist was quoted as saying, “Most voters who come out are going to be coming out to vote for the president.  People are going to be revved up about the candidates, and it’s not likely to bring out more people who otherwise wouldn’t vote.”

After looking at a detailed analysis of the vote in 2004, John Matsusaka, the president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California points out that Bush won Ohio in 2000 with a slightly higher margin than he did in 2004.

“It might have helped the Democrat [Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts], by driving opponents to the polls as well as backers,” Matsusaka said.

Even with these studies though, advocates from opposing sides on the issues in Florida still think that the amendment will aid the GOP and Senator John McCain in November.

McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 on ‘federalist’ grounds, but supported a failed amendment to Arizona’s constitution. 

Paul Karr is the Director of Media Field Strategy

As influential religious and political figures endorse presidential candidates, the media have begun to examine how their statements about different constituencies square with the candidate’s political platform.  San Antonio televangelist John Hagee's (right) recent backing of John McCain led journalists to scrutinize Hagee's incendiary anti-gay and anti-Catholic comments.  On The Washington Post/Newsweek Interactive's "On Faith" website, writer Claire Hoffman questioned whether McCain's proud association with Hagee – who had asserted that God's anger at an upcoming New Orleans gay pride parade caused Hurricane Katrina – reflected the Republican candidate's aspiration to unite a diverse coalition of voters.

Similarly citing Hagee's offensive remarks about gay people and Catholics, both MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann and the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric recently raised questions about McCain's uncritical acceptance of Hagee's endorsement. If the media continue to responsibly examine the anti-gay background of presidential endorsers, they will look into McCain's recent appearance with and praise for Ohio televangelist Rod Parsley.  Parsley, like Hagee, is known for his espousal of virulently anti-gay rhetoric.

This is not the first time the media has questioned the association of anti-gay figures with presidential hopefuls. Last fall, Donnie McClurkin, a conservative minister and supporter of the degayification attempts of so-called “ex-gay” activists, took part in South Carolina rallies for Democratic candidate Barack Obama. After media brought to light McClurkin's anti-gay background and scrutinized it in the context of Obama's inclusive political platform, Obama publicly stated that he "strongly disagrees" with the preacher.  

It is encouraging that the media are continuing to ask whether the anti-gay views of presidential endorsers conflict with candidates' promises to build inclusive and unifying political campaigns.

Cindi Creager is the Director of National News

Yesterday, the Associated Press reported that Gary Bauer, an anti-gay activist and former head of the Family Research Council, threw his support behind Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

Bauer’s decision runs counter to the endorsements of other anti-gay leaders.  James Dobson, the head of Focus on the Family, one of the largest and most prominent anti-gay organizations in the country, announced on Super Tuesday that he would never vote for McCain and instead endorsed Mike Huckabee. 

Unlike Huckabee, McCain has never voiced support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.  The proposed amendment, backed by President Bush in 2004, would go beyond the Defense of Marriage Act to create a constitutional ban on marriage for gay and lesbian couples. 

Earlier in this election season, anti-gay leader Pat Robertson made headlines for supporting Rudy Giuliani's now-defunct presidential bid. Back in 2004, George W. Bush received overwhelming support from leaders of anti-gay groups.  

This time around, the conversation about our issues is playing out differently in the media, with the divisions among opponents to gay and lesbian equality becoming increasingly apparent as the election season goes on.

Cindi Creager is the Director of National News