The QC Weekender: All About Proposition 8

Last week, The QC Pop Five irked some readers by posting a naked picture of Brad Pitt next to a news item about his $100K contribution to fight Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban set for voting in California this November. One commenter said, “Brad is a good friend to the glbt community. How stupid of QC to use a nude photo of him in connection with another of his generous acts. Grow up guys.” Another quipped, “Using this picture is like throwing sh@t in Brad Pitts’ face. The man does an act of kindness and respect for gays and Queerclick does this. Why?”
Well, this is a gay porn site. We thought our readers would appreciate a naked picture of Brad Pitt (as they probably would any other day of the year) alongside a mention of his generous support. However, the commenter gripes highlight the importance of the California battle. So we’ve decided to cover the issue in this installment of the QC Weekender, complete with analysis, recent developments, links to groups on both sides of the issue, and a discussion of how it effects the international LGBT community at large.
Brad Pitt’s not the only big name fighting against Proposition 8. Just this week, director Steven Spielberg and his wife, Kate Capshaw contributed $100K, the California public utility company, Pacific Gas & Electric and the Levi Strauss jeans company, donated $250K and $10K, respectively. And the giant of internet search engines, Google, came out against the measure. Also, not all religious groups are opposed to gay civil marriage either, including the Episcopal Church. Those worried that Proposition 8’s opponents have less money than its supporters should keep in mind that such publicity generated by the above endorsements may well be worth more than any sum of money.

For those of you who were upset with our nude picture of Brad Pitt last week, here’s a more modest pic of the gay marriage supporter.
So what does the actual ballot measure facing Californian voters on November 4th say? Well, we happen to have a copy right here:
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.
As we’ve said before, the most persuasive argument in support of gay marriage has to do with money. Married couples with children contribute more economically than unmarried individuals. Just think of all the lavish accouterments for a wedding and child rearing alone and you’ll understand the millions businesses stand to gain through the pink dollar. Furthermore, lots of businesses see partner benefits as a good way to utilize a growing gay and lesbian workforce. The Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA), a conservative business organization in California, supports gay marriage citing potential revenue and streamlined benefits paperwork as perks. Their outlook mirrors that of 14 U.S. states who currently extend partner benefits to state employees in same-sex relationships. Doing so ensures that qualified gay workers stay invested in a company long term rather than leaving for better equity.

Whether it’s medicinal marijuana or gay marriage, the third largest state in the U.S. has always been a political bellwether—if gay marriage catches on there, its effects will surely be felt internationally. For one, other U.S. states will be dragged into the legal fight as gay couples who wed in California will be able to litigate for the same benefits in other states. This won’t just be a fight for work or tax benefits, but parental, custody, medical, and legal battles that involve larger civil issues. Second, the legitimacy of gay couples will increase homosexual visibility in media, meaning a proliferation of gay-targeted services and advertising. This, in turn, will increase funding, social services, and employment opportunities for the gay community. These market and media trends would no doubt trickle-down into other countries through U.S. markets, compelling other countries to attract gay tourists, workers, and students by augmenting their gay services and protections. In short, a victory for gay marriage in California would go a long way to improving homosexual relations worldwide.

Here’s CNN assessment of the rise of LGBT characters on television this season, with some soundbites from GLAAD’s Neil Giuliano and the Family Research Council’s Peter Spriggs, who of course says it’s all part of the gay propaganda agenda. CNN’s conclusion: “Things are changing in the right direction.” [From Joe. My. God.]
The support of big name celebrities, businesses, and religious organizations also reflects changing social attitudes in favor of gay marriage. A growing number of gay youth want long-term relationships and kids, a recent study supports gay couples looking to adopt, and another from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation(GLAAD) reveals that the number of gay TV characters is at an all-time high(though not every gay is thrilled about that).
You may recall that anti-gay union ballot measurements in 11 states may have helped Bush win by a slim margin in the 2004 U.S. elections. But many Americans have tired of homosexual marriage as a wedge issue for voters and are beginning to see the issue for exactly what it is—a non-issue drawing attention from more important domestic issues. Nonetheless, four states will see anti-gay ballot measures this November. One in Florida lacks the support the mayor of Miami and that of Republican governor, Charlie Crist, who “won’t actively support” it. But have no doubt, Proposition 8 definitely has its supporters.

In an effort to make themselves more youth-friendly, California’s anti-gay marriage activists have established a new site, iProtect Marriage, a spin-off of the more staid Protect Marriage. Their arguments against gay-marriage are short-sighted to the point of being bigoted.
The website most organizing of support for Proposition 8 is Protect Marriage, a website that has instructs local churches on how to raise money for Proposition 8 without violating separation of church and state IRS tax codes. In the U.S., churches aren’t taxed because they’re considered “community institutions” and in return, they’re not supposed to preach politics from the pulpit, but they do anyway. In fact, some ministers have decided to outright defy the IRS by endorsing conservative candidates whose views reflect their own. Recently, the Bolthouse Farms angered gay consumers when the company founder, William Bolthouse Jr., donated $100,000 to the organization, Protect Marriage.Californians Against Hate called for a boycott of Bolthouse Farms. A similar boycott was waged against Hyatt hotel owner Doug Manchester for donating $125K to support Proposition 8.
But, the big money has come from out-of-state groups such as Connecticut-based Knights of Columbus ($1.275 million), a Catholic men’s organization; the National Organization for Marriage ($921,000); Mississippi-based American Family Association ($500,000); and Colorado-based Focus on the Family ($414,000), whose chairman is James Dobson, the evangelical Christian whose syndicated radio show is heard by millions. Likewise, the Mormon church has also mobilized forces in support of Proposition 8. Cedar City, Utah resident Nadine Hansen, creator of MormonsFor8.com thinks that probably 85 to 90 percent of the donors (to ProtectMarriage.com) are Mormon. ProtectMarriage.com. spokeswoman Jennifer Kerns acknowledged that a large number of the group’s 25,000 volunteers, who spend weekends canvassing neighborhoods and making phone calls, are Mormon. About a third of donors backing Proposition 8 are Mormon, with their contributions reaching close to $5 million.

Amongst themselves, homosexuals quibble over whether “civil unions” are an acceptable alternative to “marriage.” Civil unions refer to the bestowment of the tax and legal benefits normally given to straight married couples onto committed gay couples. However, some contend that civil unions are merely a “separate but equal” political measure that renders gays as 2nd-class citizens (the same way American blacks were before the American Civil Rights Movement). But those who support civil unions see it as a satisfying start on the way to full-fledged political recognition and add that “marriage” is a religious term that requires the blessing of a church. The contention over “marriage” is precisely what fuels the fire of those against homosexual unions. Opponents of gay marriage say that religious scriptures explicitly forbid homosexuality as a sin and that civil unions are a slippery slope on the way to eventually forcing everyone to accept homosexuality.
One cannot deny that institutionalized homophobia insults gays as being unworthy of the same rights and benefits as heterosexuals. Such official governmental policies engenders antipathy that results in gay bashings, negative depictions of gays in media, and exclusion from public school curriculum , that would educate gays and straights, potentially lower rising HIV rates, and stop alienating homosexuals that might otherwise live healthy, productive lives.
What are your thoughts? We’d love to know.