News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile

Access 11/5 Senate ENDA Hearing Live Blog

Access Tuesday's Election Live Blog


33|175:175

About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.


CA: LGBT coalitions of color - forego 2010 Prop 8 repeal initiative; need more time to secure votes

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 13:00:00 PM EDT


I'm actually relieved to see this perspective out there, because my initial reaction to the seemingly urgent call by LGBT groups out in Cali to try to undo Prop 8 by putting it back on the ballot in 2010 seemed rash, so soon after the millions of dollars and energy into the unsuccessful Prop 8 fight.  More than $82 million was raised on both sides of the issue, the most expensive ballot initiative over a social issue in the Golden State's history.

Prepare to Prevail, a coalition representing API Equality-LA, HONOR PAC, the Jordan-Rustin Coalition and other groups, released a public statement that says to the LGBT community --  give it little more time in order to guarantee a big win  in the long run. It's the first widely supported public call by LGBT community groups and supporters to forego a rush to the ballot box in 2010 to repeal Proposition 8. There are logical, practical reasons to wait, even if the emotions and motivation are high to do something in 2010.

Ron Buckmire, President of the Barbara Jordan / Bayard Rustin Coalition, cites resource constraints. "We've got massive economic challenges in California right now. And our own LGBT service organizations are struggling. We are all being forced to make difficult decisions. Investing in a robust, coordinated public education campaign about marriage is a wiser investment than choosing to wage another very expensive electoral battle at this time."

"We want to win. And winning a political campaign requires ample preparation," says Luis López, President of HONOR PAC. "The renewed energy and collaboration in our community will, with time and direction, become the fuel of a well-oiled campaign machine. For now, though, with little movement among voters on this issue and key components not yet in place for 2010, we need to take stock and focus on building our capacity."

I think those who are in favor of action in 2010 need to consider who these groups represent and why they hold this position:
API Equality-LA is a coalition of organizations and individuals who are committed to working in the Asian and Pacific Islander (API) communities in Greater Los Angeles for equal marriage rights and fair treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) families through community education and advocacy.

HONOR PAC advocates for the political empowerment of Latina/o LGBT communities. HONOR PAC supports candidates and ballot propositions that advance progressive policies and serve the unique needs and interests of Latina/o LGBT communities.

Barbara Jordan / Bayard Rustin Coalition Jordan Rustin Coalition was created in response to the lack of outreach to African Americans in the campaign against Proposition 22, the anti-gay marriage initiative in 2000, and the realization in 2005 that another such initiative was imminent. The mission of JRC is to empower Black same-gender loving, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals and families in Greater Los Angeles, to promote equal marriage rights and to advocate for fair treatment of everyone without regard to race, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.

Need I say more? If we have POC groups, communities where outreach was poor, ineffective or non-existent the last time around concerned that the train is leaving the station too soon, I think it's time to listen to the full rationale for holding off until the ducks are in a row.

Read it below the fold.

Pam Spaulding :: CA: LGBT coalitions of color - forego 2010 Prop 8 repeal initiative; need more time to secure votes
Prepare to Prevail:
Why We Must Wait In Order to Win

A public statement on how to win back marriage equality in California

July 13, 2009

Issued by: API Equality-LA, HONOR PAC, Jordan Rustin Coalition
www.apiequalityla.org l www.honorpac.org l www.jordanrustincoalition.org

Unlike Proposition 8 in 2008, any upcoming electoral campaign for marriage equality would be one of choice, not one of necessity in fending off an attack from religious-right foes. Timing is ours to determine. Going back to the ballot to remove the voter-imposed ban on same-sex marriage from the state constitution in 2010 would be rushed and risky. We should proceed with a costly, demanding, and high-stakes electoral campaign of this sort only when we are confident we can win. We should choose to Prepare to Prevail.

We have much work to do before we proceed to the ballot. Many of us, which includes lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) organizations and progressive allies, have been doing critical educational and organizing work for years, intensified it during the Prop. 8 campaign in 2008, and have continued to communicate with key constituencies after the election. We vow to intensify our efforts until we win back marriage equality in California. We invite all groups and individual leaders to sign on to this statement and join us in building a solid battle plan for equality. We must step up our work, collectively and in concert, as soon as possible.

Prepare to Prevail requires making progress on the following before proceeding to the ballot:

1) Winning requires full LGBT community support and a broad coalition of allies. Only a few segments of the LGBT community have announced their intention to pursue a "vote-yes" campaign next year. Energy and passion are a necessary prerequisite for any effective campaign but are not a sufficient substitute for a broad coalition with a clear strategy backed by ample resources. For California to win back marriage equality, broad segments of the LGBT and progressive community including critically important people-of-color groups, LGBT families, and other allies need to pull together. We should proceed when we have a unified strategy and a massive coalition of progressive non-LGBT allies ready to act in unison. Anything short of a broad coalition of allies would place our campaign in a strategic disadvantage from the onset.

2) We need to build strong majority support before placing the issue before voters. Popular support for marriage equality for same-sex couples has not changed since the last election. Today, California voters' opinions on a constitutional amendment to overturn the voter-imposed elimination of marriage equality remain evenly split, according to all recent polls. In order to seek major investments of time and money from key stakeholders and allies in an affirmative ballot-measure campaign seeking a "yes" vote from voters, seasoned campaign experts advise against proceeding to the ballot without evidence of a strong majority in favor of the measure. Failure to begin with a sizable majority puts sponsors in a more likely position to lose. More than two-thirds of all ballot initiatives fail to pass on Election Day. Moreover, polls can overstate actual public support for LGBT rights because respondents may be reluctant to reveal their bias to pollsters. In 2008, some polls indicated majority support for marriage equality and against Proposition 8, which was not the result on Election Day. This was also true for Proposition 22, when opponents of the measure thought there was more support for marriage equality than the final vote demonstrated. In Washington State in 1997, some gay-rights activists pushed forward with a pro-active ballot measure aimed at outlawing antigay discrimination in the state. Despite having public opinion narrowly on their side, they lost 60 to 40 at the polls on the measure. It took nine more years for LGBT rights supporters to secure passage of a nondiscrimination law by the Washington state legislature. Proceeding with campaigns seeking a "yes" vote without support from a strong majority of voters holds foreseeable danger.

3) Campaign donors will be constrained given the current unprecedented economic downturn. Over $81 million was raised and spent by both sides in the Proposition 8 campaign, more than in any previous anti-gay ballot initiative. Many of the LGBT nonprofit organizations doing critical work for our communities have suffered layoffs and cutbacks in services. The current economic downturn has also reduced the capacity of campaigns both educational and electoral to amass multi-million-dollar war chests from small, large, and institutional donors. The scope of anxiety and human need in California means that individual donors are making hard choices about charitable dollars. Major donors, including foundations that provided funding for critical educational campaigns, have endured hits to their portfolios, and many are exercising caution. Any successful "vote-yes" campaign will require generous support from pro-LGBT institutional donors. These donors give based on evidence of likely success, which for 2010 is filled with grave doubts. It is unlikely that we will be able to raise the necessary funds to undertake an effective electoral campaign until after 2010.

4) Educational, voter-ID (not electoral) campaigns with specific goals should begin immediately. To reach a threshold of support for marriage equality suitable to begin an electoral campaign, supporters need a voter-ID campaign aimed at moving an identifiable subset of California voters. Vote-no campaigns typically seek to plant doubts and promote confusion among voters about measures. Several arguments used to pass Proposition 8 have not been widely rebutted and thus retain their appeal as attack strategies with particular currency as part of a vote-no campaign. A campaign of changing hearts and minds of selected groups of voters requires time, diligent research, and targeting of specific communities. The worst time to attempt to educate voters is in the midst of a heated campaign, which makes it difficult to rebut lies and fear-mongering. The voter-ID campaign should precede the electoral campaign aimed at mobilizing support to remove from the state constitution the discriminatory language already approved by voters.

5) We need time to build a coordinated data infrastructure that can support a winning campaign. We need time to establish robust get-out-the-vote (GOTV) data systems and a statewide online voter contact database to make and measure contacts with California voters in a coordinated fashion with participation from the many pro-marriage stakeholder groups across the state. Unlike narrow special interests, our cause is a broad-based movement that will require coordinated data collection among multiple groups working in concert. Many individual groups have started this work, but winning will require buy-in and participation in a singular statewide and coordinated data system. Agreements and accountabilities need to be worked out and trust needs to be rebuilt. Time and true collaboration are vital to developing organizational partnerships and the data systems needed to tap and deploy our grassroots network and measure our progress toward specific voter-contacts goals.

6) Time and greater effort is needed to build trust and relationships in communities that represent the full diversity of California voters, including limited-English-speaking voters and voters of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. The 2008 campaign against Prop 8 did not adequately reach non-English-speaking voters and failed to engage or empower allied groups poised to communicate with millions of such voters. The Yes-on-8 campaign, in taking its victory laps, bragged about the many tongues into which it translated its materials and the diverse congregations whom it mobilized. This lapse must be overcome in a future campaign to win back marriage equality. We must learn from our mistakes made during the last campaign and not repeat them. Doing so will require deepened relationships with partner organizations and leaders who can reach diverse racial, ethnic, and non-English-speaking communities. It will require working to increase the ability of LGBT parents and caregivers with children across these communities to effectively communicate the impact of marriage equality on their children. We must establish the communications capacity needed to achieve cultural competency as well as fluency in persuading immigrant, people-of-color, and non-English-speaking communities to support marriage equality. Most of all, it requires time to build trust and relationships in targeted communities in order to succeed.

7) Labor, religious allies and communities of color are indispensable to winning. More time is needed to convert general support into full organizational backing to secure increased grassroots engagement, resources, and votes. Coordinated outreach with labor and religious institutions remains crucial to building a strong majority for marriage equality in California. Forging lasting collaboration with and among these organizations must be a top priority for both the education and electoral campaigns. In addition to traditional civil-rights and community groups, as well as entertainment and sports celebrities, the same labor and religious organizations already highlighted will be critical in mobilizing people of color voters to support marriage equality. Rather than simply asking for support from allies, a winning campaign must be prepared to welcome these entities to the planning table and demonstrate reciprocity with them in the course of the long campaign to regain marriage equality. Winning a majority of "yes" votes on a future ballot measure will not be easy. But it will be impossible if we work in isolation or avoid competent and fluent communication with California's diverse voters.

8) More time means more "yes" votes for marriage equality. The demographics of opinion on marriage equality indicate that natural changes in the state electorate, with new and younger voters replacing older voters, contributes over time to increased support for marriage equality. In weighing the options of presenting a ballot measure on statewide ballots either next year, in 2010, or in a future year, the latter portends a much greater capacity by marriage equality supporters to leverage and benefit from the natural shift in voter opinion.

THE UNDERSIGNED COMMIT to PREPARE to PREVAIL. Evidence and data should guide political strategy. Running and winning a statewide ballot-measure for a "yes" vote on marriage equality depends not on haste, but on preparation. Expanding public support and developing the infrastructure to mobilize our communities should be our top priorities. We commit to continuing the hard work of identifying the partnerships, commitments, and resources to launch necessary public education campaigns and setting the foundation for a solid and winning campaign. We call on all interested organizations to join in a collective body to coordinate the critical educational work that we must do. When we go back to the ballot, we intend to be active players to ensure its success just as we have always participated in the fight for marriage equality. Please join us in winning back marriage equality in California.

WE CHOOSE to PREPARE to PREVAIL
ACLU of Northern California
ACLU of San Diego and Imperial County
ACLU of Southern California
API Equality-LA
API Equality-Northern California
Asian Pacific AIDS Intervention Team
Asian Pacific American Legal Center
Asian/Pacific Islander Queer Women/Transgender Activists (AQWA)
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Foundation
Chinese Rainbow Association
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA)
Elections Committee of the County of Orange (ECCO-PAC)
Equality Action Project (Santa Cruz)
Gamba Adisa Quilombo
Gay-Straight Alliance Network
Harvey Milk Stonewall Democrats of Orange County
HONOR PAC
Imperial Court of Los Angeles and Hollywood
Inland Counties Stonewall Democrats
Jordan Rustin Coalition
Martin-Lyon Leadership Institute
Office & Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU), AFL-CIO
Our Family Coalition
SATRANG, South Asian LGBT Organization
The Wall Las Memorias Project
Robert Chacanaca, President, Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO*
Kerry Chaplin, Interfaith Organizing Director, California Faith For Equality*
Rev. Dr. Jonipher Kwong, Interfaith Organizer, California Faith For Equality *
Jerry Sloan, President Emeritus, Lambda Community Fund, Sacramento*

*affiliation listed for identification purposes only

Ron Buckmire bottom-lines it on his blog:
Let me be more specific. If it takes JRC working in coalition with Equality California and Vote for Equality 350 volunteer-hours (not including staff time, or travel time for the volunteers) to change 50 votes (from against marriage equality to undecided, or from undecided to in favor of marriage equality) and we have 6,000 times that many votes to move in 2010, then we will need 2.1 million volunteer-hours of effort to achieve that.

People who say that we can do that by November 2, 2010 (which is exactly 477 days away from today) need to demonstrate a plan for how they intend to pay for, lead and plan this work in that time frame, in the worst economy California and the United States have seen since the Great Depression.

So, did they make their case, or is it smarter to forge ahead now -- and the enthusiasm for overturning it will rule the day, despite Ron's dire predictions of a lack of human and financial resources needed to put a 2010 initiative over the top? What do you think the right course of action should be?

UPDATE: Courage Campaign chair and founder Rick Jacobs responded with this statement:

"We welcome the 'Prepare to Prevail' letter from API Equality, HONOR PAC, the Jordan Rustin Coalition and so many others as an honest, open contribution to the deliberations through which the community is participating.

"The 'Prepare to Prevail' letter, along with Love Honor Cherish's compelling statement on moving forward in 2010, is part of a healthy, vigorous debate that should help to inform the community as we begin the process of choosing the best path to victory.

"We encourage everyone engaged in this movement to put forward their portions of the road map to victory so that together, we can all win.

"Back in May, we asked our members to vote on which year -- 2010 or 2012 -- the Courage Campaign should support going back to the ballot to restore marriage equality. The response was overwhelming -- 82.5% expressed support for a 2010 ballot measure.

"The Courage Campaign is doing its part by helping to build an electoral road map to victory, as are several other organizations that are laying the groundwork necessary to win back marriage equality. It is our responsibility to our members, who overwhelmingly told us that they want to go to the ballot in 2010, and it is our responsibility to the marriage equality community."

"That's why the Courage Campaign announced support for a 2010 initiative in May. While we respect other organizations discussing and deliberating this very important question, we have been building the infrastructure to win marriage equality rights at the ballot box sooner, rather than later. Our members are ready to do the hard work needed to win.

"Since January, the Courage Campaign has been training and empowering marriage equality activists across the state at 'Camp Courage' training events as well as building 44 "Equality Teams" in 23 counties across California -- serving the organizations and individuals that are fueling the movement toward marriage equality.

"The Courage Campaign has been laying the groundwork for a victorious campaign by conducting intensive training, coordinating online, mobilizing volunteers, partnering with progressive organizations and building infrastructure for the long-term.

"We are leading the effort to train volunteers to become field organizers through Camp Courage training events. Modeled after Camp Obama, these intensive one or two-day programs have been instrumental in channeling the enthusiasm of activists into effective action. More than 700 activists have been trained in Los Angeles, Fresno, San Diego and Oakland. Some of the lead co-sponsors of Camp Courage include the Human Rights Campaign, CREDO Mobile, Dr. Bill Resnick, HONOR PAC and the Dolby Family.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
wow, i am surprised they used the term
"why we must wait".






Lurleen on Twitter


Instead of insisting why it can't happen...
... those organizations better be using their time to make sure it's a success, because it's going to happen with or without them.

Simply put, the people who handed victory to the Mormons on Prop 8 aren't calling the shots anymore.


Thus spaketh the Elite Gays!
"Knuckle under, proles!  There are more important things than your second class citizenship.  We have to get our funding first!  Now send your checks in and wait like good little suckers."

83% are "elites"?
how do you figure?






Lurleen on Twitter


[ Parent ]
Misread?
I believe the "Elite Gays" Media Ghost refers to are the ones that want to have wait for 2012.

The 83% of respondents in the Courage Campaign poll voted for 2010.  


[ Parent ]
I see it coming...
There just so happens to be a "community meeting" tonight at the SF LGBT Center starring Marriage Equality, EQCA, The Courage Campaign and others.  Of course we need time and money and 2010 is soon...probably too soon.  

But 2012 is going to be eclipsed by the re-election campaign of President Two Faced Coward.  Democrat loving homos will line up ready to give their all to help our fierce advocate get re-elected after a bruising first term and suddenly a repeal will we questioned again.

Is now the right time (in 2012)?  Maybe we should help our friends keep positions...maybe we need to guarantee a larger majority or at least sustain the one Democrats have...they can't help us without having seats...


neither year may be auspicious
You're right, 2012 means the national Democratic Party sets the tone, and they've been less than helpful. But 2010 in California could be a bad time as well, given the mess in Sacramento. Our unemployment is past 11.5%, the state bond rating is now, what? BBB? and there may be a constitutional convention or even a recall at this rate.

And, frankly, if Democratic majorities can't deliver either a state budget or Federal health reform, then we're not the only ones who may be looking at third party alternatives. Betting on the Democrats might not be a winning strategy either, not when they're proving, in hard times, to be a tower of Jell-O.


[ Parent ]
my last paragraph should be quotes
Those are not my words, but the words that I fully expect to hear in 2011 as the re-election of Obummer approaches.

I wouldn't vote for democrat with a gun pointed at my head.

Kill me instead, please.


[ Parent ]
The dems *could* deliver a state budget...
...if the Repugs didn't have just enough seats in the state legislature to block any budget (along with lock-step absolute party obedience and a willingness to take down the whole state out of spite).

[ Parent ]
which is why ...
... we need a constitutional revision. It's loony, having everyone's fundamental liberties up for a majority vote, but requiring a 2/3 on anything involving taxes or budgeting.

And let's remember that one reason the CDP has done so well is that the California GOP is such a caricature.


[ Parent ]
We need to repeal 8 before we consider constitutional revision.
It's pretty simple that we would need to repeal the law FIRST before we change the revision/amendment process. If we do not repeal 8 first it will stand as part of the Constitution, then we must have a Constitutional Convention, and the requirements for that are more difficult and far less likely to succeed.

The risk of putting this off to a later date is that someone will present a petition to do exactly what you suggest while this law is still part of the fabric of California.  

Repeal it in 2010 and then repeal the Ballot Initiative process.  One before the other.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY


[ Parent ]
With the only people who could pass a revision
currently including a just-big-enough-to-block-progress minority party and a Governor who supports the "we refuse to pass a budget unless it entirely eliminates welfare and children's healthcare" position...unfortunately, a revision isn't going to happen.  The Governator seems intent on taking this to the point of a Constitutional convention in the hopes of a more extensive power-grab by the GOP and/or the possibility of destroying the social programs of one of the more progressive states.

[ Parent ]
I don't like this name calling
But 2012 is going to be eclipsed by the re-election campaign of President Two Faced Coward.  Democrat loving homos will line up ready to give their all to help our fierce advocate get re-elected after a bruising first term and suddenly a repeal will we questioned again. [emphases mine]

Does this fit in the standards of civility that this site requires of posters -- name-calling the president and gay people who support his re-election bid in 2012?

I found this really nasty to read, FWIW or isn't.


[ Parent ]
All animus is intended
I don't regret one word of what I wrote.

Ban me.

Make my day.


[ Parent ]
public figures are fair game
The TOS refers to commenter-to -commenter banter, as in the civility between the people sitting in the coffeehouse with one another.

[ Parent ]
I was called a name, too, though
Thanks for the reply, Pam, I appreciate it. You addressed one, but not the other of the name-calling parts that I highlighted. The one you didn't address was:

Democrat loving homos will line up ready to give their all to help our fierce advocate get re-elected ... [emphasis mine]

I'm a lesbian, registered independent, who is very likely to support Barack Obama for re-election in 2012, especially if we have a good health insurance public option that I can use. That would (will?) have a huge impact on my concrete day to day life.

So I experienced that "Democrat loving homos" statement as a slur on me as well as a more general statement.

Pam, you seemed to either not see that or not perceive it as relevant. Could you please tell me why, in relation to the TOS? I assume there is a good reason, but I don't see it yet. I do know it's your site and I support that you do it however you want, I just want to understand. I thought I got some understanding in our other conversation, but now I see I don't understand the whole thing, it seems.

I don't want to get the writer of those statements banned. I can handle feeling that I have been name-called, but I am trying to understand this site's take on civility and am still, clearly, not getting something about what is going on.

I went back and forth about sending this to you via email or posting here, decided to post -- but please advise me by email if it would have been better for me to ask this follow-up that way, and feel free to delete this comment if so.


[ Parent ]
As someone who frequently swoons over the coarse manners and language
of the homos on this site, I can understand how you might take offense.  But could you clarify one thing? When you say,
So I experienced that "Democrat loving homos" statement as a slur on me as well as a more general statement.
you are referring to the "Democrat loving" part of the description as the offensive part, aren't you?

[ Parent ]
Their response...
lalalalala...we're not listening.

Both?
Can we just keep putting it on the ballot until we win? That's what the opposition does after all.

I don't have the personal resources...

...to repeatedly donate to losing campaigns. I'm going to think hard and long before supporting a second marriage equality campaign in two years when the first one failed.

If LGBT POC orgnizations continue to not support a 2010 campaign -- since insufficient outreach to racial minority communities has been considered by others and myself as a significant failing of the 2008 campaign -- I will probably not financially support the 2010 campaign. If those LGBT POC orgs aren't onboard, I don't see how the needed racial minority community outreach can happen effectively.

There are other LGBT organizations and people that I support, and they deserve resources as much or more than another marriage equality campaign. I don't have unlimited resources to donate to endless LGBT causes -- I'm not going to support a second campaign if I see it as throwing money down the drain.

Basically, I want to win next time marriage equality comes before voters in California. If LGBT POC orgs aren't onboard, I don't see how it happens in 2010. Doing prep work for a few years seems a smarter strategy, in my mind.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau


[ Parent ]
we all want to win.
problem is, there is no guarantee no matter the timing.  it's always the best and the worst time, always.






Lurleen on Twitter


[ Parent ]
I don't think I have a choice
My economic situation with my girlfriend is too urgent for me to wait. It's not about whether I have the money. I don't. I'm more about volunteering time.

Everyone keeps saying it takes money, money, money. Yeah, I guess if it's about TV ads. But...I think it just takes more volunteers and the donation of time.

And if 2010 fails, all is not lost. The campaign just continues building on the last one.


[ Parent ]
People talk about money
because money is easy, and it means that people with money can buy moral status without spending too much time.  It's like people who buy expensive hybrid cars to make their long commute from their oversized "green" houses to work -- expensive, visible badges of public morality are always more popular than anything useful.

[ Parent ]
maybe, maybe not.
i agree that some people use money in the way you describe.  however when it comes to political campaigns, different people are able to contribute to an effort in different ways, whether with cash, time, providing infrastructure, etc.  we need some of all of that.  i'll never slap any donor's hand who wants to give cash.  who cares if they're only giving money to get their name on the annual donors report?  fact is, we need the money.  but that doesn't mean that someone's donated time is just as valuable and vital.  it's all good.






Lurleen on Twitter


[ Parent ]
typo
should have read:
but that doesn't mean that someone's donated time isn't just as valuable and vital as a cash donation.  it's all good.






Lurleen on Twitter


[ Parent ]
not necessarily
And if 2010 fails, all is not lost. The campaign just continues building on the last one.

IMO if the campaign further damages its relationship with organizations like the ones signing the statement in this post, that is not something useful to be built on. In fact, it would be a further damaged foundation IMO.


[ Parent ]
personal resources...
I agree with you about repeatedly donating to losing campaigns.  But, the supporters of Prop. 8 who used their kids college funds, took out second/third mortgages on their homes to donate to YES ON 8, won't have those resources available in 2010.  How often can one donate $30,000-$80,000 to a campaign supporting one man/one woman marriage using college funds and second/third mortgages?

The debate needs to be kept alive and ongoing.  Waiting for 2012, 2014 or the "right time" just sends the message that we are not serious about our equal civil rights.  


[ Parent ]
I agree
I point this out often...there was some mormon family with 5 young boys from the Sacramento area who donated $50K!!! to rescind equality.  Somehow I don't think they'll be able to match that amount in 2010.

[ Parent ]
Disagree
They will find a way. Did anyone on the No side sacrifice anywhere near the level the Yes side did? I don't know anyone who mortgaged their home to donate to No (i donated over $5,000, which was a stretch, and could have refinanced my house. did i? no). They may not have it, but make no mistake, they will sacrifice everything to make it happen.

I don't recall the specifics, but i vaguely recall seeing that <10% of LGBT voters donated to No on 8. Volunteering and canvassing is important, but running a campaign is expensive, even with a HUGE volunteer base.  


[ Parent ]
Money is critical ...
... and not just to organizing on the ground. Arguably, we lost the air war, that is, the other side got out the ad message that SSM somehow threatened religious liberty (which it didn't) while our commercials didn't push enough buttons.

We need money to get our message -- an effective message, one would hope -- on the air in the big media markets.


[ Parent ]
"<10% of LGBT voters donated to No on 8."
how could anyone possible know the sexual orientation of donors from either side?  do my electronic payments have some sort of invisible "queer" stamp on them that i am unaware of?






Lurleen on Twitter


[ Parent ]
< 10%
extrapolation based on population...not scientific. it was making the point that they sacraficed, we didn't.  

[ Parent ]
On second thought ... yes they can
Somehow I have a "gut" feeling the LDS Church secretly reimbursed those members who gave of their means to support Prop. H8.  Maybe not with direct payments, but credits towards their tax deductible tithe?

[ Parent ]
Chino Blanco shuld look into that
How can we find out if donations to the Prop 8 fight were considered tithing? It should be denoted somehow in the end of year tithing settlement. However, those are all internal documents. What do you think, Chino? Any way for us to find out if the faithful had their Prop 8 contributions count towards tithing in temple interviews?

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

[ Parent ]
I am one of the signers on the POC letter
I have encouraged this public statement for a long time.  The relationships with POC communities are NOT HEALED. Far from it.  Damn near all of the same leadership is in place from Prop 8 and POC have not been invited in.  Additionally, one of the signing groups, HONOR PAC, did the same survey as Courage Campaign and got different results from that survey.  That should be a big clue here, it is not universally supported and there is a big division among groups and people.

I feel like, again, the POC concerns are being brushed over by the powers that be.  There was a community meeting here a couple of weeks ago and there was a concerted attempt for the grassroots folks to not be able to talk all together about different opinions and experiences.

I am with Autumn.  I worked every day on the campaign all for free.  I put every single resource I had to give into this battle.  Not willing to do it again without some change.

I want to know if everyone who keeps saying we'll just keep going back every election did anything in the last campaign?  Harsh? Yes and realistic.  

For me I am being pragmatic.  We were lied to before, millions of dollars were raised only to have the resources disappear with not one damn thing to show for it. We lost our names, our families, our stories. Nothing has changed here.  

I am not one of the elite here either.  I am an unemployed lesbian of color who has been kept out of the leadership even though I have a ton of experience and knowledge. I am not trying to run over people I want to hear what everyone has to say.  Make it truly grassroots, not just cheap and superficial.  

BTW, it looks like the righties are making another attempt at criminalizing immigrants in an election next year.  How do you think that will impact the Latino and API vote?  Do you think if the relationships are not healed that this initiative will have an impact on a vote for marriage?



[ Parent ]
I'd still perfer next year.
Canvassed in my neighborhood last wkend with a group we formed through the Courage Campaign network.  Relief to say, except for my youngish interracial couple neighbors who don't support marriage equalityl, the large majority of people talked to from out pull list are ready to sign now and vote now to over turn Prop 8.  A large margin.  

Those in our group who where on conference report the two concept spins for postponing an repeal initiative til 2012; 1) two more years of younger voters, and 2) an anti immigration initiative will be on the ballot next year bringing out the conservative vote.

Last night an EQCA volunteer came knocking on the door in the eve.  We exchanged organizational stories...EQCA is pushing for money to do voter outreach in conservative Orange County.  Still asking for money.  So far, Courage Campaign have been low key with the donation thing, but given me a platform to organize in my area.  That's all I'm looking for.  Action.  I donate to my Equality Team directly.  


There you said it yourself...." my youngish interracial couple neighbors"

Course I don't know which races you mean. But have two good friends who were adamant they would follow their black pastors instructions to Vote Yes to H8,'because their pastors' 'saved their lives' by accepting their interracial nature vs whites who dont! 

In CA it is a race/religion problem face it or else. I don't care what the number show 



It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.


[ Parent ]
neighborhood
can you put some context to your canvassing? Urban/rural/suburban, n cal/s cal, coastal/valley, etc?  

[ Parent ]
San Fernando Valley
Close in (that means close in to the north side of the Hollywood Hills) right adjacent to Burbank.  The valley burbs for sure.

[ Parent ]
in a sense, it's not waiting
Points 4, 5 and 7 are in line with what I'm hearing from ACLU-No. California and others, that we should be doing an ongoing and active effort, public education in particular, but also liaison and database work, without tying it to a particular election calendar. It's not just a matter of letting time pass, and it would be well for them to emphasize this.

Given that, it's a persuasive argument to bypass the state 2010 elections.


the gays obsessed with marriage will ignore this and be mad when they lose
LEAVE IT ALONE, at least for the time being.

There are more important things that need to be dealt with other than marriage.


Be better, not bitter!


Coalitions
You can't tell people there are more important things that need to be dealt with.

You tell them I'll fight for you if you fight for me. Otherwise, whatever issues are important to you that others don't think are as important...they're not going to care about them because you didn't care about theirs.


[ Parent ]
you're right, but of all the "gay issues," marriage has the least support
at least that is what polls indicate.  Military service, ENDA, hate crimes all have more public support.  I think even gay adoption has more popularity in the mainstream.

So why are LGBTs intent on picking a battle around the most difficult-to-win issue?


Be better, not bitter!


[ Parent ]
It's all being fought
I currently live in South Carolina and am moving to California in August. I could not imagine telling Californians to wait because South Carolinian LGBTs don't have any rights at all.

What we're talking about here is a state initiative, not a national one. DADT, ENDA and hate crimes are national issues to be voted on, not by the people in states, but by Representatives and Senators. Hate crimes will be voted on very soon as will ENDA. Getting those passed requires each of us in our own states convincing our own congress people to vote pro-gay.

DOMA is not currently on the plate for a nationwide effort. It's in our minds, yes, but legislatively nothing is being done about it. Legislatively it is DADT, ENDA and Matthew Shepard Act that are on the move in the federal government.


[ Parent ]
how is Prop 8 not a national initiative, considering the out of state money used?
Maybe if organizations are saying they want to bring it to the ballot again and use only CA money to do so, I would feel more comfortable thinking "well, if that's what they want to do, let them go ahead."

But I suspect it will end up like last November where CA priorities become the national LGBT priority.  

Your points on DADT, ENDA and hate crimes are well taken.

 

Be better, not bitter!


[ Parent ]
CA priorities ARE the national LGBT priority.
At almost 37,000,000 people, California is the most populous state.  More Americans are Californians than they are New Yorkers or Texans or Tennesseans or anything else.

In America, California sets the pace for almost all things political, environmental and cultural.  In this instance, when California has marriage equality, a probable vast majority of Americans will then be immediately either living in a state with marriage equality or will know or be related to somebody who is.

Thst's a big deal.


[ Parent ]
Middleground will always have more support.
If we pull back on marriage, and then one of these other issues becomes the most controversial ones being considered, then it too may become one that has the "least support"

Letting us die in the military protecting this country is a middle ground between hating gays & allowing the scary marriage equality.

But if we were to make repealing DADT suddenly the only gay rights issue being seriously considered, I bet it'd become more controversial too.

It strikes me as sort of like the comments I see often here on the Blend, that the civil rights leader's who call for peace only look measured & reasonable when calling for restraint when there is also a more violent group out there struggling for the same cause that they can be compared to.

I think DADT & ENDA are easier pills to swallow, precisely because we fight so hard for marriage equality.


[ Parent ]
interesting point. I've heard people say marriage equality makes other stuff easier
I don't know if I believe it, but I have had people explain to me that gay marriage is sort of like the Malcolm X of gay issues, making support for the MLK-like ENDA and hate crimes to pass.

If you believe Malcolm X acknowledged that his practical function was to set things up for MLK, it raises several points for me.   Was he going for the most outrageous claims, asking for things he knew would not be supported?  I am not sure if proponents of marriage equality are looking at their position as pragmatically as that.

Hope that makes sense.  

Be better, not bitter!


[ Parent ]
some of us are.
i think i'm correct in remembering that every year a domestic partnership bill has been introduced here in washignton state, a marriage equality bill was also introduced.  everyone knew the marriage bill would go nowhere, and we were all really working on the possible: domestic partnership.  i can't tell you what the legislators were thinking, but to my mind that simultaneous bill introduction did two things: sent the message of what our ultimate goal is, and gave some legislators the feeling that dp's aren't so scary when held up in contrast to an 'm' word bill.  the same thing happened earlier this year in hawaii.  

as for outrageous claims, i don't know about malcolm, but i sure don't view the call for civil equality outrageous.  however, i know some heterosexists probably do, so if the washington state marriage bill in 2007, 2008 or 2009 functioned to actually pull such people toward dp's, i've got no problem with that.  the assumption is that once they are on board with dp's, the jump to marriage doesn't look so far and scary.






Lurleen on Twitter


[ Parent ]
Right you are
This session we introduced Civil Unions in the House, where it had wide support, and Marriage in the Senate, where there was none. christian hate groups came out and screamed about "marriage by another name." So did opposing State Reps and Senators. So since the debate will be labeled as over marriage whether it is or not, screw it, next time we're going for the whole enchilada, and the archdiocese, the mormon Honolulu stake, and all the Waipahu storefront cults can choke on it.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

[ Parent ]
I look forward
to watching the radical-right of hawaii engage in a synchronized gag reflex. ;)

here in washington state, the "marriage by another name" scare didn't work on the legislature like it seems to have in hawaii, and so pairing the dp and marriage bills did not harm and possibly some good.  of course, the jury is still out as to how the electorate feels.  eleven days until the signature gathering deadline.  or only eight days, if people mail in their petitions by the 22nd, as gary randall is asking them to.






Lurleen on Twitter


[ Parent ]
The problem here is multilayered
It's not as simple as christian hate groups and gospel preachers as it is on the mainland in mostly black and white communities. Anti-gay sentiment is embroiled in a LOT of Asian cultural norms in Hawaii, and I think the campaign to repeal Prop 8 could learn from us here in doing minority outreach in the API communities in California.

The Asian cultural norm of not disappointing your parents, of living up to the clan's expectations means that most gay children of Asian families don't come out. Even if their parents know, they don't actually come out. They certainly don't rock the boat by becoming activists. It just stays the unspoken icky truth no one talks about. The majority of out gays here are western-culture whites. This reinforces the myth that "gay is a white disease" and a "mainland thing." Which in turn reinforces anti-colonial, anti-white sentiment. Yay, racism as part of homophobia.

Then comes religion. Add in a heaping dose of no-literacy-required evangelical christianity, particularly in the already extraordinarily misogynist, Spanich Catholic-influenced Filipino communiy. There are your Waipahu storefront pentecostal protestors. Add in extra money from the mormons, who own all of Laie (up on the North Shore) and are a huge source of tourism revenue thanks to BYU Hawaii and the mormon so-called temple. Add money from the catholic archdiocese. who have their own fucking lobbyist, Dennis Arakaki. Add money from mainland christian hate groups like FOtF, which fund radio and newspaper ads (full page ads in the Advertiser!). There's your christian hate voters, colored by christian money. Magically, the legislators become convinced that their own LGBT constituents aren't worth the time and effort.

If the campaign to repeal Prop 8 wants to reach out to the API community, they should understand these things. And never, ever underestimate the power of the mormon self-proclaimed church to scare its members into repeating lies and hate.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi


[ Parent ]
points taken
interesting to me that the asian communities don't visibly get involved in anti-dp stuff here in washington state.  here it's the whites that are loud on both sides.  blacks and latinos as well are largely silent.  i don't know enough about the nature of the asian communities here and in hawaii to even begin to venture a guess as to the reason for the differences.  well ok, maybe i will venture a guess, but realize it's coming from someone ignorant: asian communities have no political power here like they apparently do in hawaii, so they just stay quiet.






Lurleen on Twitter


[ Parent ]
this gay thinks marriage important ...
... but marriage isn't as blissful when the spouses are standing in a bread line.

[ Parent ]
Actually it is.
I have lived at the poverty line with my girlfriend, and I was still happy. We have gone through the toughest financial hardships together. And I'm very proud that we're still together.

When you are poor, not being married makes your financial hardships even worse. I get that wealthier gays are in the mode of protecting what they have.


[ Parent ]
point well worth making
It's an argument we're going to have to make to the rest of the electorate. Times will get harder and they'll want to know in 2010, 2012, whenever, why this issue should matter to them?

[ Parent ]
Tough economic times are when many marriage protections are most valuable.
You'll never be as happy about having spousal benefits from your employer as in an economic crisis. A lot of social safety nets are tied to marriage; there is no time it is more important than in an economic downturn.

[ Parent ]
I'd rather starve as an equal than live as a second-class citizen.
Does "Give me liberty or give me death" ring a bell?

And what if it did lose in 2010 (which I don't believe it will)?  That somehow magically makes it less likely to pass in 2012?  A loss in 2010 would mean an infrastructure already in place, education already ongoing, outreach already happening, and a voting populace that knows we're never going to stop demanding our equal rights come 2012.

In other words, win or lose in 2010, we still win.  Sit out 2010, and we're eclipsed by the national election and less ready in 2012.

Any debate is moot, because the fact that it's going to be on the ballot in 2010 is already a foregone conclusion.


[ Parent ]
About Time...
It took a lot of comments for me to find someone who shares this view with me. We at least need a database of signatures to re-sign people in 2012 and/or 2014. How do people think this hateful amendment was put on the ballot in the first place? The haters were able to establish a database of anti-equality people in over eight years.

[ Parent ]
What is important to you, Anthony?
Shall I tell you to stop obsessing over it, that there are more important things to deal with?  If you don't want to be involved, then don't be.  But telling others what's good for them is no way to win their help when you need it.






Lurleen on Twitter


[ Parent ]
please see my response to GrrrlRomeo


Be better, not bitter!

[ Parent ]
can you link to the polls you cite?
also, prop 8 is a state-level effort.  DADT, ENDA, etc are federal level efforts.  we can operate in more than one level of government at a time, just like other citizens groups do.  

if you don't care about marriage, nobody is forcing you to be involved.  but clearly, a lot of other LGBT people do care about it or we woudln't be having this conversation.  i wonder what you think you'll gain by trying to dissuade people from their pursuit of their civil rights.  






Lurleen on Twitter


[ Parent ]
ROTFL!
You're using a national poll that asked ONLY about marriage as evidence that "of all the "gay issues," marriage has the least support"

you also claimed that "I think even gay adoption has more popularity in the mainstream.", but are you aware that several states have now passed constitutional amendments forbidding adoption by gay people?

conditions vary from state to state across all of these state-level issues.

your opinions are as worthwhile as anyone's, but if you want them taken seriously i suggest you don't play so fast and loose with the facts.






Lurleen on Twitter


[ Parent ]
maybe you didn't read the whole page .. taken from further down that page
Today, the latest USA Today/Gallup poll finds 69% of Americans in favor of military service by openly gay men and lesbians. While the Clinton-era policy remains in place, President Obama promised during the campaign to change it.

Americans also show broad support for gay rights in the following areas:

Sixty-seven percent say gay and lesbian domestic partners should have access to health insurance and other employee benefits.

Nearly three in four Americans, 73%, believe gay and lesbian domestic partners should have inheritance rights.

Sixty-seven percent favor a proposal to expand hate-crime laws to cover crimes committed against gays or lesbians.

Only 28% of Americans believe that gays or lesbians should not be hired as elementary school teachers. Sixty-nine percent believe they should be allowed to teach children.

Americans are somewhat less supportive of adoption rights for gay couples, though a majority (54%) still support this.

Implications

While Americans have become increasingly likely to believe that the law should not discriminate against gay individuals and gay couples, the public still seems reluctant at this point to extend those protections to the institution of marriage. Public support for gay marriage appears to have stalled in the last two years, even as the gay marriage movement has scored a number of legal and legislative victories at the state level in the past year.



Be better, not bitter!


[ Parent ]
ok fair enough.
and i appreciate your explanation.  however, you're using a national poll to evaluate actions and decisions taking place in one state.  as we all know by the patchwork of pro- or anti-equality laws and amendments across the country, all states are not alike.  it is simply not legitimate to set state-level goals based on national-level polls.  if that had been the tactic used previously, we would never have won marriage equality in massachusetts, iowa, california (even if fleeting), new hampshire, connecticut, vermont and maine.








Lurleen on Twitter


[ Parent ]
I hadn't thought about it like that. You've given me something to consider.


Be better, not bitter!

[ Parent ]
One nitpick, but generally agree.
3) Campaign donors will be constrained given the current unprecedented economic downturn.
It's not clear that the downturn will hurt our donations more than it will hurt our opponents' donors, though, and that's the ratio that matters, no? We spent $40MM last cycle, but they did too. We might well have won if we had spent $30MM but they had spent only $15MM.

But yeah, overall, as much as it kills me to say it, I'm ambivalent about whether to go back to the ballot in 2010. Another knife's-edge loss would be devastating, and might further undermine future efforts. (Counterpoint: no, it would further galvanize us, much like our Prop 8 loss arguably propelled the spate of marriage equality legalizations in New England.)

Regardless, at a rate of change of 1-2% per year, 2012 looks like a safe bet for us... unless Obama's reelection siphons all the activists out of California and into Nevada again.

Ugh. So many good arguments on each side. I'm leaning towards 2010, but I'm with Pam in that I'm glad there's a credible case being made for 2012 so we can make this decision carefully. Courage Campaign's response is stupid -- the members voting on that stuff don't necessarily know anything about the dynamics of the race, and my experience has been that rank-and-file gays are hopelessly ignorant about how political campaigns work.


I generally agree with this statment . . .
. . .but I DO NOT agree with how it was issued. I go into it further on Unite the Fight, but a lot of the organizations work closely with the pro-2010 organizations. Many feel stabbed in the back or caught between the crossfires. I myself am caught in the middle. Some of these organizations are listed on both the pro-2010 statement issued by Love Honor Cherish and the Prevail statement.

A lot of this is jockeying for position, and I'm sick of it. The message behind the Prevail statement is going to get completely lost behind the message of how it was issued - through the press first and not directly to their colleagues, which is another way of saying, "We don't trust you."

I want to win. If that means I have to wait, fine. But I want the reasons for waiting to be heard, not used a as ploy to stay in power over what happens. And I've seen that first hand.


Hi, thanks for your imput


[ Parent ]
Huh?? A press release was issued to the press; the statement went everywhere
The full statement was sent to everyone simultaneously....
We placed it on all 3 websites (JRC, HONR PAC and API Equality LA) simultaneously...

Go to Prepare To Prevail to sign up and read more,...


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Mad Professah Lectures http://madprofessah.com
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell


[ Parent ]
As I'm saying on my blog
My objection is how the statement was released. They didn't go to opposing groups personally first to discuss the eight points - they just blasted it out to the world. Posting on your websites, emailing it and going to the press doesn't create a discussion but a division. A discussion could've have been had, but now everyone's focused on trying not to splinter in different directions instead of discussing the points in the statement.

On top of that, Ron, you (JRC and others) are siding with the people who ignored the problems facing the POC groups on the No on 8 campaign in the first place. Discussing the points of the Prepare to Prevail at the upcoming Leadership Summit FIRST would've been in your best interest because most people attending, from the grassroots, are in major support of the POC groups and NOT repeating the mistakes created by No on 8.


[ Parent ]
If numbers of evangelicals of colour increase
our chances could actually be worse in 2010.

The religious right, including hispanic and black evangelicals, cannot bend on gay rights without their believing that they have sold out Jesus.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid


Didn't campaign courage already commit to 2010?
I feel like I remember some online poll laying out the arguments for both sides, and them saying they'd use that result as a guide.  And the answer was resoundingly 2010.

I voted in that poll for 2010 (I was going to get married in CA & stay w/ my uncle who lives there until prop 8 happened & we had to do a last minute change to Boston & my uncle couldn't afford to attend).

And maybe the argument for "be patient" has some merit, but I can still be passionate & fired up about it from NC in 2010 & will be sure to donate... but by the time 2012 comes around I'm going to be a broke grad student.

I would rather the "be patient & wait" crowd spend their time actively making the argument to those sitting on the fence about gay rights to come to our side, instead of spending their time arguing with others in the lgbt community that we need to wait.

I'm just not sure 2 years will be enough to sway lots of hearts & minds.  If people are suggesting we wait, then why not 2014 or 2016 so it can be a really strong victory?

I believe that the passion is strong on our side.  Last time the pro-prop 8 folks just had to convince the masses who were going out to vote anyways b/c of the presidential election to go ahead and vote against gay rights.  They only had to make an argument of "while you're there, color in this circle", but in a 2010 election they'd have to talk them off their couches or out of their lunch breaks to go vote for bigotry, whereas I think the LGBT community will still be very passionate about this.

I think we will win in 2010, I think if we wait for 2012 & a presidential election we are setting ourselves up for the same dynamic where we lost last time.


Neither year seems particularly good.
2010 is likely too soon. 2012 risks the loss of momentum and being overshadowed by the presidential election. 2014 seems like it may have some pluses, but it runs the biggest risk of losing momentum, not to mention driving us all mad from the wait. Overall, coming back every two years until we win seems like the best option.

Fetch my pearls, I need to clutch them!

Whatever the year
The strategy outlined is lame and weak. We need more than "coalition building" and improvements in data infrastructure, we need a true battle plan. That includes:

1. Fighting the legality of EVERY marriage license issued following the passage of the anti-gay hate amendment. Because the classifications of "man" and "woman" are left to the honor system, there is no way to be sure that licenses have been issued to legitimate breeder couples (see what happened recently in NYC). Therefore, absent a standard method of determining whether a couple qualifies for marriage or must be downgraded to domestic partnership, we need to be fighting for EVERY couple to prove they meet the definition. If that means that some weddings get postponed or eliminated, so be it - we are protecting marriage after all.

2. Rhetorical change - we are not fighting "to win back marriage equality," we are fighting against discriminatory language the refuses to recognize our equality. We are already equal, and need to make that clear

We also need to use the appropriate language to remind people of the second-class citizen status of LGBT people. No more references to "husband" and "wife" - everyone is a "partner" or, if you want to be offensive, "baby daddy" or "baby mamma" if the hets in question have reproduced.

3. Attack the religious coalition backing hate - the ironic part about the coalition of evangelicals, Catholics and Joseph Smith's cult followers is that each of the three major groups does not consider the other two to be legitimate religions. We need to stress that again and again. When a Catholic bishop talks about their ecumenical efforts to create subhuman status for LGBT people (another key rhetorical change), we need to remind them that their own religion rejects both Mormons and fundies as choosing immoral religious lifestyles (and the reverse for fundie or Mormon spokepeople).

When a religious freak brings up their "freedom" being violated by having to accept the existence of LGBT people, remind them that they are living an immoral lifestyle choice for which they demand acceptance and approval, not just tolerance. Turn their own words against them.

4. PR Campaign - We cannot simply be talking to our neighbors - we need to have a multimedia campaign to push our points and fight our enemies. The ads already done with married LGBT families is one good step, but we need more ads like the one with the Mormons breaking in to tear up the marriage license. I would suggest an entire series highlighting the racist foundations of both the evangelical and Mormon movements, and the anti-Semitism of the Catholic Church. Can you imagine an ad that begins with an anti-Semitic diatribe from Father Coughlin from the 30s segueing into similar language from the head of the SF or LA Catholic Churches regarding LGBT people?  


I agree with most of what you've outlined...
except for the elimination of the term "husband."  I've found that referring to my husband AS my husband really reinforces with people that gay marriages exist here in California already and are not going away.  It has, in many instances, been an opportunity to open a conversation about same-sex marriage in a non-threatening way.   What our opponents call their "definition" of marriage, or whether they "believe" in same-sex marriage are irrelevant, given that tens of thousands of such marriages exist now in a fair number of states with full judicial support (including California).  We need to highlight (in 2010!) the inherent unfairness in denying unmarried gay people the same opportunity to marry that others had in 2008.

(I can't presume to speak for "wife" here, since I know that that has a different etymological history.  I would be interested in learning from married women Blenders what they think.)


[ Parent ]
2014? I wanna marry my boyfriend before then
This is foolish. Wait for 2012, for what? More younger voters will be out in the polls?

This must be done in 2010, and it can be done in 2010. The sad thing is, it could've been done in 2008, but the gay rights organizations in California kinda... suck. They let their campaign be demonized by the other side.

For those who think that we can't swing 2% of the vote in 1.5 years, just look back at the 2008 election. Did anyone think Obama would win big back in 2007? Or what about people like Kay Hagan, Jeff Merkley, Mark Udall, or Mark Begich, and countless Representatives?

People like them, and especially Obama, used grassroots and outreach to win their campaigns. They didn't take 4 years to do it. They did it all in less than a year. Just because one neighborhood in Los Angeles isn't too friendly on the issue, it doesn't mean it's all over.

In 2000, Prop 22 won by about 24%... Eight years later, Prop 8 won by 4%. That's a swing of 2.5% every year. To think the trends will just end right now cause Prop 8 passed nine months ago, or because a poll shows that opponents have a 1 or 2% lead, is ridiculous.

This can and needs to be done in 2010. Stay on message, be positive("UNFAIR AND WRONG" is not a good message to appeal to swing voters for example), reach out to everyone and not just people in San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles, and it can be done.


another fun fact
Even if we get marriage equality in 2010, or right this minute, a California marriage still isn't all that portable, thanks to DOMA. Soon as you drive east of Truckee -- hell, soon as you walk across the lobby at the Cal-Neva Hotel -- you're two unrelated adults except in a few states.

[ Parent ]
I'm shocked that Ron's 'gaffe' hasn't yielded specific responses
The definition of a gaffe in politics: Saying out loud that everyone knows is true.

And the openly quantitive attack he made on the Courage Campaign fantasy--that it is not mathematically possible to execute a winning campaign in the coming 477 days--is definitely a gaffe.

"Back in May, we asked our members to vote on which year -- 2010 or 2012 -- the Courage Campaign should support going back to the ballot to restore marriage equality. The response was overwhelming -- 82.5% expressed support for a 2010 ballot measure.

Right, but that was before several significant failures.

Meet in the Middle really didn't pan out, because as it turns out Facebook and checkbook require different level of commitment.

I'm relieved that someone said the unspeakable, disappointed that the POC coalition felt they had to drop the bomb and stunned that the real issue they point up--where is the MONEY going to come from, flying unicorns farting out hundreds?--is not front and center.

But wait, there's more!


I raised the fund raising question
on another site and was met with quite a bit of... scorn.

There seems to be a belief, if you have their e-mail address the money will follow. All that Equality CA has to do is keep sending out those funding e-mails and we'll all pony up.

I'm not so sure.

First I think there's a confidence gap that's going to make out-of-state donors think twice this time.

I'm also picking up vibrations on a lot of web sites that people want to bring the fight for their rights local, to their own state houses, town halls etc.

There's a fight coming this year in Maine. NY state is in play. Many in NY who gave to No on 8 will be focusing on the circus in Albany in the next couple of years not Sacramento. In my home state of NJ a gay friendly democrat may face a tough fight to stay in the governor's office against a republican who has made opposing gay marriage a plank in his platform. (If we lose this we could find ourselves in the wilderness for at least 4 years.)

I donated to No on 8 last year, but frankly I've got battles closer to home to think about right now. I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way.


[ Parent ]
IMO ending CA propositions is a better tactic
The financial meltdown in CA is because of their propsitions on raising taxes suck. If they can't get rid of all propositions, write one that states NO MINORITY human Rights established in CA law, can be removed or lessened by referendum.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small


i've heard talk
of a possible california constitutional convention in the next few years.  that would be the time and place to address this terrible system.  






Lurleen on Twitter


[ Parent ]
NOT before repealing 8.
If we do NOT repeal 8, and then they change the ballot initiative process, it will be almost impossible to remove 8 from the fabric of our Constitution.  We CAN NOT change the process BEFORE we repeal 8.  It is NOT in our best interest.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

[ Parent ]
assuming that the existing Constitution remains
A constitutional convention might (1) write a wholly new constitution as happened at least once before in CA, or (2) address only the fiscal aspects, esp. the 2/3 vote provision, as is being proposed right now.

Don't assume that the process would freeze anything in place.


[ Parent ]
I'm with you on that, Petey
The fact that both sides are playing the same game of putting civil rights on the ballot is insane, but that's the system the state has. I doubt anyone in CA has the stomach to open up its constitution to scrutiny and change it, but it would benefit the state in so many ways to get rid of mob rule on just about anything someone can dream up and get sigs for.

Outside of a ballot initiative, if "our side" took the stand that it shouldn't be on the ballot out of principle, then unfortunately CA would remain in limbo until a federal case went in our favor. That could actually happen, who knows.


[ Parent ]
so you want to do some coalition building?
Here's a California ballot proposition for you to oppose, one that would deny services for illegal (allegedly) residents and for their U.S. born children. Indeed, it would challenge the kids' citizenship, and citizenship by birth is one of the fundamental principles of the 14th Amendment.

http://www.latimes.com/news/pr...

And then cross-examine this:
[14th Am.] Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Our argument can be simple: anything that contravenes the 14th Amendment is a threat to all of us. And this monstrosity just might pass, all it takes is a few hundred thousand signatures, and a majority vote on election day.


The LA Times article
is about the anti immigration initiative which whoever/whichever groups are making the decision 2010 or 2012 are looking at that it would not be good to go up against conservatives pushing hard for anti immigration and anti gay.

I don't know.  It might be a good juxaposition and call the conservies buff with their reactionary multiple bigotries and actually be more votes for our side.


[ Parent ]
the only buff conservative i know of
is mitt romney, and i'm definitely not going to call him! ;)






Lurleen on Twitter


[ Parent ]
or ...
It might be good to join forces with the "no" side on this question, build some longterm connections and friendships, and make the unsubtle point, as we do so, that any infringement on equal protection, including ours, is a threat to all of us.

And this is a threat: if birth is not a criterion for citizenship, but one's ancestry, we have ourselves a blood law: a nasty thing indeed. It means citizenship itself is not a birthright.


[ Parent ]
Here at the maturity of a real movement, we can only follow what we know is right.

Progressive Californians have never pro-actively organized to make marriage quality a reality. We have reacted instead to proposition 8. The debate being reported now signals the stepping up to the plate, and the questions each individual faces when they start to feel invested, often for the first time.

Progressive change will indubitably only come from grassroots persistence. In my mind, that means the grassroots are going to speak their mind. And we are all grassroots, wherever we are.

What we are witness to here is the straining and bursting of a real civil rights movement, in all its painful and heartbreaking glory. Every time one of us thinks 'I can see the need for action, and I understand why my brother or sister is dropping her or his cares for what others think and doing what is painful and costly and uncomfortable, or holding out for what they think is smarter, because this reasoning is right, now and always,' is typical of this kind of moment.

National, statewide leaders can and will be appointed by the grassroots and those with care, just as certain leaders were given the right to speak for bus boycotters in Alabama. But the interpersonal, unheralded movement to change is irrepressible, outside of any rallying around a hero.

There will be people walking door to door, statewide in CA, to make equality a reality. And in the years in which this is not given the media imprimatur of being the coalition-sanctioned position, it will occur quietly and without serious funding. Meanwhile the lawyers will scan the bastion of legal power and quietly make their case. And at the end of the day, the true coalition -- each group, each person, doing what in their heart they think is right -- from the ACLU in the courts, to the Courage Campaign door to door, to Wanda Sykes on the air -- will initiate our change.

Each piece is vital. But what is more vital -- and signals the heartbeat of a true movement -- is that now, perhaps for the first time, a majority of individuals are signaling that they cannot simply sit by, or take an unexamined path. Each begins to make his or her strategic decision in this fight for civil rights. And the movement lives and flames up in every one of us.

For whatever end, we each feel invested here, now; we each feel like our life is bound up in this struggle. And that truth is the powerful thing.

Please do not forget that you are beautiful, that your fight is glorious, brothers, sisters.


EQCA raises a good point
in an email they just sent out, they say
In an email to the members of ProtectMarriage.com, Ron Prentice asked for money to, "help bring on and train field organizers, fund communications with the public and the media and ensure that citizens learn more about the many benefits that traditional marriage has provided to our society."
this does raise a valid point that if we stop pushing now, that in no way means that the haters will step back and wait for us.  they are continuing full steam ahead whether we are or not.  an important aspect of the equation i wasn't considering earlier.  the boat is sailing, with or without us.






Lurleen on Twitter


I've been watching my neighbors' reactions
I live in a neighborhood of affluent, liberal professionals. Most of them are heterosexual, of course (though my street has a concentration of same-sex couples).

These people are pissed off over Prop 8.

During the campaign, they were opposed to Prop 8. They gave money, but it wasn't their top issue. Now it's a burning issue to them. They criticize Obama's inaction on LGBT issues. They want to see Prop 8 overturned.

Prop 8 has turned these allies into activists.

I suspect this time around there are going to be a lot more foot soldiers on our side.

Let's use their energy. Let's not wait to get rid of Prop 8.


I agree
waiting just gives our enemies more time to work against us in other areas, and build their own support.  We are passionate NOW, so lets do something NOW.

[ Parent ]
NO. NO WAITING.
Unlike about half of the people here, I LIVE IN CALIFORNIA. We aren't going to wait. If there is NOT a proposition overturning Prop 8, I will guarentee you that there WILL be a proposition for gay/lesbian civil unions in 2010. I'm not going to sit here and be a second class citizen in the state I was born in. NO.  

[ Parent ]
civil unions?
What would a civil-union bill confer anew? Under AB 205, the California "domestic partners" law conferred every spousal right or responsibility the state of California could confer. The State Supreme Court then said (2008) that marriage was the only title that conferred equality; any other title, they ruled, was second class. So retitling the domestic-partners law to "civil unions" would confer -- what?

No. Nothing less than marriage. And even then, we still have to get recognition in other states and by the Feds, which means DOMA repeal, not just Prop 8 repeal.


[ Parent ]
Another Californian
Mindyinlongbeach, I'm in Orange County in a little blue enclave in the dark red 48th.

[ Parent ]
for those of you happy to wait
just keep these words from "protect marriage" in mind (from email i got today)
July 14, 2009

Gay Community Activists Split over 2010 Ballot Initiative Fight

The Los Angeles Times reported this morning that several gay marriage groups, including Equality California, have announced that they do not support mounting an initiative in 2010 to legalize gay marriage because they cannot be sure of victory. This announcement took other homosexual groups by surprise and was ridiculed by some of them. This rift shows that there are many factions in the gay community who are determined to pursue their agenda with or without their allies. The recent federal lawsuit (Perry v. Schwarzenegger) seeking to invalidate Prop 8 and the nation's marriage laws was brought by a new, outside group with independent access to funding. It was only after this group secured the services of two high-profile attorneys to represent them that others in the gay community agreed to support their cause.

Meanwhile, field organizers promoting the legalization of same-sex marriage have opened another regional office.  San Diego is the most recent city where office space has been leased as central headquarters for neighborhood outreach with the pro-homosexual marriage message.

Protect Marriage understands the battle will be won with grassroots outreach, the expansion of our networks, and the distribution of resources that affirm the sound reasons for protecting traditional marriage. Our own field representation is beginning work in the Bay Area, Los Angeles, and the San Joaquin Valley.

If you are able, our educational and political action activities could use your financial support. Protect Marriage must be ready to defend traditional marriage whenever it is under attack. We certainly will not slow the activities of the Protect Marriage Action Fund to hire field organizers, consultants and other experts we need to continue the process of working with voters, ethnic communities and people of faith to preserve the institution of marriage. Please help us by clicking here.

the organizations above ask for more time.  does california have time?  time means that "protect marriage" gets to voters before equality advocates do.  that's how i see it.






Lurleen on Twitter


They are relentless
True...the opposition never backs down. When we hold we lose ground. And I don't mean just recent history, but since the early 90s.

[ Parent ]
Which is why we DO NOT have time to wait...
Unless the Ninth Circuit strikes down Prop 8 this year-which I think they will-and the Supreme Court refuses to hear it-which I also think they will-we don't have time to sit on our hands until 2012. These people will not only bring back the Briggs Initiative, they will go even farther. Remember-THESE PEOPLE WANT US IN THE CLOSET OR DEAD. Those are the only choices they give us. If you want them to win, wait until 2012.  

[ Parent ]
Domestic partnerships are next on their agenda.
After a win on Prop. H8, they will target DP's next.  The supporters of Prop. H8 want absolutely no secular civil recognition, benefits or rights for same-sex couples and they will not stop until they achieve their goal.  

Think it can't happen?  No one really thought Prop. H8 had a snowball's chance in H*** to pass in LIBERAL CALIFORNIA, but it did!


[ Parent ]
Is it hypocritical to be angry at Obama/Dems/HRC?
Is it hypocritical to be angry at Obama/Dems/HRC when they say wait & be patient while they build the support... to the point of threatening to never vote for them again, to the point of shutting down our financial support (gAyTM), and to making sure the closest thing we've had to an ally in the oval office (who has a very long way to go to become a true ally) doesn't keep that job while a Palin or a Romney takes his place.

Our enemies aren't going to wait.  We shouldn't either.  They will just find some other right to try to strip away while we wait.  And they will build their the support same as we are doing.

We are passionate now.  So we should be doing it now.

In 2012 we will have the same dynamic that we lost under last time with a presidential race.  In 2012 our enemies won't have to talk people off of their couches, into the voting both b/c they will already be there, instead they just need them to vote a certain way b/c presidential elections always get the highest turn out.  In 2010 they have to convince people to find time in their busy schedules to go vote for bigotry, whereas I think our side has a lot more incentive to find time to vote for equality.

I'm having trouble viewing this as very different than from Obama/Dems asking us to be patient and wait.  And I'm not going to take the be patient advice from a gay organization much more seriously than I would take it from the president.  If Campaign Courage is the only one that takes up as our standard bearer in 2010, then that's where my donation is going.  Prop 8 messed up my personal wedding plans, and even though I'm on the other coast from CA, I don't think out of stater donations will have dried up.

I think EQCA or Campaign Courage should set a date & funding goal, and if they make it, go ahead with 2010, and if they drastically fail then wait to 2012.  But at least give 2010 a chance.


not the same issue
The call to wait in this case is coming from the groups at the grassroots level who are saying they are seeing a repeat of exclusion that will damage outreach to the very communities they need to have on board to win. I see this as a wake up call message -- if people get their butts in gear, 2010 could succeed, but these groups are putting out the warning signal now.

The economy is also a factor, I don't think you're going to see money flow to CA as it did the last time. I have no real sense of what the right thing to do is, and I'm just glad that we are having a dialogue about the merits of do it now or wait, so it all gets aired out, unlike the last time, where everything was in a "black box".


[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Report TOS Violations



Join the Blend Chat Room



Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox