January Prop 8-related summit will restrict media access?

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

It would be stupid to publicize what is said in strategy sessions.  But of course the leadership is no longer trusted, and so this problem isn't unexpected.  Does anyone know if the new leadership is much different from the old?  If not, what are the indications that the learning curve has been ascended?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:33:50 PM CST

Secret queer meetings, this comes RIGHT from putting ex-Log cabin president

How he got elected to Equality CA is mind numbingly STUPID.
since when did these G*D DAMN cowardly Vichy Queers get leading roles in the bigger LEFT queer movement?

"The steady stream of bad news ultimately shook things up inside the "No on 8" campaign. By mid-October, campaign manager Dale Kelly Bankhead was quietly pushed aside, and former Log Cabin Republicans president Patrick Guerriero was installed as "campaign director" - a rich irony, since gay Republicans are often vilified by the leftist majority that dominates California gay politics. To take on the job, Guerriero took a temporary leave of absence from the Gill Action Fund, a highly influential and effective gay political fund-raising group, where he was executive director."
  http://www.laweekly.com/2009-0...

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:40:26 PM CST

mindumbingly stupid is not knowing your facts and commenting anyway

I think Log Cabin Republicans are as useful as a bathing suit in Antartcica but Patrick Guerrerio was the best thing to happen to the ON ON 8 campaign. If he hadn't been there we would have lost by twice as many points.

And the fact that you don't even know that he has NOTHING to do with Equality California (he works for Gill Action Fund) makes you absolutely unqualified to comment on the matter or contribute responsibly to the discussion.

Sheeesh. Who ARE you people?


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

---

by: Mad Professah @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:45:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

?

If he hadn't been there we would have lost by twice as many points.

So? 8 points instead of 4?

Maybe the Detroit Lions can hire him and they'll lose each of their 16 games in 2009 by 1 point.

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 13:05:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Patrick started 4-5 weeks before election day

He made up ground from a larger deficit.

If he had been campaign manager from July 1 instead of Oct 1 we MIGHT have won.

Although, I actually don't think Prop 8 was winnable since the polling on the meta-question of "Do you think marriage between same sex couples should be legal in california" was at 46-46% and has been for the last three years in our state. Until we get over 50% saying YES in that poll, I don't see how we win. [Note nationally, we're only at around 39% on this question in the latest Newsweek polling.] And even then if we don't run an EXCELLENT campaign, even with 50%+ polling in popular support it may not convert to 50%+ support on election day.

Happily, this question should NOT have been before the voters, as Attorney General Brown recognizes and there's a god chance the California Supreme Court will strike it down.


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

---

by: Mad Professah @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 13:23:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Speaking of AG Brown,

Isn't the H8 campaign's response to his challenge due today?  

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 13:37:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Prop 8 wasn't winnable? We were winning last Spring!

We were between 17 and 19 points ahead in the polls before the Mormons launched their camapaign of lies and No on Prop 8 refused to effectively refute them.

It is not the least bit reassuring that you've set yourself up as a spokesman for the people who lost this issue for us largely by excluding people and who now want to exclude people all over again.

The No on 8 people apparently have only one goal: to maintain their stranglehold on this issue.  What they need to be doing instead is including everyone in the discussion and realizing that they don't own this.

Please stop destroying all of our chances to gain equality within a reasonable amount of time.  Please just stop it.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 15:19:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

poll results != winning

it is a well-known phenomenon that polls often erroneously tell us that the anti-gay measure will be defeated, only to have it pass by a wide margin.  this has happened in every state that such measures have gone to the voters, no matter the strategy of our campaign.  

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 15:38:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't believe that for one second.

Every state?  I'd be interested in knowing your sources on that.  Even if it were true, wouldn't that just as easily point to the fact that people don't initially want to discriminate and only do so after they've been exposed to the usual campaign of fear and lies from the right?

What I wrote is the truth, plain and simple.

We were winning last Spring.  We had a more than 20 point reversal after an inept campaign by No on 8 only a handful of months later.  When everybody saw the writing on the wall and celebrities and rich people started getting actively involved and took complete control away from No on 8, our losses were lessened in the last couple of weeks of the election.  Had these non-No on 8 people been as actively involved all along, it's likely we would have won.

That's the reality.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 15:56:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the truth?

it is your opinion, and you're welcome to it.  but that doesn't make it truth.

my sources are published state polls before elections, as compared with election results.  it's all out there, if you care to look.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 16:07:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the state polls had it essentially tied

but was not useful because of early voting. Polling is wrong where people don't take into acount GOTV- which the yes on 8 did take advantage of, but the no on 8 did not. Polling with good GOTV that fully examines circumstances is  adifferent matter. Again- the problem here was that its not enough to rely on polls. There must also be an effective campaign. One point does not negate the other. They are reinforcing points. If you don't poll well that means you have a harder time even if you GOTV, register, message well, etc. If you do poll well, but don't do good GOTV, messaging, etc, it will harm you .  

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 21:20:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

again let me make it clear

I have no beef with the patrick guy. He was trying to fight by that point on a ship that sank before he got on board. But there was a lot that could have been done. As it was, given the fuck ups, we barely lost by 5 percent. That's a small loss that a concerted effort of messaging 2 or 3 percent plus gotv (another 1 or 2 percent) would have shifted. That's not including a more effective campaign to smear the Yes on 8 people. Instead we relied on people's better angeles. voters don't vote on their better angels. We needed drag theYes on 8 (read mormons) through the mud, but no one wants to hear that because its nasty politics.

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 21:23:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

that's not true

I have no state in your greater conversation, but the situationw as winnable as of May. We lost this in the summer when nothing was done.

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 21:17:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Who in the world are YOU?

And what are your qualifications for deciding the course of equality in California?

And why do you think that being belligerent, argumentative and insulting is a course of action for anybody to take under any circumstances, let alone when you're trying to build coalitions and win debates?

If you are indeed someone who's actually involved in this debacle, it's obviously worse than some of us already think it may be.

Where are all the sensible people?  How did people like this manage to shut them out?  And how can we reverse this once and for all?

---

by: diablorobotico @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 13:08:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

READ asswipe

He took a LEAVE of ABSENCE from Gill Action Fund

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 13:26:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is irresposible behavior--by Robin Tyler!

I was on the organizing call.

A vote was taken and Robin Tyler's position was defeated. So, she takes her ball and goes home, and simultaneously decides to crap on everybody who didn't vote the way she did.

"This issue was discussed on a telephone call last week, and by a majority vote, the organizing committee decided not to let the press into the entire conference," Tyler said in a Dec. 30 e-mail to reporters. "After the call, I ... felt very uncomfortable with this decision. I asked for it to be brought up again, as I think total media access is an extremely important issue. When I was told that the newly elected 'Executive Committee' had decided not to bring the issue up again, I resigned. ... It felt like the same old 'secretive' process that had happened during the No on 8 campaign."

What the f***? How are "the press does not have access to every aspect of the conference" and "secretive process" equivalent?? Because Robin Tyler was "uncomfortable" with the decision of the GROUP she is deciding to substitute her position for the will of the majority. This is bsolutely irresponsible behavior and damaging to the organizing principles of the conference.

There are lots of ways to move forward from here

1) There is still the option of press access to the plenary sessions. [My druthers.]

2) The participants at the conference can always vote that they'd like to open up the conference to the press. [A reasonable possibility]

3) The organizing committee might change it's mind and vote again on the matter [I hope not--or else this strategy of running to the gay press to complain about a democratically reached decision that you disagree with in order to get it overturned would have been validated.]


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

---

by: Mad Professah @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:40:56 PM CST

If you were on the call

perhaps you can share with us how it came to a vote on the question, Are we going to be accountable to the people whose money we're strategizing how to spend?

I ask this because I have been involved in gay politics for over 20 years and I've never, ever, once had a group of paid or appointed 'leaders' choose accountability over secrecy. So the fact that, after the debacle in CA, it was considered an option to close this conference on the future to our community's journalists, doesn't surprise me.

It's the same old exclusive crap, and it sounds convincing until you make the sacrifices needed to get a seat at the table--only to be told that your naive notions of transparency and accountability are not how it's done around here.

In sum, this conference and its organizers have announced to me that whether they choose secrecy isn't important. You're not 'leading' me if we aren't going to the same place.

My goal is full citizenship for LGBT people.

When political compromises are required en route, anyone who wants to lead me needs to sell me the specific compromise. That respect would have to grow from an understanding that I may refuse to participate in it, and that they are not as volunteer (or paid) board members (or staff) entitled to my vote or my organizing power or my silence, simply because they have warmed a chair for a period of time.

That aspect is what all of these organizations (that I have worked with) agree on: I'm being unrealistic.

I think that the losses and developments of the past 62 days say otherwise. They are unrealistic in the expectation that I would continue to pay them to do functions they are clearly not competent to carry out, and lots of people agree with me.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 14:00:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here are the groups that were on the Equality Summit list

ACLU of Northern California

ACLU of Southern California

ACLU San Diego & Imperial Counties

Advocacy Marketing Group

AIDS Healthcare Foundation

Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club

American Institute of Bisexuality

And Marriage for All

API Equality

API Equality-LA

Asian Pacific American Legal Center

Asian Pacific Americans for Progress

Barbara Jordan/Bayard Rustin Coalition

Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom

Bienestar

California Faith for Equality

California NAACP

California Nurses Association

California Teachers Association

Californians Against Hate

Center Advocacy Project (San Diego)

Central American Resource Center

Chinese for Affirmative Action

Christopher Street West Association/LA Pride

Coachella Valley Marriage Equality Coalition

Coalition For Equality

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles

COLAGE

Community Organized for Liberty, Opportunity & Respect

Congregation Kol Ami

Courage Campaign

David Bohnett Foundation

Elections Committee of the County of Orange

Equal Justice Society

Equality Action Now

Equality California

Equality California Institute

Equality California PAC

Family Equality Council

Feminist Majority

Freedom to Marry

FTM International

Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation

Gay And Lesbian Alliance of the Central Coast  

Gay-Straight Alliance Network

GLBT Alliance of Santa Cruz County

Honor PAC

Human Rights Campaign

JoinTheImpact.com

Korean Immigrant Workers Alliance

Korean Resource Center

L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund

Latino Issues Forum

Libertarian Party of California

Liberty Hill

Log Cabin

Love Honor Cherish

Marriage Equality USA

Metropolitan Community Church Los Angeles

Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund

Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Worker Organizing Network

National Black Justice Coalition

National Center for Lesbian Rights

National Council of Jewish Women

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

Our Family Coalition

Out & Equal Workplace Advocates

Pacific Pride Foundation

Parents, Families and Friends of Gays and Lesbians (PFLAG)

Peninsula Marriage Equality Coalition

Planned Parenthood Los Angeles

Pride At Work, AFL-CIO

Progressive Christians Uniting

Progressive Jewish Alliance

Sacramento Stonewall Democratic Club

San Diego Democratic Club

San Diego LGBT Community Center

San Francisco LGBT Community Center

Satrang

Service Employees International Union - United Healthcare West

South Asian Network

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

Spectrum LGBT Center

Stonewall Democratic Club of the Central California Coast

Stonewall Democrats of Ventura County

Stonewall Marriage Equality Committee

Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education (SCOPE)/Silver Lake Hollywood Echo Park Metropolitan Alliance (SHEPMA)

The Equality Campaign

The Orange County Equality Coalition

The Progressive Project

The Wall Las Memorias Project

Transgender Law Center

Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry, CA

UNITE HERE

University of California San Diego LGBT Resource Center

Ventura County Rainbow Alliance

Wine Country for Equality

Zuna Institute


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

---

by: Mad Professah @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 23:10:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hum...

Nobody invited me. I'm the board president of Pride of Monterey County, the oldest LGBT advocacy group in Monterey County.

I see nearby Santa Cruz on the list.

I wonder why we aren't included. We represent a county with a population of over 400,000.

I see many other county and large city organizations are also missing. Monterey County's ACLU isn't on the list either.

It all looks pretty willy-nilly to me.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 23:59:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

so what stopped you from contacting any one of these groups to find out how to get involved?

Really, it's not rocket science!

You know the summit is going on, it's trying ot be as inclusive as possible. contact the organizer anne@eqca.org and get involved.

Presto, that's it!


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

---

by: Mad Professah @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 07:57:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"You know the summit is going on..."

And, how do I know that?

Because I read about it here.

And what about all of the other groups that were left out?

It is clear that nobody simply picked up a map a freakin' map and went county-by-county to organize.

That's troubling.

What they probably did was use the "good ol' boy" system and only invited their friends.

That's troubling.

They don't appear have any outreach. That's what lost the election in the first place.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 10:34:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"Nobody invited me."

Crash the party.  What's stopping you?  If your group has been overlooked, go and politely remind the rest of your existence, and share with them your expertise.  Your advertising ideas that you've shared here are always good.  Go see if you can't build support for your approach and lend your brain to the coordinated effort.  It is a good brain - share it!

I have a favorite line from the movie Desert Hearts, "If you don't play, you can't win."

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 10:18:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

As I wrote in the reply above...

Crashing the party isn't the point.

These people don't do any outreach.

What about all of the other groups that were left out? Just pick up a map of California and start looking up LGBT groups online. You'll see that most of the small counties and rural areas are missing.

Here's an example of lack of outreach. Take a look at the list. I don't see any of California's Imperial Courts listed.

Do you know what they are?

http://www.imperialcourtsandie...

Why aren't there any Imperial Courts? I suspect because drag queens aren't part of their world. They remain marginalized and ignored.

I also suspect that groups are expected to "pay to play" and those that haven't made monetary contributions aren't included.


When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 10:54:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

if you want to avoid taking responsibility

for fixing what you see is a problem, then you have no right to complain if the problem continues.  if you think they should be contacting those groups, get in there and find out what their reasoning was (if any), and suggest the change.  

or, sit here and complain into thin air, which will change nothing.

i meant what i said, Fritz - your ideas are good.  i hope you will speak them directly into the ears that most need hearing them.  you're preaching to the choir here.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:04:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm going local

The majority in my county voted against Prop 8. But, there are "hot spots" of intolerance here and every vote counts.

I will work with my local No on 8 folks. I've just contacted them about a Valentine's Day rally followed by a dance. The theme will be marriage equality.

However, I know that many of my other ideas will be viewed as radical. I'm going to try them on my own rather than try to sell them to the "establishment."

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:23:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

that sounds excellent.

i hope you will keep us informed of what went over well (or didn't) locally.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:38:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That's smart--test your ideas

What I've learned in the 5 years since marriage equality heated up is that if you do something that works, 'the establishment'  will come to you.

If you haven't read 'Here Comes Everybody', get thee to a library.

I'm starting to suspect that there are two kinds of people at work in our movement: those who understand that the connection between broad, massive action and formal organizational structure has been severed, and those who are jockeying for a leadership role with the establishment.

The good news is that the technology and the movement are synched up at this critical time. We can all 'vote with our feet' to support test concepts, and those concepts without sufficient supporters will simply fold the tent. Thus bringing to an end a 35 year stage historians will call the 'Quit complaining and give us your money' phase of the gay rights movement.

Good luck and report back. I'm giving money and my adorable family's image to the Get to Know Me First concept, which I prefer as a value statement to 'please don't divorce us'. YMMV.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:52:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If ...

... what Karen Ocamb says (about journalists generally honoring requests to go 'off the record') is true (and I have no reason to believe it's not), then this does seem like a pretty dumb decision.

If nothing else, it's clumsily executed.  I work for a non-profit that hosts several conferences a year.  Press is always invited to the entire conference, but often we'll have strategy sessions for the Board of Directors held in conjunction with the conference, and press aren't invited to those.  It's not controversial, but we don't advertise the meetings as part of the conference; in fact, they're not advertised at all.

I'm not sure what can be gained by barring press from any "meetings" of more than 20 - and any meetings of less than 20 aren't really "conference activities."

I'm with Pam; this is a head-scratcher.

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem

---

by: red7eric @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:41:07 PM CST

it's a decision to disrepect LGBT journalists

Any source can choose to go off the record; and yes, there are always sessions that are board meetings and such, they aren't part of a conference.

This decision is so odd and certainly doesn't respect the role and responsibility of the press. By saying in advance that whole strategy portions are off-limits, that reeks of a wrong-headed need for secrecy.

I want to hear a case for secrecy that press access will somehow hurt future outreach, legal direction, ad campaigns, fundraising plans or anything else that was an open book when it came to the fundie efforts on the other side. It's odd to focus on who can't know what when the main problem is that they need more, not less homogenous thinking. The press can report on what has changed, if anything.

It makes it look like the committee feels the LGBT community as a whole is too dumb/intemperate/naive etc. to discuss and debate strategy publicly. The message here is not about the democratic process of that vote to bar the media's access, it's the fact that so many did want to limit it.  

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:59:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"It's odd to focus on who can't know what "

I don't think the organizers were focusing on that.  Tyler's actions made it into a focus.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 13:08:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Pam, you're missing the point

There was NOT a vote to LIMIT press access.

The decision on what press access will be HAS NOT BEEN MADE YET. All the vote was that NOT EVERYTHING should be open to the public.

The complete form of the conference has not been decided on yet, Anyone who wants to, can get involved.

Email ANNE@EQCA.ORG

The people who are doing the organizing are not "them" it is "us" the people who care about these issues and who get involved.

Pam, you seem to agree that not everything should be open to the press to report on, which is basically all that the committee decided in its vote.

Are you really saying that "secret strategy or board meetings" are a better process than having EVERYTHING scheduled out in public instead?

And Robin Tyler's move was incredibly destructive organizationally. She forwarded internal confidential emails by a committee to the press. Why would anyone want to work with her on anything again?


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

---

by: Mad Professah @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 13:15:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, hate to say it but

Robin was organizing for my rights while I was in diapers.

She has built and run several organizations, and the times I have met her she has been everything I want a community leader to be: respectful, open to new ideas and welcoming to those who are outside her personal demographics.

My experiences with the (few named) people and (roughly 30% of the) organizations named have been negative. They are run by people who believe that they are entitled to make decisions about my family's future because their friends and fellow rich donors appointed them to non-profit board positions, from which they get to choose what can and can't be done in the coming 20 years--with no accountability ever.

So I'm making this call for Robin and suggesting that you're behind the curve. She made a political decision that she was unwilling to work with this clown car full of entitlement again and chose the hill she was willing to die on.

Far from your assertion that no one will want to work with her again, I think she just fired the elite who fucked up the No on 8 campaign in ways that were not just predictable but predicted. And it's high time. I'll be donating to the media campaign she's organizing because it has a shot at either winning or losing forward:

http://www.gettoknowmefirst.or...

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 13:43:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good luck with that....

Well, I guess you and Robin Tyler and all those who agree with her can go and start your own movement to repeal Prop 8. Meanwhile the people who have been working in coalition to enact marriage equality since 1995 will continue to do so...

I really don't understand this insistence that the people who worked with No on 8 are somehow the "elite" while everyone else is somehow the principled hoi polloi who are now "taking their movement back." WTF?

If you wanna get involved show up to a meeting and get on the phone calls like everyone else! The only price of admission is a willingness to GET INVOLVED and STAY INVOLVED. It's really  not that hard. How is that elitism? I'm pretty confident that more than 50% of the people (and probably closer to 75%-80% of the people on the Equality Summit Institute organizing committee are NOT getting paid to be there. It is NOT part of their job. These are not "professional gays." These are gays who happen to be professionals!

What I see represented by people like Robin Tyler is someone who only wants to get involved in the way that is either comfortable for them, or that allows them complete control over the way actions will occur.  


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

---

by: Mad Professah @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 23:32:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And what, exactly, is wrong with that?

someone who only wants to get involved in the way that is either comfortable for them, or that allows them complete control over the way actions will occur

So, on your say so, anyone who is really behind "the movement" would subject themselves to doing things that are uncomfortable to them, and/or in ways that promise that they will have no control over what happens, how, where, etc? That's just incomprehensible!

Rather, shouldn't the organizers of this "movement" look to those who are purportedly represented by said movement, so as to do things in ways that do not make people uncomfortable? In ways that make them feel as if they have some power and control over how they are being represented?

---

by: rx7ward @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 08:19:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

no, I'm saying that we work together in coalition--that can get messy

It means you don't always get what you want. It means th group can make a decision that you think is the wrong decision but that doesn't mean you walk away from the group.
It means you may uncomfortable with working with people you don't know, or who are different from you or who have different styles from you but you agree that you all have common goals and principles and as long as the groups actions are working towards those goals, you are part of the group and participating.

Robin Tyler's actions violated several of the above.


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

---

by: Mad Professah @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 15:59:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I trust Karen on this one.

All the vote was that NOT EVERYTHING should be open to the public.

I'm saying that I trust  Karen Ocamb's opinion as an LGBT journalist on this one. "Access to the public" can mean a lot of things, obviously an alarm went off for Rex and Karen.

I'm not going to comment on the propriety of Robin's decision to go public, since I wasn't present for the session or the parameters of disclosure that were agreed upon. That's a separate issue. Sometimes leaks are useful, even productive, other times they are destructive.  If she was told up front all of the correspondence was confidential, that is a matter for those working with her to bring up in terms of trust.

That, however, has nothing to do with a reporter's ability to have full access and be told what is off the record. That's different than restricted access. A difficulty to find clarity of purpose, along with bruised egos and just plain exhaustion may be at work here re: the committee. It's too bad things are off track so early.

The people who are doing the organizing are not "them" it is "us" the people who care about these issues and who get involved.

An issue this committee has to contend with is the perceived notion out there that there is a handful of paternalistic, insulated, myopic professional LGBTs making decisions that impact many people beyond those closed doors -- and they didn't do a very good job the first time around, so the folks out there who aren't in the know don't want to see a repeat. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but that the sentiment is out there. As you see in the comments, and some of it represents is misdirected anger, other reactions, like mine, are quizzical -- that and back biting is going on among those already involved over right out of the box.

That tells me it's going to be a rocky recovery and an uphill climb, regardless of intention. Denying or dismissing the anger is probably a bad idea if the goal is to work together in a productive manner.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 13:52:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"they didn't do a very good job the first time around"

nobody says mistakes weren't made, but can we stop assuming that we somehow all know this prop 8 was defeatable?  i'm the first to be happy about the new "show us to the public" approach that we know is coming this round, but i think we only do ourselves harm by insisting that we lost due to our errors.  we lost because we live an a sick county full of selfish, hateful voters.  every anti-gay amendment that has made it to the voters has passed, 30 for 30.  why do we buy into the gop mantra that california is exceptional and a hippie haven?  it isn't.  let's give credit where credit is due for the passage of prop 8 - the overwhelming number of american haters and their "christian" handlers.  let's stop blaming the victim.

this isn't aimed at you per se Pam, but everyone who insists on accepting this defeatist attitude.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 14:07:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

no offense taken, Lurleen

The fact is the No on 8 folks did things right (fundraising was obviously great, internet campaigning infrastructure good), and other things poorly (direct minority outreach and boots on the ground/door-to-door outside those who agreed with No on 8), and that is where the fundies excelled. It's always a mixed bag. The error is that the LGBT community was outgamed by the right, and severely underestimated the role religion plays in many voter's lives (and their ability to separate faith from secular).

I think this is the strategy schism -- many in our movement have abandoned their faith (for obvious reasons) and have contempt for the churched in a blanket fashion. That thinking  ignores the wide political spectrum of believers (the progressive faith community needs to come out of the closet as strong as the social conservatives). Instead of being angry at believers' difficulties in separating church and state -- we aren't going to make faith disappear in this country -- we as a community have to tactically address the specific anti-LGBT anxieties these folks have with a modicum of respect. I rarely see that; it's mostly avoided.
 

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 14:23:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Is "Door-to-Door" really a viable option...

for a group that is slandered as "coming for your children?"
 The truth is, people EXPECT religious people to knock on their door, they're viewed as annoying but harmless, so they can go everywhere.  Realistically, we can't.  If we had tried to pull off what the Mormons did in knocking on most of the doors in CA, I bet we'd have had fatalities on our hands.  At a minimum, several hospitalizations.
 I agree our ads were unnecessarily milquetoast (oh how I wish the Mac/PC ads had run on television), but we were at a real disadvantage in the boots on the ground aspect and I'm not sure it was a mistake to not knock on doors.

---

by: bgkev @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 14:39:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

yes it is a viable option.

it's been done in many other states to great effect.  i've done it myself.  the trick is in selecting which doors to knock on based on voter history and other metrics.  

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 14:43:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What is your experience canvassing for gay issues?

I've been doing it since 1990 and never had anyone threaten me, nor have I ever heard of what you're describing happening.

Further, if you were right, that would be all the more reason for prepared, trained volunteers to door-knock.

If we could be guaranteed a serious physical assault, it would be the fastest route to equality. Ask John Lewis for details.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 15:25:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

After the No on 8 failed to do door to door

in black neighborhood, a black lesbian diaried about how she took it upon herself (this was diaried at daily kos) to canvass the neighborhoods with a few of her friends, but it wasn't enough.

The short answer is that the single most effective way to reach voters in order of importance is a) through people they know b) through direct contact like canvassing c) free media and d) ads. No on 8 choose d.

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 21:33:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

again, this is not true

there are a lot of experienced people in CA politics who say point blank that No on 8 fucked it up. Pardon my french, but this apologizing for them is not fruitful. Most of the politicians and activists who do not have as stake in the No on 8 says it was basicalaly their screw ups.

I will let a senior volunteer make the point for me:

"Context and my role: I served as a senior volunteer with the no-on-8 campaign in the final few months of its efforts, as the campaign ramped up its phone bank efforts.  I handled phone bank location logistics, venue setup, teardown, refreshments, and technology for one of the larger weekly San Francisco bay area phone banks.  The first organizing meeting that I attended was on September 3, 2008, a meeting at which the no-on-8 staff in attendance were asking for phone bank site leads and venues.  The phone banks that I ran started on September 16.  I also served as a "site captain" on election day, coordinating roughly a dozen teams of volunteers per the no-on-8 campaign's (misguided but only game in town) strategy of handing out no-on-8 "palm cards" to voters at the polls.

I'm not and was not paid no-on-8 staff, and these comments aren't intended to be a criticism of the paid field staff, who were simply executing a campaign designed higher up the no-on-8 decision-making chain.  I believe that paid staff did a solid job of executing what was fundamentally a flawed campaign strategy.

Since I wasn't involved either as paid staff nor at the strategic decision-making level, the experiences backing up my comments are entirely from the "worm's-eye-view" of a volunteer who observed what the campaign was asking people to do for the 60 days leading up to election day."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

The perspective you will find in this diary is not unique. Nearly everyone, including the Courage Campaign and many others who have run campaign inniatives in CA say that it was No on 8.  Many black gblt discussing hte issue make the same arguments. WHen they asked to help, they were told not to help and that list goes on and on.

The Nation did an article on the issue- pointing out that when they finally ran ads, that the Yes on 8 had been canvassing for months in the neighorhoods that the No on 8 finally reached out to at the last minute.

These are the facts. You can' t not win a race that way. It does not matter what hte polls are under these conditions.

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 21:31:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You can't possibly be serious.

You actually want us to value your opinion and accounts over those of Karen Ocamb and Robin Tyler?

Sorry, no.  Even if you were somebody other than a psuedonym on a comment board, the answer would still be no.

I can't imagine who you would have to be to have more credibility than either of those two women -- two of the most important people in the LGBT fight for equality -- but it would have to be somebody other than you.  Whoever you are.

And, on top of that, you wish to discredit Robin Tyler?  I'd say you should be ashamed of yourself, but shame doesn't seem to be one of your strong suits.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 15:27:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

too, too funny!

Even if you were somebody other than a psuedonym on a comment board

So I can assume that "diablorobotico" is your legal name then?  lol

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 15:42:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure where all the personal attacks are coming from, "Lurleen"...

... but the point you're trying to avoid is that I'm not setting myself up as a self-appointed expert or trying to tear down my betters.

Why you're after me on this I don't know, but I also have the added advantage of not caring.  I'm sure you have a good reason.  If it makes you happy, have at it.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 16:00:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't need MOUSEY leaders

Who mistakenly think anything is private anymore.
Get some BALLS and say

"this, this, and this are OUR plans, and we are coming for ya motherf*ckers."

ACT UP knew a helluva lot more how to use media than Log Cabins....just saying

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 13:56:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But considering their activities....

I am sure a lot of ACT UP's decision making went on in small closed meetings.  At least their ACTIVISIM was WAY WAY WAY WAY more visible that anything at all the NO on H8 campaign put out with $40,000,000.

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.

---

by: Orion45 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 19:11:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Who are these people and we do they feel they own my fight for equality?

And why do they keep screwing it up???

---

by: diablorobotico @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:59:12 PM CST

who are you to claim victimhood?

these people have stepped up to take responsibility at a time when they know a lot of tomatoes will be thrown because of the loss in november.  do you even know who you're angry at?  do you even know if they're the same people responsible for the NO on prop 8 mistakes and not the NO on prop 8 accomplishments?  i don't, and so am withholding my judgment.  robin tyler has always seemed to me to need a spotlight, so i'm suspicious when she throws a public tantrum.  but i admit that i don't know enough to really decide either way.  you might consider not piling on without knowing there is good reason.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 13:14:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree on that point

don't know enough to really decide either way.  you might consider not piling on without knowing there is good reason.

If no one has said who is on this committee,  all we have is speculation that are are the same players. It is unfair to say they are all the same people involved in the first effort.

That said, as I said upthread, I'm concerned that this committee took a vote regarding press access and so many of them thought it was a good idea to restrict it. That, regardless of the particular people who voted that way, is the real problem here. When wagons circle to curtail media access, it's never a good sign. It's usually an indication that a siege mentality has set in, and that a well-massaged end product of such a summit is all that will be made public. If that's not the case, I'm sure that there will be a response to better explain the rationale.

Restricting access is just as valid a choice as is an open process, btw, but given the problematic strategy and outcome the first time around, one would have thought going the transparent route. It would be a way to regain trust of the segments of the LGBT community that weren't approached or listened to last time -- you would think that is something that is desired by those heading up this summit.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 13:28:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Who are you to presume to know who I am?

And how dare you call me a victim or say outright that I claim to be one?  You managed to twist a lot of nonsense out of two simple sentences.

If you did a fraction of the work for No on Prop 8 that I did, my hat's off to you.

Do you even know who you're angry at?  Because it seems to be me.  Why?  Because I object to the abject failures of the No on Prop 8 campaign made by self-appointed people who were accountable to nobody?  Sorry to disappoint you.  They had failures and I object to them.  I also worked to try to get them to see the error of their ways while the failures were happening, but nobody, in my experience, could get through to these people.

So, no, I don't trust them now.  If you do, that's your problem.  I forgive you your anonymous trespasses against anonymous me, but are you going to forgive yourself if these same people are allowed to repeat their mistakes?

In short, you might consider not piling on when you don't have a clue who you're attacking.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 15:38:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The march for equality moves on

"e-mails that circulated among the 53 members of the Equality Summit Planning Committee"

Anyone know who these people are? or how to find the info?
I'd be happy if I knew who was in this group.  It was far easier to find out who was on Wingnut Gov Jindals anti-marriage and family commission in Louisiana than to know who these folks are.

As for Robin Tyler, a word in her support.  To me she has always stuck me as an outlier...in the good sense.  She is very focused and doesn't put up with bull.  She and her partner, along with lawyer Gloria Alred, spearheaded the first immediately CA Supreme Court challenge to Prop 8 right after it passed.  She's not looking for attention for herself, she's looking for equality for all of us.  

In the end...I would favor transparency....maybe these folks need a session to work out their own frustrations and blaming in house.  

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 13:23:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

good to know about tyler.

it is easy to misunderstand people from a distance.  however, i do question her actions regarding this press thing.  it looks like she may have blown a gasket unreasonably soon.  everyone makes mistakes.  when they do so publicly, it causes all manner of trouble, unfortunately.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 13:44:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

They did that, got together...

..at least the LA GL Center group did. and even held the meeting 'online'. course it was using equipment no one could log into, even the guy who set it up!

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.

---

by: Orion45 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 19:04:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why are they holding these meetings....again???

They could, at least be smart enough to wait until the Surpreme Court has decided the current case(s).  There is no way any flailing can be helpful now.

I guess the still have $$$ left from the campaign to spend on party time in LA. 

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.

---

by: Orion45 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 13:05:35 PM CST

no way should they wait!

we need the gears to already be in motion if the supreme court rules against us.  

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 14:45:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I have a hard time caring...

...what this discredited pack of proven losers does. They are not the future of the queer rights movement -- they are an object lesson in how not to fight for equality.

---

by: johnbinpt @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 13:12:44 PM CST

Sorry, lurleen.....I am with john.

Didn't they learn anything from the Obama campaign.  CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE...and what on earth do they think they are working on??

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.

---

by: Orion45 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 19:01:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

how do you know

that they didn't learn anything?  and how do you know if they're even the same people?  

as for learning from obama, all i learned from the obama campaign was how to get shit on by obama.  that's not change, that's more of the same.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 21:00:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agreed about the shit shower from Obama...

...but that's just another lesson that too many in our community are failing to take note of.

Listen, I don't know exactly how closely the "Gang of 150" correlates to the leadership of the ABYSMAL No on 8 campaign, but I can tell you that it's drawn from the same pool of usual suspects. The real grassroots queer rights activists who I know in CA haven't been invited to join this brain-trust. And it's a good bet that they won't be -- because they had the bad form to criticize the mismanagement of the original campaign. If the No on 8 people are applying any lessons from the drubbing in November, it has to do with CYA and the politics of give-us-another-chance-so-we-can-make-the-same-mistakes-again.

No thanks.

---

by: johnbinpt @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 23:17:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"haven't been invited"

Like I said to Fritz above, if you haven't been invited and feel that you need to be heard, then contact the organizers and tell them you want to attend and be involved.  "The same 150" will never change if you wait for an embroidered invitation.  If you think something different needs doing but don't bring your opinion to the forum that you're criticizing, then the failure is yours.  Your voice is your responsibility.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 10:25:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Outreach is EVERYTHING

What about the folks who don't read this blog?

There is a large population of LGBT people who are marginalized and ignored. We can't win without them.

The bad thing about many of these groups is that their leadership isn't very diverse. It is typically wealthy, white and college educated.

These people are good at throwing fundraisers and running board meetings. But, they're not really part of the general community. They wouldn't be caught dead at a drag bar in Castroville.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:02:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

and what are you going to do about it?

sit here and complain, or take the issue up with the others at the conference?  if you are not free to go because of work obligations, i'm sure you can put together a small group from your org and allied orgs.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:06:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually REACH-AROUND is Everything

That's all these Log Cabinette clowns ever do.

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:42:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Josh DuBois Obama's faith f*cker

was in UTAH instructing faith groups how to get by with as much sh*t and still stay legal under tax exemption,

how much YES prop 8 money went thru the loopholes this traitor taught them?

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 13:31:21 PM CST

DuBois in Utah

"Dubois has had a hand in numerous efforts to reach out to the faith community - he pulled together Obama's recent meeting with conservative evangelical leaders, for example. His shop also oversees a faith portion of the Obama website where staff members blog about faith-related developments, and provides resources for a large number of faith-oriented campaign groups such as Utah Catholics for Obama. And, DuBois said, his group also counsels church officials on how to comply with tax regulations limiting their political activities"
  http://www.boston.com/news/edu...

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 13:41:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

btw if you're going to have a SECRET closed meeting....shut up about it

That's kinda the point of S_E_C_R_E_T

It's beyond stupid to announce your having a meeting, and think nothing will leak out via cell phones and tape recorders. There is no hiding from a Facebook-YouTube techno society...you'll have a macacca moment in a heatbeat thinking you are keeping the press out.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 13:50:00 PM CST

A tiresome "fight"

Organize and strategize?  I sincerely HATE to quote "Dr." Phil (I feel dirty already), but,

"How is that working for you?"

F*ck "planning to strategy" - If you can offer something better than decades of holding signs in public and chanting, writing letters, emailing and clicking, donating millions of dollars, marching and singing, being "visible", being "active", being "vocal", begging and pleading, grunting and whining, HAVING TO MAKE THE CASE, appealing, beseeching, imploring, I'D LOVE TO HEAR IT!

I say TAX PROTEST until we ARE equal.

We ARE equal.  We DESERVE full equality now. Not in 2038; now.  [equality tax protest]


Decades MORE of Psychological Abuse? - OR - Stonewall.  Nationwide.  NOW!

---

by: John Bisceglia @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 14:17:02 PM CST

wisely targeting the right voters

in a field campaign takes organization and strategy.  and that approach is proven to work.  just one example.  but no one is forcing you to participate if you don't want to.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 14:20:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why Are Voters ALLOWED to "Decide" on Family Rights?

[more of general reply to all]

This IS our country's sickness.  
Oh well, I couldn't participate if I wanted to now; total disability has its perks....good times.

I do question that these approaches have been "proven to work"; I have a serious problem with a 30-year timeline for equality.   That is NOT O.K. with all of us.

But the thing that will separate our Q-community the most will be our economic differences; rich gays cannot fathom poor gay concerns, and it's all relative.  For some of us recovering from legal inequity and losses, $8,000/year  sounds like good living.   Relative.  

Decades MORE of Psychological Abuse? - OR - Stonewall.  Nationwide.  NOW!

---

by: John Bisceglia @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 22:16:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My better half, as usual, summed it up in a question:

"Okay, so let me see if I get this: The same people who pissed through $40 million on a strategy that moved roughly -3% of California voters in the right direction, are having a meeting to strategize about what to do next?

After failing to move the needle in a measurable way--because there's an argument that the fight was never winnable, but we can measure results and ROI--and using all the money our community had to do it, they still think they can produce a strategy that needs to be kept on the QT?

What is it they think they are strategizing to spend? Don't they understand that as leaders, they are fired?"

Shorter Mrs. Phoenix: Fiddle away, kids, I'm pretty sure I smell Rome burning.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 14:27:39 PM CST

So then Phoenix,

tell us what you would do.  And be specific, because multi-year statewide campaigns don't run on just "get out there kids!"

and do you know that this really is the same pack of people (i don't, and i really want to know)?  and if it is, why are you convinced that they can't learn?

i think it's great to be critical, but not destructive.  i see nothing constructive in your approach.  what alternative can you recommend?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 14:49:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What I am doing:

-Continuing the over 20 years of living an out, open life and demanding that my family be respected by every figure with power, from my kid's school to US Customs (if everyone did this, we'd have equality next year, but there are inconveniences involved in a dignified assertion of one's rights)
-Lobbying my state legislature using proven, effective techniques to get their votes for laws that will help us
-Acting as a mentor to our LGBT youth who think that they want to get involved in politics
and most importantly,
-Identifying strategies that might work and helping to fund them, such as this one: http://www.gettoknowmefirst.or...

What I know won't work: continuing to happy talk about national, multi-year political campaigns--100% of which have failed if you're measuring results of our actions on DOMA, DADT, ENDA...I could go on, but the reality is that state-by-state work IS the future.

When we need a national show of support, that can be organized on the internet for free by anyone.

Sorry to rain on the positivity parade, but some things don't make sense. Like meeting to design a strategy when you have no future funding, a track record of ineffectuality, and demonstrate no willingness to change in the process.


But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 15:38:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

those are all great things,

and you and i sound a lot alike, actually, in our personal advocacy work.  

maybe you have some information i don't, but i just don't understand your last paragraph.  for instance, "no future funding".  ???  if the NO campaign was good at anything, it was fundraising.  i have no reason to think they won't be even more successful in the future, as more straight people join us because they're nauseated about letting 8 pass (yes, the straights let it pass, and they're beginning to understand that they have some responsibility here).

as for "track record of ineffectuality", i haven't checked to be sure but i think 8 passed by the smallest margin yet of any of the 30 similar amendments.  that is a HUGE victory (albeit on the margins and not the ultimate victory we wanted), especially since it is impossible to say that prop 8 was absolutely defeatable.  as i said above in another comment, why would anyone think california is any better than any other state and be immune to such nastiness?  the only proven, non-judicial way to defeat these amendments is to prevent them from getting on the ballot in the first place.

now on the "demonstrate no willingness to change" point, i am still waiting to see.  i think we'll know whether that willingness is there or not after this conference later this month.  if it looks like they're not willing, believe me i will be standing right next to you shouting them down.  but it is too soon to know whether this is necessary.  they brought in some talent late in the game that indicates to me they've already conceeded they need to change, but we'll know the truth of that soon enough.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 16:04:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In order: I think that the sources of funding

that our paid 'leaders' have come to rely on are out of money.

Harvard's endowment has lost thirty-some percent of its value in the past two financial quarters, and I'm sure that the Gill Foundation is suffering from the same disease.

Further, the smaller big donors just don't have the cheddar that our organizations have gotten fat and sassy spending. I know a number of gay and lesbian couples, who I've met through organizing, that are facing foreclosure, car repos and taking their kids out of private schools.

Regardless of my judgments about whether those were expenses a mortgage broker and a real estate agent could afford in the first place, which I'll admit to being an asshole for making, the fact is, that couple isn't going to be sustaining any organizations in the coming year or two. And they are not alone.

This media campaign that needs to be planned for a CA statewide air game is going to have to be conducted using money that I can't project or imagine a source for...which is why I think we need to identify other options for influencing public opinion.

Ineffectual organizing is how I describe what happened, because we spent the money (that I have no strategy for how to replace) and got no advances in public opinion. The ad campaign was promoting the Bill of Rights, not cute toddlers and their moms chasing a Golden Retriever across a grassy yard, so we lost without offering a positive visual of our families.

The fact that we're once again discussing the same people making the same exclusionary, top-down, know-better kinds of decisions that got us an ad campaign for an abstraction that was already unpopular says to me that they don't plan to change.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 16:52:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Can 150 people reach consensus?

Scientists say no.  

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 15:03:27 PM CST

Public Opinion

Isn't the media important in changing public opinion about lgbt issues? The yes on proposition. 8 was able to win the public opinion battle. And after the controversy about boycotting the sponsors of prop. 8. Isn't really important to have positive media coverage.    

---

by: salome17 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 15:05:11 PM CST

When I got into gay activism back in 1969 -- meetings were OPEN

We had the NYPD and the Mafia breathing down our necks. We didn't care. If our meetigs were open that meant we couldn't be charged with "conspiring in secret." That as a big deal back then, children. And that, let me remind you, was an era when precious few gays and lesbians were out and proud.

Todays LBGT kids are willing to go the distance that our so-called "leaders" (the resolute Robing Tyler excluded) won't.

Yes money was raised and celebrties endorsed but there were NO GAY PEOPLE IN THE ADS!!!!!!!

You can't raise awareness by putting the issue you're fighting for in the closet.

Of course we all know what this was. The marketers our "leaders" hired said gay "didn't test well."

Well FUCK THAT SHIT!
If you're not out and proud what possible use can you be?

No one gets maried in the closet

This issue won't be won until our super-secretive self-appointed "leaders" are shown the door.  

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 18:12:55 PM CST

We need to be fully open

and show that our only agenda is full and equal rights as citizens of the United States.
What are they worried about?  Someone reporting the dropping of the "FBomb" in discussion?
Or exposing their plan?

"They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself." - Andy Warhol



"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

---

by: TruthandLove @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 20:49:17 PM CST

do you really want them to know

how we're choosing which doors to knock on, how we should approach individual legislators and other proprietary information?  i sure don't.  there are a lot of things that can and i'm sure will be public.  but some information NEVER should be public.  that is, unless you WANT the haters to keep winning with as little fuss as possible.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 21:03:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I have posted this before, but it seems that...

...given the topic of the thread, it is worth posting again. If the problem is not exactly as I have described it below, then I have nothing to contribute. If you are interested, I have a much longer analysis of the situtation, but it says basically the same thing. Email me if you are interested at benoklnd@pacbell.net

Time. Energy. Money.

As a recently married gay man, I contributed a lot of each against Prop. 8. I'm sad that we failed to beat it. But I'm also angry-- and not just about political campaigns fueled by bigotry, conservative religion, and way too much tax-free money-- because I could see defeat coming with the inevitability of a slow-motion train wreck.

At the campaign kickoff, I asked Mark Leno personally if campaign leaders were going to do the liberal-tolerance-equality strategy again, pointing out that it has failed repeatedly. Or, were they going to show actual gay people, actual families, and actual lives. You know: reality. He said that focus groups indicated that everybody-make-nice and civil liberties were the way to go. This would move the undecided voters who were so crucial. I made the same point to HRC's Marty Rouse and several campaign leaders, and got the same response. The approach would be political rather than human, in every sense of both words.

What a concept! Let's ask straight people who are afraid of gay people about how to win gay rights, instead of asking gay people what has worked in their lives. You can see the result of focus group viewpoints. We have been focused over big-time.

Politics may move undecided voters, but the movement is only as valuable as the last person they spoke to. Human connections move hearts and minds, even minds that are made up. People who know gay people don't usually vote against them. But it's easy to vote against someone who is invisible, faceless, a menacing other, instead of friend or family, or even someone you just met on the street. And in No on 8, we were invisible. We saw the supportive, loving parents, but no gay daughter, no grandchildren. No on 8 was uninterested in a speakers' bureau to reach out to community groups and churches; I gave up asking. They wanted volunteers for phone banking and sign waving, not personal contact with real voters. At a training we were told NOT to use words like children, because Pro-8 people had appropriated the issue. Because we refused to claim it-- to claim reality-- it was used against us. Likewise, we can't talk about this ancient and deeply rooted anti-gay prejudice, either, because by calling attention to a reality in our lives, we might offend the very people who call us a threat to family, faith, and country. Newsflash! Our existence offends them.

This all may make sense to professional political people in their world and culture, but not in mine. It fails as a strategy because it embraces THE CLOSET, which is our real enemy. The closet is US. It is making ourselves invisible and unknown, rather than showing the simple fact and humanity of our lives. It is our consent to the lies, our silence in the face of naked prejudice. It is us not standing up for ourselves, and when we don't, who else will stand with us? I absolutely praise and thank our leaders for their efforts and sacrifices and dedication. But frankly, if our leaders don't know that we have to stand up for ourselves, as ourselves, then they shouldn't be our leaders. Because here's the result: we gay people were barely visible, and more people thought that the standard of living of California chickens was more important than the families of their fellow Americans.

Thirty years ago, I worked against the Briggs Initiative, which would have banned gay teachers. A much smaller group of people, with far fewer resources, in a far less accepting time, succeeded against great odds. Maybe I'm romanticizing, but I remember it was because all we really had to show were ourselves and our lives. We said NO to the closet.

I know this fight is far from over. We will be back. However, if future campaign organizations want to continue this losing strategy of focus groups, phone banking, invisibility, and cute but irrelevant ads that look good on political resumes but change nothing, the rest of us need a parallel campaign that comes out of the closet and presents us as who we are.

If you expect me to stay in the closet, then don't, DON'T expect one minute of my time, one iota of my energy, or one dime of my money.

POST SCRIPTUM: For those of you that saw Milk, there was a scene when he was yelling at the estalbishment politicos for trying to fight Briggs by ignoring the existence of gay people. Very telling-- and as valid now as it was 30 years ago.

---

by: Ben in Oakland @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 22:36:06 PM CST

have a meeting now or don't have it.....nothing matters until June CA ruling.

Then when we are gathered in the MILLIONS at Pride...that will be the "meeting" that counts.
if prop 8 is upheld, the sh*t will hit the fan.

and suprizingly, nobody is gonna ask No on 8 or CA equality or HRC...what's the plan.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 00:04:05 AM CST

queerty.com has a long explanation on this issue too

"Will the Future of California's Gay Marriage Be Televised?
Reports of limited media access at Equality Summit unfounded"

   http://www.queerty.com/will-th...

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 17:57:47 PM CST