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.
*** FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ***
SIGNFOREQUALITY.COM LAUNCHES
PETITION DRIVE TO REPEAL PROP 8
Activists Unveil Unique Social-Networking Tool to Support Signature Gathering Effort
(SACRAMENTO - November 16, 2009)
SignForEquality.com today launched a groundbreaking effort to gather signatures to repeal Proposition 8 and restore equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, marking the first time that social networking technology has been used to qualify a California initiative for the ballot.
"We're taking names," said John Henning, who is heading the SignForEquality.com effort as Executive Director of Love Honor Cherish.
"SignForEquality.com will make history by using custom social networking tools, as well as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, to support an all-volunteer signature drive to repeal Prop 8. People throughout California can now help us win marriage back by the simple act of signing and collecting signatures."
Love Honor Cherish launched www.SignForEquality.com as part of the volunteer signature drive, which began today. The site features a downloadable petition form and training videos for signature gatherers, and uses unique social networking technology to help gatherers set goals, build teams, and find signature gathering events.
"In its first day, SignForEquality.com is already the state of the art in California petition signature gathering," said Henning.
Henning noted that in recent years, signature gathering campaigns have been in the hands of a few powerful elite, who qualify ballot initiatives by spending millions on paid signature gatherers.
"SignForEquality.com brings the campaign back to the people," said Henning. "We're going to qualify this initiative person by person, and signature by signature."
The proponents of the ballot initiative have 150 days to gather approximately 1 million signatures. The signatures are due on April 12, 2010.
Love Honor Cherish is one of more than 40 groups that support repealing Prop 8 at the next general election in November 2010. The groups include the Latino Equality Alliance, the Mexican American Bar Association, and the San Diego Alliance for Marriage Equality, among others. For a full list, go to www.RepealProp8.com. Love Honor Cherish is also part of the Restore Equality 2010 coalition, which has elected representatives throughout the state.
As signature gathering gets underway, the campaign to change the hearts and minds of voters has already begun and will continue through the November 2010 election.
"Prop 8 passed last year with just 52% of the vote," said Henning. "Now, a year later, a recent L.A. Times poll says that 51% favor marriage equality. In the next 12 months, we'll make that margin even bigger."
Proposition 8 was an amendment to the California Constitution passed by voters in November 2008. It reversed a California Supreme Court decision in May 2008, which held that same-sex couples were guaranteed equal marriage rights under the California Constitution. The new ballot proposition is also a constitutional amendment.
The proposed measure reads as follows:
This amendment would amend an existing section of the California Constitution. Existing language proposed to be deleted is printed in strikeout type. Language proposed to be added is printed in underlined type.
Section 1. To protect religious freedom, no court shall interpret this measure to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person authorized to perform marriages by any religious denomination, church, or other non-profit religious institution to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution.
Section 2. To provide for fairness in the government's issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.
Love Honor Cherish is a Los Angeles-based grassroots organization committed to repealing Prop 8 in 2010 and to developing a new generation of leadership on this issue. Formed in May 2008 to defeat Prop 8, it raised over $500,000 for the No on 8 campaign and mounted its own outreach and media efforts. For more information, visit www.LoveHonorCherish.org.
Signature Gathering will be taking place in locations throughout the state. For more information about locations and other opportunities for media coverage, contact Mike Roth at 310-433-8685 or mike.roth@lovehonorcherish.org
I went to the Equality California (EQCA) San Diego Awards event on Saturday night, and captured the speech of Jerry Brown, who accepted an award at the event.
He won this award mostly for his work after Prop 8, where the Attorney General's Office took the position that the constitutional amendment was unconstitutional. He talks about this in the video. EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors introduces the former California Governor.
My apologies -- I haven't had the time to transcribe the video.
Paul Haggis belonged to the Church of Scientology for 35 years, so this very public break, written in a letter directerd at Scientology's current national spokesman, Tommy Davis, was published by ex-Scientologist Marty Rathbun. A snippet:
As you know, for ten months now I have been writing to ask you to make a public statement denouncing the actions of the Church of Scientology of San Diego. [...] I called and wrote and implored you, as the official spokesman of the church, to condemn their actions. I told you I could not, in good conscience, be a member of an organization where gay-bashing was tolerated.
In that first conversation, back at the end of October of last year, you told me you were horrified, that you would get to the bottom of it and "heads would roll." You promised action. Ten months passed. No action was forthcoming. The best you offered was a weak and carefully worded press release, which praised the church's human rights record and took no responsibility. Even that, you decided not to publish.
The church's refusal to denounce the actions of these bigots, hypocrites and homophobes is cowardly. I can think of no other word. Silence is consent, Tommy. I refuse to consent.
...The great majority of Scientologists I know are good people who are genuinely interested in improving conditions on this planet and helping others. I have to believe that if they knew what I now know, they too would be horrified. But I know how easy it was for me to defend our organization and dismiss our critics, without ever truly looking at what was being said; I did it for thirty-five years. And so, after writing this letter, I am fully aware that some of my friends may choose to no longer associate with me, or in some cases work with me. I will always take their calls, as I always took yours. However, I have finally come to the conclusion that I can no longer be a part of this group. Frankly, I had to look no further than your refusal to denounce the church's anti-gay stance, and the indefensible actions, and inactions, of those who condone this behavior within the organization. I am only ashamed that I waited this many months to act. I hereby resign my membership in the Church of Scientology.
This looks like an amazing documentary chronicling the first time a civil right was put on the ballot, to be decided by mob rule -- Proposition 8 -- and the millions pumped into the fight by the Mormons in the name of faith. Here's the first trailer for 8-The Mormon Proposition:
Producer Steven Greenstreet, who sent me the trailer link (it just went live) says it has just been submitted to Sundance other festivals. He was a journalist in 2008, and did a lot of coverage of Prop 8. When he left his news agency, he began working with the crew that made this documentary.
Man what a pair on this guy. Autumn mentioned this story in This and That, but I had to weigh in. This is church that didn't allow blacks to be ordained into the priesthood officially until 1978, and the LDS leader Brigham Young believed:
You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind .... Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race-that they should be the 'servant of servants'; and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree."
Yet in the wake of the tons of money dumped into Prop 8 by the Mormons, its current head, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, says that after the initiative passed, the church was demonized for its political involvement. [Gee, I wonder why]. The choice of victim card to play is almost beyond belief:
"The extent and nature of religious devotion in this nation is changing," said Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, a church governing body. "The tide of public opinion in favor of religion is receding, and this probably portends public pressures for laws that will impinge on religious freedom."
...Oaks said that while "aggressive intimidation" connected to Proposition 8 was primarily directed at religious people and symbols, "it was not anti-religious as such." He called the incidents "expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest."
"As such, these incidents of 'violence and intimidation' are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic," he said. "In their effect they are like well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation."
Aside from that level of preposterous sentiment, the LDS has not been behaving in any kind of way you'd expect people of faith should act. Why are they wasting all this money to beat back gays and lesbians who want to marry when they could be filling the food banks, helping to ensure those who are destitute will have clean water, food and clothing as winter approaches...a host of more productive and meaningful ways to fulfill its mission.
It's an open thread! Pleeeeease feel free to chat, blogwhore, and link-share in the comment thread...
So, my cartoon sockpuppet Bookworm Bob & I mised a weekend post due to being like, y'know, really busy! However, "we" do have a post for today; This is what "we" have been looking at so far this week...
...Elder Dallin H. Oaks refers to gay marriage as an "alleged civil right" in remarks prepared for delivery at Brigham Young University-Idaho, a speech church officials describe as a significant commentary on current threats to religious freedom.
In an advance copy provided to The Associated Press, Oaks suggests that atheists and others are seeking to intimidate people of faith and silence their voices in the public square.
"The extent and nature of religious devotion in this nation is changing," said Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, a church governing body. "The tide of public opinion in favor of religion is receding, and this probably portends public pressures for laws that will impinge on religious freedom."
...In an interview Monday before the speech, Oaks said he did not consider it provocative to compare the treatment of Mormons in the election's aftermath to that of blacks in the civil rights era, and said he stands by the analogy.
"It may be offensive to some -- maybe because it hadn't occurred to them that they were putting themselves in the same category as people we deplore from that bygone era," he said...
If the comparison were made instead compare the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints (Mormon Church) leadership to the oppressors instead of to the oppressed, I believe the comparison would have been more apt.
But, to say the least, if this is actually inspired teaching from the Mormons, it's fascinating -- in the crazy bad way of being fascinating!
Thanks to Chino Blanco for finding the video!
• Los Angeles Times' Politics as religion in AmericaConservatism has been converted into a religious belief, and now compromise doesn't have a prayer:
For decades now, liberals have been agonizing because conservatives seem to win even when polls show that the public generally disagrees with them. In their postmortems, liberals have placed blame on the way they frame their message, or on the right-wing media drumbeat that drowns out everything else, or on the right's co-opting of the flag, Mom and apple pie, which is designed to make liberals seem like effete, hostile foreign agents.
It's understandable that liberals prefer to think of their subordination as a matter of their own inadequacies or of conservative wiles. Theoretically, you can learn how to improve your message or how to match wits with adversaries, and a lot of liberal hand-wringing has been dedicated to doing just that. But it is becoming increasingly clear that liberals haven't just been succumbing to superior message control, or even to a superior political narrative (conservatives' frontier individualism versus liberals' communitarianism). They are up against something far more intractable and far more difficult to defeat. They are up against religion.
Perhaps the single most profound change in our political culture over the last 30 years has been the transformation of conservatism from a political movement, with all the limitations, hedges and forbearances of politics, into a kind of fundamentalist religious movement, with the absolute certainty of religious belief...
It goes without saying that the rest of this article is recommended reading.
The Obama administration is cranking out a slew of regulations affecting businesses. Political appointees are in control at most Cabinet departments and regulatory agencies, and they're having an influence. Congress is also getting into the act, albeit more slowly. Most of the changes will boost labor protections against workplace hazards, discrimination, unfair pay policies and in other personnel disputes. For employers, it means more costs and red tape as they're forced to show they're in compliance.
"It's hard to believe that a widget maker will have any time to make widgets in this hyper-enforcement environment," says Rae T. Vann, general counsel at the Equal Employment Advisory Council, an employer group.
...Congress will OK several pro-labor bills next year over the objections of business groups...
...Employer groups are not opposing a bill to ban employer discrimination based on sexual orientation, and it is a good bet for passage. The legislation probably will not cover transgender individuals and won't apply to small business with fewer than 15 workers, the military or religious organizations.
What do they know that we don't know? -- Or are they just guessing based on 2007? I don't know.
Folks, we at The Blend are highlighting what Law Professor Jillian Todd Weiss is spearheading over at Bilerico because the work she's doing to have us speak out to our Senators and Representatives for a fully inclusive ENDA is extremely important for our broad community.
When the U.S. bishops meet next month in Baltimore they should scrap the entire text of the proposed pastoral letter on marriage and start fresh.
The primary problem with the draft, obtained by NCR and available for viewing on our Web site (read the draft pastoral here), is that it is not, as advertised, pastoral.
In fact, it reads as if it was written by someone who has never once engaged in a marriage preparation program, let alone actually ever been married.
The bishops should demand a text that is specifically useful in helping young people prepare for marriage. Young couples come to the church for their marriage ceremonies not only because churches make good backdrops for the wedding photographs. And even if they do come for that reason, marriage preparation presents an opportunity to evangelize, an opportunity to teach about the vocation of marriage and the way that it is tied to our Catholic sacramental understanding of salvation. The document should be something a pastoral minister or parish priest can hand to a couple during their first meeting for marriage preparation, a sort of guide to what they are actually asking of the church and the mystery the church is about to celebrate with them. Instead, the first section of the draft spends too much time talking about the threats to modern marriage, such as high divorce rates, cohabitation, same-sex unions and, of course, contraception (an "intrinsic evil")...
Pages 21 through 23 of the letter talk about Same Sex Marriage. The conclusion of the section:
While basic human rights must be afforded to all people, this can and should be done without sacrificing the bedrock of society that is marriage and the family and without violating the religious liberty of persons and institutions.
The legal recognition of same-sex unions poses a multifaceted threat to the very fabric of society, striking at the source from which society and culture come and which they are meant to serve. Such recognition affects all people, married and non-married: not only at the fundamental levels of the good of the spouses, the good of children, the intrinsic dignity of every human person, and the common good, but also at the levels of education, cultural imagination and influence, and religious freedom.
• Our Wiener Story Of The Day is from my hometown of San Diego! SanDiego.com's Dogs And More:
Sometimes you just want a hot dog. Not necessarily the finest cuisine you've ever tasted but it just sounds right. Where to go to indulge yourself, especially if you're trying to take it up a notch from the usual fast-food joints? First clue...not Costco. Look around, there are not many places promoting hot dogs on their marquee or menus. We have recently discovered a fun little hole-in-the-wall called HotDogs at 428 in the Gaslamp.
HotDogs at 428 is one of those "blink-and-you-will-miss-it" locations, especially when you're surrounded by restaurants of every genre and price point...
...Seventeen different types of dogs comprise the menu, if you also include the veggie and turkey dogs. Signature dogs sport the shmaltzy names hot dog joints have used for ages. Naked dog on bun (period!), Diego dog (salsa, jalapeno, avocado), Charger dog (mustard, sauerkraut), Padre dog (mustard, cheese, sauerkraut, jalapenos), Texas dog (BQ sauce, cheese, coleslaw), sushi dog (wasabi, ginger, soy sauce) and bacon dog (jalapenos, salsa) to name a few...
...We ravaged the chili cheese and bacon concoctions. How can you not love big ole messy hot dogs? Waistlines cause most to rarely partake due to the evil scale every morning, so these better be good. We were told the chili was homemade by "world famous chef Miko". Don't quite know who gave him the title but the chili, while good, was nothing close to being "the best"...
Hmm. I a good Chili Cheese Mustard dog...but oh that fat content!
So anywho...It's an open thread! What are you thinking about today, or what books or articles have you been reading the past few days? Wanna share?
And again, please feel free to chat, blogwhore, and link-share in the comment thread because...it's an open thread! Woo-hoo!
A federal judge has ordered sponsors of California's Proposition 8 to release campaign strategy documents that opponents believe could show that backers of the same-sex marriage ban were motivated by prejudice against gays.
Plaintiffs in a federal suit seeking to overturn Prop. 8 - two same-sex couples, a gay-rights organization and the city of San Francisco - contend that the measure's real purpose was to strip a historically persecuted minority group of rights held by the majority.
If the courts find that the ballot measure was motivated by discrimination, they could strike it down without having to decide whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.
"The intent or purpose of Prop. 8 is central to this litigation," Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker declared Thursday in requiring backers of the November 2008 measure to give the opposing side their internal campaign communications...
This article, in all seriousness, is very, very worth the read. Please use the link at the top of this This & That item to read the entire piece on the SFGate.com (San Francisco Chronicle) website.
• A Contributing Editor for FamilySecurityMatters.org, Robert Weissberg, is emeritus professor of political science, University of Illinois-Urbana and currently an adjunct instructor at New York University Department of Politics (graduate). He has a lot to say about women professors in colleges and universities in his Family Security Matters piece The Feminization of American Education - Destroying Western Civilization? From the last three paragraphs of his piece:
...[T]he male exodus from education, whether higher high school drop outs or shunning college altogether, is deadly serious. The loss of human talent is catastrophic enough but even worse, American schools are offering up an approach that is long on feelings and emotions and short on generating real knowledge. By shielding egos and sustaining self-esteem it is destroying western civilization on the installment plan.
This trend has yet to enter the sciences and engineering, but relentless government pressure for "gender equity" may soon alter that. Don't laugh - one world-class physicist over a decade ago personally told me that his prestigious department was coerced into hiring a woman who took a "feminine" approach to physics! It also has the allure of making teaching hard subjects easy - soliciting everyone's opinion certainly requires less class preparation than precisely explicating a tough-nut topic. Woe to America when classroom discussion of how to build rockets come to resemble free-wheeling, everybody's opinion is worth hearing, ruminations on whether Jane Austin's voice reflected her bourgeois gender identity.
America's economic competitors undoubtedly love every minute of it.
Not a word from me. I'll let wiser feminists look at this piece and respond with depth.
• ALos Angeles Times' Lodi defends its public prayers; City Council, one of several threatened with suits, votes after hours of debate to continue the practice:
Reporting from Lodi, Calif. - Small cities in California are facing high unemployment, drained treasuries and now what some residents see as an assault on the only sacred moment in municipal affairs: the invocation at the start of city council meetings.
Turlock, Tracy, Tehachapi, Lancaster -- all have been threatened in the last few months with lawsuits claiming that prayer at meetings breaches the wall between church and state.
Nowhere has the ensuing debate played out more dramatically than in Lodi, where, after a tumultuous five-hour meeting this week, the City Council voted not only to continue invocations but also to allow phrases such as "in Jesus' name."
"For whatever reason, Lodi seems to have become ground zero for deciding this issue," City Atty. Steve Schwabauer said at Wednesday's meeting, which drew a passionate crowd of more than 700...
Jeebus! So, defending against these lawsuits is a good use of taxpayer dollars? I wonder how many potholes this California city won't be filled because the Lodi City Council is spending tax dollars on defending these lawsuits.
Given this economy, it's just crazy to see what the spending priorities of this Lodi City Council actually are.
A Welsh transwoman who was raped by an attacker who was jailed for eight years this week, says she was forced to move house after her identity was made public.
Kiron Singh Chand beat her up, then forced her to perform oral sex on him.
She was then subjected to a harassment campaign including vilification on Facebook, being taunted in the street, and even humiliated in a poster campaign...
...Gay Days Anaheim began in 1998 with about 2,500 going to Disneyland and the group was soon greeted with protests and boycotts, saying the event was not family friendly. But Shapiro said he hasn't seen protesters picketing the area in recent years. Major groups, including the Southern Baptists and the American Family Association, ended official boycotts against Disney, partly because of Gay Days, in 2005.
Some conservative groups and individuals continue to boycott the event and Disney as a whole, said James Hartline, who runs the San Diego-based California Christian News and has an electronic newsletter with 60,000 readers. Hartline has written blog posts and stories against Disney, but Hartline avoids organizing protests because of the extremists they sometimes attract.
"I believe this is going to spread rapidly and quickly. For one, Disney is clearly going out of its way to violate what we believe in," Hartline said....
So anywho...It's an open thread! What are you thinking about today, or what books or articles have you been reading the past few days? Wanna share?
And again, please feel free to chat, blogwhore, and link-share in the comment thread because...it's an open thread! Woo-hoo!
The sponsors of California's same-sex marriage ban must hand over some internal campaign records to lawyers seeking to overturn the voter-enacted initiative, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled Thursday.
Denying a request to shield the information, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker said the Protect Marriage campaign had failed to show that providing private e-mails, memos and reports would inhibit the political activities of gay marriage opponents or subject them to unbridled harassment.
The judge agreed with lawyers for two unmarried same-sex couples who have sued to strike down the ban, known as Proposition 8, that confidential communications between the campaign's leaders and professional consultants could reveal a rationale for denying gays the right to wed that is relevant to the case.
The lawsuit argues that the measure was motivated by hostility toward gays and as such must be struck down as inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equality.
"What was decided not to be said in a political campaign may cast light on what was actually said," Walker said.
At the same time, the judge said the couples' lawyers must limit their fact-finding request to cover only central issues and individuals, including Mormon and Catholic church representatives who served on the executive committee that oversaw the campaign. He also left open the possibility that he would restrict public access to the documents.
Opening a fresh can of "Louise's Patented Whoop-Ass" (someone make me a graphic, STAT!) for some members of the Maine media- read these and lemme know if I can serve ya some...
The Yes on One campaign to overturn Maine's same-sex marriage law has released its second television advertisement. This one features a Massachusetts couple whose seven-year-old son was introduced to a children's gay storybook against their wishes, and a Maine teacher who warns that failure to repeal Maine's law will lead to similar situations here. What the ad leaves out is that the teacher is also the state director of a group that promotes biblical values and works at a private Christian school.
.......................
Also featured in Yes On One's latest ad is high school English teacher Charla Bansley of Ellsworth. "Vote Yes on Question 1 to prevent homosexual marriage from being taught in Maine schools," she implores in the ad.
Bansley is the state director of Concerned Women for America, a group that promotes biblical values. Bansley herself has opposed diversity training and tolerance classes in Maine schools. During the news conference Bansley acknowledged that Maine's same-sex marriage law does not specifically include requirements for same-sex marriage and family issues to be taught in public schools. But she thinks that could easily happen in Maine if the law is upheld.
Bansley declined to say where she teaches. "I would really like to keep my students out of this. I just left a freshman class and I would really like them not to get hounded by all of this."
In fact, Bansley does not teach at a public school, but at Calvary Chapel Christian School in Orrington, outside of Bangor. As a private school, Calvary would not be bound by anything adopted by the local school district.
This is important stuff.Bansley ADMITS that she knows she is lying in the ad.
These are just some excerpts; please click on the MPBN link to read and listen to the entire peice. It's well worth it.
But disappointingly, to date only 1, count 'em ONE television newscast has covered the Charla Bansley debutProp 8 Photoshopped rerun latest Yes on 1/SFMM ad:
(Oh for cryin' out loud... 4:30 PM, not AM! Long busy days for all of us in Maine right now. ;) - promoted by Louise)
Busy, busy, busy place and bound to get busier over the next 47 days!!!
Just got this press release from Mark Sullivan of No On 1:
NO on 1 Television and Radio Ads Reveal Opponents' Distortions about Question 1
Portland, Maine (Thursday, September 17, 2009) --- NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality released rebuttal television and radio ads denouncing the false and misleading claims made in the first television and radio ads launched earlier this week by the Yes Campaign.
"These are the same old doomsday tactics that opponents of equality have been using not just in Maine, but in every state from California to Iowa to New York. They want to change the subject, to talk about anything else.But Question 1 is only about fairness and equality for Maine families," said Jesse Connolly, campaign manager of NO on 1. "We believe Maine people will see through this cynical strategy."
The Yes Campaign’s ads make a series of claims around the so-called consequences of treating Mainers fairly under the law, including imaginary changes in education. The NO on 1 Campaign's ads make clear that Question 1 has nothing at all to do with schools, and that in Maine, decisions are made locally by parents and teachers who care about children.
Sheri Gould, Maine Teacher of the Year from Corinna, Me., appears in the ads and explains what the state's curriculum will always be.“I’ve been teaching in Maine schools since 1983 – we teach respect and Maine values – and that will never change,” she says.
"Most Mainers know that marriage strengthens families, protects children and upholds traditional Maine values of fairness, equality and personal freedom," said Connolly."That's what we're talking about and that's what Maine people are speaking out about in our ads."
The television ads began running statewide on Wednesday afternoon.Radio ads begin running today.
Scripts for the television and radio ads are attached to this release. The ads may be viewed and heard online at the following links:
___________________________________
For more information, please contact Communications Director Mark Sullivan at (207)671-0542 or via e-mail mark@protectmaineequality.org
The Maine news lately shows such strong community support outside of New England and nationally, as HRC and EQCA have joined others in making valuable donations to No On 1/Protect Maine Equality.
Stonewall Dems Director of Communications, Jenna Lowenstein, confirmed the organization had sent a letter to the DNC requesting a donation. "We're proud of our partnership with the DNC, and the important work we do together to elect pro-equality Democrats. We also believe that preserving marriage equality in Maine is imperative, and we're happy to use our contacts at the DNC to work to protect same-sex couples and families in Maine," she told me.
The DNC's donation to the Prop 8 campaign came after widespread criticism that they hadn't contributed to the marriage equality battle after raising money hand over fist from our community. The DNC donated to the Prop 8 campaign in the last month of the election.
The news today has come from San Francisco that U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has denied the request of several LGBT community groups in California — represented by the ACLU, Lambda Legal and NCLR — to intervene in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger lawsuit challenging the constitutional validity of Proposition 8.
Judge Walker did, however, grant the request of the City of San Francisco to intervene. According to Lambda Legal’s Jason Howe, the judge “said they showed a government interest that wasn’t represented by any of the current parties.”
...The LGBT legal organizations, now, will be limited to filing amicus briefs, memoranda submitted to the court representing the views of non-parties who have an interest in the outcome of the case. At the trial court level, they will not have the ability to participate in depositions or request discovery. On appeal, they will have the option of requesting time at the oral argument, though, at this point, it is unclear how willing the plaintiffs will be to consent to any potential argument-sharing arrangement. In short, this has moved the LGBT legal organizations to the periphery of a very prominent and potentially landmark case.
The release from the LGBT groups is below the fold.
The saga continues out in the Golden State as LGBT orgs agree to disagree over the tactics to take down Prop 8. Equality California tries to have it both ways in a sense -- announcing that it will to put extra time and resources toward educating the public for a 2012 effort, but also declaring support for those trying to get a 2010 ballot initiative in place.
Marc Solomon, EQCA's marriage director, said that after evaluating several options and consulting with the top 100 donors from the 2008 campaign, the organization will continue a localized, three-year education campaign for the 2012 election.
The announcement came less than an hour after the Courage Campaign, another activist organization, announced that it will move forward on a 2010 ballot initiative. On Tuesday, Courage Campaign chair Rick Jacobs asked members to raise $42,000 within 60 hours to help decide the timing of the measure. As of Wednesday morning, the organization reported that it had received donations totaling $77,905 within just 24 hours, raising their total amount available for research, polling, and focus groups to $135,998.
EQCA says that the effort is notable and that it will support the other group's push for the 2010 ballot measure, but EQCA will continue to forge ahead on a 2012 ballot measure because, the group maintains, more California voters will support marriage equality by then.
"We promised the LGBT community that we would let them know what we think the wisest course of action is. It's our responsibility. That’s why we put something out today. But we’re not saying that it’s our way or the highway. We certainly can’t force anyone to adopt our position."
..."There’s this feeling that when it’s convenient, that people will listen to what [the POC groups] have to say and when it’s not, they won’t. I think we all have to think about that. Think about what these communities went through after Prop 8 passed and the blaming of POC communities. I think it’s important that people listen to that perspective, that they're thinking 'Our communities got blamed for Prop 8.' And after, people said a lot of work will happen, and now the work hasn’t happened and we’re saying we’re going right back to the ballot. That’s an important perspective to keep into account."
Marc rebuffed the claim that those who support 2012 are wanting to "wait."
"We all want to win back marriage as quickly as humanly possible. The question is, 'Can we get it done by 2010 or not?'"
The California Marriage Equality Activists Plan Ballot Initiative Campaign met in Los Angeles last weekend, and are planning for the coming initiative to repeal Proposition 8, no matter when the initiative is taken to California voters. Sara Beth Brooks, who has previously argued that the initiative should be filed for the 2010 Election, is the point of contact for the press release about last weekend's Los Angeles meeting .
Equality California (EQCA), which is by most LGBT Callifornians assessment the juggernaut of LGBT non-profits/civil rights organizations here, is going to announce tomorrow whether they are going to support 2010 or 2012 for an initiative drive to repeal Prop 8.
I'm concerned. As long as the that California LGBT coalition of color isn't supporting or working towards an initiative in 2010, I know as a LGBT Californian I'm not inclined at all to support -- or work towards -- a campaign for a 2010 initiative to repeal Proposition 8. My perspective is that without LGBT people of color organizations onboard in a Prop 8 repeal drive, I don't see how we successfully repeal in Prop 8; I'm not going to spend my volunteer time or contribute any money to a campaign that I don't see as having any chance at success.
One of the mistakes I made during the 2008 Prop 8 campaign was not pointing out what I saw as wrong with how the campaign was being run when I had questions about it. Such as, it bothered me that there were no images of LGBT people in the advertizing for the Prop 8 campaign, and that it didn't appear to be a hearts-and-minds campaign. Well, I won't make that mistake of not speaking up a second time.
So at this point, I won't answer to focus groups; I won't answer to big budget or small budget campaigns; I'm going to stick to telling you what I think.
So here's what I think: If there are no LGBT people of color organizations onboard for a Prop 8 repeal, I'll stay on the sidelines for this election cycle. I'll vote for the Prop 8 repeal if it actually reaches the ballot in 2010 without LGBT people of color organizations onboard, but I won't work/volunteer for -- or contribute funds to -- a 2010 attempt to repeal Prop 8 without LGBT people of color organizations onboard. I just see no possibility of a win without them onboard.
In the organizational and movement chaos surrounding a Prop 8 overturning ballot initiative in 2010 versus 2012, the call for funding is out there. A snippet from a recent Courage campaign e-blast:
Right now, several organizations within the marriage equality movement are debating whether to place an initiative on the ballot to repeal Prop 8 in either 2010 or 2012.
The Courage Campaign community already spoke out in favor of 2010, quite strongly. In May, 83% of our members told us to work with our partners to place a marriage equality initiative on the ballot in 2010 -- and to help build the movement to support it.
That's why the Courage Campaign has mobilized 44 Equality Teams and trained more than 1,000 organizers across California in 2009. And it's why we have been working with the smartest, most experienced campaign professionals in America -- people who ran Barack Obama's campaign, know California and can chart a course to victory.
But the only way a 2010 campaign can be launched is if the marriage equality movement raises $200,000. That's right. $200,000. That's how much money it will take to determine -- through research, polling and focus groups -- the initiative language and messages that will move voters to support marriage equality.
We are ready to do our part but we can't do it alone. That's why we are asking the Courage Campaign community to raise $100,000 by August 13. And we are challenging our partners in the marriage equality movement to raise the remaining $100,000 as soon as possible.
From holding multiple Camp Courage training events from the coast to the Central Valley to organizing 44 Equality Teams in 23 counties, we have mobilized our members to help build a people-powered foundation for victory in 2010. With a September deadline looming for filing an initiative, these organizers are ready to start gathering signatures.
But if the marriage equality movement is not able to raise the $200,000 necessary -- $100,000 from the Courage Campaign and $100,000 from our partners -- to pay for the research to launch an initiative campaign, then we will have to accept that our movement is not ready to repeal Prop 8 in 2010.
And we will have to wait until 2012 to bring marriage equality to the ballot again. It's as simple as that.
A reader contacted me and said he received the call for dollars and had a few questions for the organization.He gave me permission to repost the letter.
I'm sure you've heard about the Courage Campaign asking for $200,000 by 8/13 in order for them to support going back to the ballot in 2010. I thought you might be interested in my response email that I sent them.
I love the Courage Campaign, and I deeply support them; however I have a few questions about this call out for $200,000 and I was wondering if you guys might be able to help me better understand.
(This piece below is one with a different perspective than the recently posted diary The Elephant In The Room recarding the recent Statewide Leadership Summit -- the Summit reconvened in San Bernardino this past weekend. - promoted by Autumn Sandeen)
I got married on August 30, 2008 during the summer of love. My one year anniversary is coming up soon. Our 20 year anniversary is on August 14. Most of that time we have lived in California, with a decade in New Mexico.
I did all my growing up in California, schools, drinking, getting arrested, getting sober, getting politically active and educated. From the really bad days of AIDS to Prop 187 and now Prop 8, I have struggled in the trenches to do the right thing to win at the ballot box.
Let me be clear now. I am not and have not been part of the “leadership” in California even though I have a strong, experienced background in the science of elections. There was no Latino leadership in the November election aside from that provided by mi hermanos in LA, HONOR PAC. I do not fall into the scorned category of “those people” who have been in charge.
Trying to be a cool chick all the time, I have been riding the wave of the recession for a couple of years now, few jobs, lots of unemployment. My spouse and I are in the process of losing the house we were married in. After four months, I have gotten my first unemployment check. I do not have the resources to go to meetings for a weekend in a place as far away as San Bernadino. At 54 I also will not tolerate heat and, trust me, being cooped up in a hot room for hours is a recipe for an arrest.
At this point I am writing this because I want to make some observations about the strong disagreements in the LGBT community in California. It is truly irresponsible for me to not say something at this point and try to bring my point of view from where I live.
One of the key issues that I continue to see is the total unwillingness to listen to each other. This next campaign is supposed to be about changing hearts and minds among the electorate. Yet in meeting after meeting we do not listen well to each other and from that springs growing animosity towards other LGBT people. So without these skills how in the hell are we supposed to listen to the California electorate who does not agree with us right now?
Does anyone truly think that by just showing up on people’s doorsteps they will welcome us in and want to hear our stories? These conversations require the ability to listen to other people’s beliefs and not just maintain a superior attitude that we know best how people should vote. Do we magically take the place of their clerics or their religious community?
What is even more important is that vast numbers of people do not know us. In the Latino community, it is necessary to spend time with us to gain any measure of trust. That means going to different events, sharing some values with us, like is poverty or immigration an issue for us too. If it is, prove it.
Ask yourself when was the last time you publicly supported an issue where you had nothing to gain? Support for immigration reform? March for Iranian freedom? What have we all done to work for other causes? I will give a shout out here for Courage Campaign who does a great job of working on the multiple issues that we face as progressives.
But really, can we back up a little here? A lot of paens I have read about going in 2010 have not dealt at all with the issue of people of color in California. Just in case you missed the demographics on the Golden State, we are a majority minority state. The majority of people in California are minorities, primarily Latino. So to have these opinions completely skip over the statement made by people of color organizations, the Prepare to Prevail, does not take into full account the true demography here.
In Karen Ocamb’s blog post at the Bilerico Project about the San Bernadino meeting, she quotes at least two participants wanted to ignore the African American and Latino communities in the next votes. That’s a good idea - don’t deal with a significant part of the state. Wouldn’t want anyone to feel uncomfortable now.
We must engage everyone in this next battle. Communities of color are saying there is not enough time to do this for a 2010 vote. Does anyone really think we don’t want our full equality? But what happens if we lose again? Who gains from that?
This piece comes out of this past weekend's California Statewide Leadership Summit, reconvened in San Bernardino this past weekend. The writers of the piece, Sara Beth Brooks and Chelsea Salem, are California lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community organizers who both attended the summit.
The California LGBT movement can all agree on one thing: we want to take marriage equality back to the ballot box. Two months ago 250 California activists met in Fresno to address the factors involved our new campaign, specifically the question of when: 2010 or 2012. We were asked to return to our towns armed with the most current polling data, and hold local meetings to capture the voices of our community.
We were told that the Get Engaged Tour was designed to truly listen. In this spirit, we returned to our home cities and started organizing. We held large meetings and intimate gatherings. At every event, we took a straw poll of the major question on everyone's mind: do we return to the ballot on marriage equality in 2010 or 2012? This vision of engaging our community with intensity was inspiring. There was debate in public corridors and consensus was not forced. We promised community members and community leaders that everything would be clear after July 25.
The Statewide Leadership Summit reconvened in San Bernardino, California last Saturday. The seven-hour meeting wasn't modeled after the Get Engaged Tour that we organized in 80 cities across the state; the anticipated tour results did not hold a prominent place in the agenda. We were under the impression that San Bernardino would be about reporting back on behalf of the communities we represent. Instead, the meeting was packed with lectures on ballot process and lacking in true debate at all. The Get Engaged report that was distributed was missing at least six cities that we know of, as well as any hard data related to the straw polls. When asked about the missing data, it was stated that because some of the tour sites reported in generalities rather than specific data they had chosen not to present any specific numbers. If it wasn't to inform and then represent the voices of our community, what was the tour designed to accomplish? With this question unanswered, the day wearing on the hearts and minds of those present, we were still held back from even a plenary show of hands regarding the ballot.
Actual efforts towards any decision didn't begin until well after 2:00pm, when the heat and the fatigue had worn the crowd down. After the arguments for each date -- 2010 and 2012 -- were presented, there was a lengthy and uncontrollable floor debate about if we should make a decision, and if so, how we would make it. When we would take a vote, sometimes it wasn't clear what we were voting on. It's hard to vote for a structure when you don't have a structure yet for voting. Someone finally posed the question of whether or not votes should come from individuals, or be limited to one per organization. Someone else wondered aloud how the voices of those not present would be heard.
There wasn't a vote on our most important issue -- when are we going back to the ballot on marriage equality: 2010 or 2012? -- until well into hour six. We did not establish a decision making process first, so this vote took forty-five minutes to complete, and was counted at least three times. The results of the non-binding straw poll are that the community wants to return to the ballot in 2010, but the meeting concluded with, "Make sure you report back by August 15 on 2010 versus 2012."
No. No, no, no. Absolutely not.
In every statewide poll of our community, it's been overwhelming response for 2010. EQCA, Courage Campaign, and MEUSA all polled their memberships and came to the same conclusion. Some regional communities came out in favor of 2012, but the Get Engaged Tour support for 2010 was overwhelming. And the vote in that room, however skewed and jaded by hours of activism under the heat lamp of the IE, showed 2010 as well. How many times are we going to ask our community to vote on this?
Furthermore, we made promises to our community to bring back a decision. We understand that growing pains are a necessary. However, the indecision that San Bernardino leaves in the community's mind must give way to the next step. We came to the summit ready for the catalyst that would propel us forward. Frustrated and disappointed, the summit was an incredibly successful failure. The failures are clear, but the success was that we left San Bernardino with more determination than we came with. The summit was not just about a ballot measure, it was about the movement.
***
It is time for action. Whether you call it a "Coalition of the Willing," a moniker we feel is sadly inadequate, or however you refer to those who have met their personal benchmarks to move forward to the ballot box, there is a united force that is moving forward with a campaign to restore marriage equality on November 2, 2010. The community has made the call and it is up to our leaders to answer it.
We need our leaders to step forward now. As Torie Osborn says, "We are the ones we have been waiting for." The campaign starts today. It is time to stop talking about a ballot campaign, and time to start running one. According to a document presented by Love, Honor, Cherish, a volunteer force of 10,000 each working one five hour shift would get us the signatures we need to qualify. It's time for lawyers to draft language and the community to discuss it. It's time to make that September 23rd deadline for ballot language to be submitted. It's time for a campaign manager (We read that Steve Hildebrand is looking for work -- and is already a friend of Courage Campaign).
***
So, if you wonder what's next for marriage equality in California? Work. It's time to get to work, California. The campaign to win your rights back starts today. Already there are groups canvassing across the state, some on a weekly basis. Groups like Marriage Equality USA (MEUSA), Courage Campaign, and Equality California (EQCA) have structures in place for canvassing and phone banking. Join a local canvassing team or get the information and resources from local representatives and start your own street team! Help build this campaign yourselves. No one else is going to build it if we don't -- and the statewide group is being politicized through stalling tactics.
Now is the time we have been waiting for. Now is the time to do the one thing we all agree needs to be done: restore marriage equality in California. The time for talk is over; the time for action is now.
~~~~~
Sara Beth Brooks is an organizer in San Diego, California. She can be reached at sarabrooks@gmail.com Chelsea Salem is an organizer in Orange County California. She can be reached at seasalem@gmail.com
In a significant boost to the effort calling for opponents of Prop 8 to forego a ballot initiative in 2010, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has signed onto the "Prepare to Prevail" campaign publicly launched this week by API Equality-LA, HONOR PAC and the Jordan Rustin Coalition. Rea Carey, Executive Director:
"As a state that has often served as a political and cultural trendsetter for the rest of the country, what happens in California has national significance for the LGBT movement. That's why for well over five years the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has devoted significant human and financial resources to winning the freedom to marry in California. This commitment remains steadfast as we continue to work on the ground in California with the Vote for Equality Project of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center and Equality California to build effective models of person-to-person voter persuasion about marriage equality.
"We support the soonest possible return to the ballot box to repeal Prop. 8 that gives the LGBT community a fighting chance to win. The priorities expressed in 'Prepare to Prevail' are about the hard work it will take at the grassroots to move towards a solid victory, and we look forward to continued work with our partners in California to build a strong, diverse and successful campaign for marriage equality."
In its decision, the NGLTF stressed the importance of accomplishing key goals before getting a repeal effort on the ballot:
• Build solid majority support for the freedom to marry before returning to the ballot. Multiple polls have shown that support for marriage equality has remained flat since November 2008. The LGBT community will be in a stronger position to win if we're defending, and not attempting to create in the midst of a campaign, majority support at the ballot box for the freedom to marry.
• Demonstrate a proven ability to move former Yes on 8 voters to support marriage equality. Both polling and real-world testing door-to-door have shown that following the public debate over Prop 8, many voters' positions have hardened; consequently, few voters remain undecided about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
• Develop persuasive messaging capable of moving former Yes voters that can also withstand vigorous campaigning from the opposition.
• Build a campaign infrastructure that's able to raise the significant amount of money and recruit the army of volunteers needed to prevail. The LGBT community could measure its readiness to return to the ballot by establishing a set of benchmarks to be met, over time starting from now, for fundraising, volunteer recruitment and other campaign infrastructure goals.
The rest of the release, documenting the organization's commitment to the equality fight in California, is here. It will be interesting to see the response to this announcement by the 2010 proponents. While these conversations are difficult, I think it's healthy to think things through in clear view.
Weighing in perhaps a little late on the subject (in comparison to when The Advocate commentary entitled Gay Is the New Black? was published last November, and Tyra Banks' response to that assertion last December), ESPN The Magazine and ESPN.com writer/columnist LZ Granderson weighs in on the assertion that Gay Is The New Black by asserting himself that Gay Is Not The New Black. In the middle of his piece, he states:
Despite the catchiness of the slogan, gay is not the new black.
Black is still black.
And if any group should know this, it's the gay community.
He also states:
While those who were at Stonewall talk about the fear of being arrested by police, 40 years ago, blacks talked about the fear of dying at the hands of police and not having their bodies found or murder investigated. The 13th Amendment was signed in 1865, and it wasn't until 1948 that President Harry S Truman desegregated the military. That's more than an 80-year gap.
Not to be flip, but Miley Cyrus is older than Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell." That doesn't mean that the safety of gay people should be trivialized or that Obama should not be held accountable for the promises he made on the campaign trail. But to call this month's first-ever White House reception for GLBT leaders "too little too late" is akin to a petulant child throwing a tantrum because he wants to eat his dessert before dinner. This is one of the main reasons why so many blacks bristle at the comparison of the two movements -- everybody wants to sing the blues, nobody wants to live them.
This lack of perspective is only going to alienate a black community that is still very proud of Obama and is hypersensitive about any criticism of him, especially given he's been in office barely six months.
He concludes:
If blacks are less accepting of gays than other racial groups -- and that is certainly debatable -- then the parade of gay people calling Obama a "disappointment" on television is counterproductive in gaining acceptance, to say the least. And the fact that the loudest critics are mostly white doesn't help matters either.
Hearing that race matters in the gay community may not be comforting to hear, but that doesn't make it any less true.
So perhaps in this comparison between African-Americans and gays, the comparison comes down to which minority group has suffered longer, and that gays -- in being described "akin to a petulant child throwing a tantrum" -- are perceived to be whiners for suffering less long and less hard.
I don't believe that it's tangental that this week, @TLDEF and @Andy_Marra (of GLAAD) are covering the LaTeisha Green Hate Crime Murder Trial. LaTeisha was an African-American trans woman -- her alleged killer is being accused of a hate crime because it's alleged he perceived LaTeisha as gay. (Andy, as I'm writing this piece, is reporting that the jury is in deliberations.)
I also don't believe that it's tangental that at Camp Pendleton a few weeks ago, August Provost -- an African-American and a member of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community -- was killed in what many of us perceive as a hate crime.
I guess my point is that African-American people in the LGBT community die in hate crimes, and from what I've seen on the Transgender Remembering Our Dead list from 2008, it's pretty clear that African-American trans people are recorded as being killed in larger real numbers than that of their caucasian trans counterparts.
I guess what matters to me more is that when it even just comes to down hate alone, there is significant community overlap between African-Americans and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) victims of these crimes.
I guess what also matters to me is that LGBT non-profit organizations tend to put too caucasian a face to their spokespeople when there is as much overlap between communities as there is.
So, I don't know how "black is the new gay"/"black is not the new gay" comparisons matter in a bigger picture -- unless the goal is to create or fester rancor between these communities. I don't see how pointing out who has suffered longer for civil rights, or which community's hate crime deaths are more statistically or fundamentally significant --either historically or now -- are useful in the pursuit equal treatment for all under the law. I don't believe the real point is about who suffers or suffered more, but instead about ending as much suffering as possible.
This week, I'm thinking about two African-American LGBT people who are dead in apparent hate crime murders. In the bigger picture -- at least in my mind -- it's that there is significant overlap between the African-American and LGBT communities, and that suffering and death by members of either community should probably very much be of concern to both communities...if for no other reason than sometimes those who are killed in apparent hate crime murders are members of both communities.
"The extent and nature of religious devotion in this nation is changing," said Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, a church governing body. "The tide of public opinion in favor of religion is receding, and this probably portends public pressures for laws that will impinge on religious freedom."
If the comparison were made instead compare the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints (Mormon Church) leadership to the oppressors instead of to the oppressed, I believe the comparison would have been more apt.
Folks, we at The Blend are 
a good Chili Cheese Mustard dog...but oh that fat content! 
Not a word from me. 
I'll let wiser feminists look at this piece and respond with depth.
So, defending against these lawsuits is a good use of taxpayer dollars? 
I wonder how many potholes this California city won't be filled because the Lodi City Council is spending tax dollars on defending these lawsuits.
Given this economy, it's just crazy to see what the spending priorities of this Lodi City Council actually are.
