I've made it to the initial round for favorite progressive blogger in the Air America Cruise Contest. I have to stay in the Top 5 before the second voting round begins, so your vote is appreciated! First voting round:
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.
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.
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 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.
(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
Everybody (and-their-dog's-named-Spot), it seems, has a reaction on the Prop 8 ruling. With this in mind, we've put together a "Link Farm" post with links to different organizations' response to the ruling: from LGBT non-profits and civil rights organizations to religious right/conservative "Christian" organization responses to the ruling.
The baristas will be adding to this all day. Please add responses y'all blenders find in the comments too, and we'll move many of the up to the main body of the text as we develop time. Busy news day, for sure.
Lead LGBT And Ally Organizations Responses To The Ruling
LOS ANGELES - Following the California Supreme Court's decision today to uphold Prop. 8, which stripped same-sex couples of their right to marry, Equality California (EQCA) vowed to win marriage back at the ballot box. EQCA released the following statement as well as a memo to members and allies detailing its recommendations to return to the ballot in 2010.
Statement from Marc Solomon, EQCA's Marriage Director:
"Today's ruling is a miscarriage of justice. No minority group should have to defend its right to equality at the ballot.
"Despite today's setback, Equality California is committed to restoring the freedom to marry. We believe, as do the majority of our members, that 2010 is the best time to return to the ballot to repeal Prop. 8. We must take full advantage of the momentum and commitment people now have to do the work required on the ground. However, we will make the final decision on when to return in collaboration with our coalition partners and allies throughout the state.
"We have already launched a mobilization campaign to reach more than 300,000 Californians in the next 100 days in places where we need the most movement-Los Angeles County, San Diego, Orange County, the Inland Empire, the Central Valley and Sacramento, and over the coming weeks we will expand our efforts with our partners and tens of thousands of volunteers.
"We do not underestimate the challenge of implementing a strong ballot campaign. Introducing ballot language is simple; winning an affirmative referendum on the freedom to marry will be difficult and expensive. But we have confidence that we can and will prevail.
"We look forward to working with our coalition partners to make a final decision on when to return to the ballot and to putting together one powerful, winning campaign program to ensure that committed, same-sex couples are once again able to enjoy the dignity and protections that marriage provides."
To read the entire memo detailing arguments for 2010 versus 2012, please visit www.eqca.org/2010v2012memo
Today, the California Supreme Court diminished its legacy as a champion of equality. By upholding Prop 8, an initiative that stripped the right to marry from same-sex couples in California, the Court's decision has undermined the central principle that all people are entitled to equal rights and has jeopardized every minority group in California. No minority group should have to defend its right to equality at the ballot, and the Court should not have permitted such a travesty of justice to stand.
Today's decision is dramatically out of step with where the nation is heading. After decades of struggle and hard work, we are living through an unmistakable turning point in the history of our movement. In the past few weeks alone, there has been a tidal wave of momentum in favor of equality for same-sex couples-including a unanimous decision upholding marriage equality from the Iowa Supreme Court; legislative victories in Vermont and Maine; and additional victories on the horizon in New Jersey and New York. Across the country, public opinion is shifting decisively in our favor. Five states have now embraced full marriage equality for same-sex couples, and more are expected to join that list this year. It is devastating that California is no longer one of them. But rest assured: we will be again.
As I wade through my many emotions-heartache, disappointment, grief, anger, and disbelief-one thing is clear: we will regain the freedom to marry in California. It is now up to the people of this state to restore California's national stature and once again embrace inclusion, fairness, and equality for all.
Together, we will be the first state to repeal a marriage ban at the ballot...
Today the California Supreme Court delivered a heartbreaking blow to our fight for marriage equality by upholding Proposition 8, the discriminatory ballot measure that stripped away the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. We're disappointed, angry, frustrated - but not discouraged. We've been fighting for equality in California and across the country for a long time and we're in it to win.
Although today's decision is a painful setback, we've made enormous progress. Approximately18,000 same-sex couples got married in California between our initial court victory last May and the narrow passage of Prop 8 in November - and their marriages remain valid and equal under the law. Lambda Legal, together with our co-counsel at NCLR and the ACLU, fought hard for those marriages, and today the Court agreed with us that Prop 8 did not undo them. Those couples will be the day-to-day proof in California that marriage equality strengthens families and communities without harming anyone.
We have turned the corner toward marriage equality in this country and there's no turning back. After Lambda Legal's game-changing victory in Iowa and the resounding legislative victory in Vermont, momentum shifted across the country. Next came a victory in Maine, and votes for equality in New Hampshire and the District of Columbia. Following the unanimous Iowa decision, the leaders of the state legislature declared, "When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about today's events will be why it took us so long." And I stood with political leaders in New York as Governor Paterson said "we have the wind at our backs" and announced the introduction of a marriage equality bill, emphasizing what we all know to be true: "this is a civil rights issue."
But today,our hearts and thoughts are focused on California. Lambda Legal is prepared to dig in and keep fighting. Today we are launching "Marriage Watch: California" to provide legal information and support to any same-sex married couples who face discrimination or lack of respect for their marriages in California. Information is available at www.lambdalegal.org/marriagewatch or by calling Lambda Legal's Marriage Watch Team at (213) 382-7600 ext. 300.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, responded to the California Supreme Court's split 6-1decision today ruling that Proposition 8, the narrowly approved measure which eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry, is valid. As a result of the court's decision in Strauss v. Horton, California becomes the first state in the nation to strip away marriage rights for same-sex couples. As same-sex couples and allies from across the country react to the news, HRC is releasing an online, YouTube video set to the song "I Won't Back Down": www.HRC.org/California.
"Today's ruling is a huge blow to Americans everywhere who care about equality. The court has allowed a bare majority of voters to write same-sex couples out of basic constitutional protections," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "This ruling is painful, but it represents a temporary setback. There will be a groundswell to restore marriage equality in our nation's largest state, and HRC will not give up until marriage equality is restored in California."
One significant effort already underway is a strategic partnership between HRC and California Faith for Equality (CFE), a statewide group established to educate, support and mobilize faith communities on LGBT equality. The partnership joins CFE and its 6,000 supporting faith leaders with both HRC's Religion and Faith Program expertise as well as HRC's National Field Department to broaden, diversify and deepen religious support for marriage equality in California.
"This ruling couldn't be more out of step with what's happening across the country," said Solmonese, pointing to recent marriage victories in Iowa, Vermont and Maine. "We have no choice but to return this basic question of fairness for the estimated 1 million LGBT Californians back to the voters."
"While we are relieved that the 18,000 couples who married before the Prop 8 vote will still have valid marriages, it does not in any way remove the sting of this ruling," added Solmonese.
Over the past decade, public acceptance of marriage equality for same-sex couples has changed dramatically. For the first time, more Americans say they support marriage for same-sex couples (49%) than oppose it (46%), according to the latest Washington Post/ABC poll released in late April...
Statement by Rea Carey, Executive Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
"This is a day of immensely conflicted feelings. We are profoundly disappointed the court has upheld Proposition 8. Banning the fundamental freedom to marry for same-sex couples is unfair, unjust and flies in the face of progress occurring throughout the country, from the Iowa heartland to the rocky shores of Maine. That California is taking a step backward at this moment in history is disconcertingly out of step with society's growing support for equality, and personally painful to committed couples who will be blocked from marrying in California. It is a travesty that the court has, for the first time in California history, permitted a simple majority to use the initiative process to strip a fundamental right from a minority group.
"We are pleased, however, for the more than 18,000 same-sex couples who legally married before the ban took effect and will see those marriages remain intact. But there is no getting around the fact that stripping basic freedoms from people by majority vote is cruel and morally wrong. As long as Proposition 8 remains in effect, untold numbers of same-sex couples will be relegated to second-class status. We refuse to settle for this inequity, and are committed to working with our partners in California to eradicate this terrible injustice and achieve full equality."
[Below the fold are links to more ruling reactions, including religious right/conservative "Christian" organizational reactions.]
From Autumn -- this is the split decision most of us expected. Proposition 8 was upheld, but the 18,000 weddings performed last year before the initiative was repealed will stand.
In summary, we conclude that Proposition 8 constitutes a permissible constitutional amendment (rather than an impermissible constitutional revision), does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and is not invalid under the "inalienable rights" theory proffered by the Attorney General. We further conclude that Proposition 8 does not apply retroactively and therefore that the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid. Having determined that none of the constitutional challenges to the adoption of Proposition 8 have merit, we observe that if there is to be a change to the state constitutional rule embodied in that measure, it must "find its expression at the ballot box." (In re Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, 884 (conc. & dis. opn. of Corrigan, J.); see also id. at pp. 861, 878 (conc. & dis. opn. of Baxter, J.).)
The New York Times and Washington Post are reporting that Sonia Sotomayor - a Hispanic, Catholic, female appellate court judge - is going to be the Obama Administration pick for the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The official announcement will come at 10:15AM EDT (7:15AM PDT).
At 10:00AM PDT (1:00PM EDT), the California Supreme Court is going to rule on the Prop 8 challenge.
Two Questions:
• Do you think the timing of this Supreme Court pick is designed to coincide with the California Supreme Court ruling? This will definitely force Republicans to discuss gay marriage and other social issues that will no doubt further their party image as one that seeks to divide America over social issues. (Am I being too cynical?)
• Do you think we'll get an official Obama Administration statement on the Prop 8 ruling? We didn't get statements on other recent events related to same gender marriage/marriage equality rulings and votes -- Do you think because of the Supreme Court pick (a focus on the law day) that the administration will have to respond, or do you think they'll just try to keep quiet?
Update (from Autumn): Above the fold, copy of the notice. Below the fold: Statement by the National Center For Lesbian Rights (NCLR) -- one of the LGBT Civil Rights organizations that argued this case before the California Supreme Court.
Please select the graphics to see source documents.
According to the California Supreme Court website, the decision will be issued at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 26th. Further details here (pdf).
Click here to find a Day of Decision event near you. (thx Karen! :)
The Supreme Court has indicated that the filing of a written opinion in the following case(s) is forthcoming. At the filing time designated below, the filed opinion(s) will be accessible at the judicial branch web site (www.courtinfo.ca.gov) and copies will be made available at the Supreme Court Clerk's Office.
[Generally, the description set out with regard to each case is reproduced from the original news release issued when review in the matter was granted, and is provided for the convenience of the public and the press. The description does not necessarily reflect the view of the court, or define the specific issues that will be addressed by the court.]
STRAUSS et al. v. HORTON (HOLLINGSWORTH et al, Interveners)
S168047
TYLER et al. v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al. (HOLLINGSWORTH et al, Interveners)
S168066
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al. v. HORTON (HOLLINGSWORTH et al. , Interveners)
S168078
Argued in San Francisco 3-05-09
The court issued an order to show cause in Strauss, Tyler, and City and County of San Francisco directing the parties to brief and argue the following issues: (1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, ยงยง 1-4.) (2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution? (3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?
Update: Californians Aganist Hate responded with a press to news in the San Diego Union Tribune article linked to in this diary. Images to the press release, linked to a PDF of the press release, are below the fold.
Oh, I can't wait until Peter LaBarbera and Matt "Bam-Bam" Barber get a hold of this story.
From the San Diego Union Tribune's Boycotted hotelier woos gays, regarding how hotelier Doug Manchester is now responding to the boycott:
Manchester brushed [the boycott] off at first, but he seems to feel otherwise now:
His plan - which his people warned this newspaper against publishing, even after a Hyatt representative discussed it - is to give $25,000 to a national organization that promotes civil unions and domestic partnerships.
Manchester also is considering offering $100,000 in hotel credit to local gay and lesbian organizations so they can use the Grand Hyatt for events such as fundraisers.
The $125,000 total matches what he gave to Proposition 8. So it would be even-steven
(I reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally recommend reading this who article -- it even contains a warning to the U-T reporter from the Doug Manchester camp about not publishing on this possible balancing action by Mr. Manchester.)
My guess is that if the California Supreme Court affirms Prop 8 and marriage inequality is affirmed, there will be a new proposition in 2010. And if there's a new proposition to repeal Prop 8, the financial retribution people like Doug Manchester's experienced is going to put a damper on donations to any No On Prop ___ Campaign arising against a proposition repeal Prop 8.
Strike this one up to Lessons Learned about LGBT people's pink dollar buying habits -- we reward companies that support LGBT civil rights and LGBT equality by spending our money on their products and services, and withhold pink dollars from companies that actively work against LGBT civil rights and LGBT equality.
Autumn Sandeen: So, tonight we're at the LGBT Center in San Diego -- our community center here -- and we just got done with a town hall. And, you were the first speaker, and you're also were talking about the legal case. Can you briefly summarize what you talked about regarding Prop 8?
Kate Kendell: Sure, I'd be happy too. Y'know, we shouldn't be in this situation, and that's the main point that I want to make. And in addition to that we are very hopeful that the court will have the courage of its convictions and do the right thing. But, we shouldn't even be here.
It is an absurd circumstance that a majority would be able, right in the wake of a magnificent, landmark, court ruling, be able to put the fundamental rights of a minority group on the ballot -- for popular vote! And, if we look at any other historic landmark ruling from any court, that's never happened. And, it doesn't happen for a reason, because courts play a role -- they're equal; they're an equal branch of government, and they get to interpret the constitution.
And sometimes the voters, or the people, may not like the way the courts rule. Brown vs. Board of Education, Roe vs. Wade, women rights issues -- but these cases stand, and they move us forward. And, we look back and we're with pride because our country came farther because courts played their traditional role.
But here, the courts' ruling was immediately put up for a vote. Prop 8 was already in the offing...
Autumn Sandeen: Right.
Kate Kendell: ...Prop 8 was already going to be on the ballot. But now, the stakes were so much higher! Because, a fundamental right had been granted and recognized for us.
Autumn Sandeen: And, as you were saying, if we'd have put Brown vs. Board of Education, or we'd have put any -- geez -- any civil rights ruling right after they happened, and put them up for a popular vote...
Kate Kendell: That's right.
Autumn Sandeen: ...they would have been repealed.
Kate Kendell: Yep. And sometimes the majority -- it's not that the majority...We think of the majority as this bad thing. Y'know, sometimes people don't like change, and they are uncomfortable with change. And, so they immediately have a knee jerk reaction -- it's a human impulse, we all have it. It's why we don't usually allow voters to vote on a landmark ruling from a Supreme Court -- a state Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.
So, we shouldn't be in this situation at all, but we are.
And, we now we wait for a ruling in the challenge to Prop 8. We are asking the Court to do something very simple, and actually pretty narrow -- and not particularly remarkable. We're asking them to simply say if you are faced with a measure that takes away a fundamental right from a protected minority group, you cannot do that through a simple amendment process. You have to go through the more deliberative process of a constitutional revision. Also, a method that is part of the California Constitution.
I hope that the court will protect it's own ruling; protect its legacy; protect its role as a protector of minority interests...
Autumn Sandeen: As do we all.
Kate Kendell: And, save us from a future where the voters can do anything they wanted to any minority group in California. And if Prop 8 is upheld, there will be nothing that we can do about it. So, we're keeping our fingers crossed...And say whatever to prayer you say to whatever to whoever you say it to if you do, and hoping that justice is ultimately done.
There's more to the interview...of course I recommend watching the entire interview.
It always amazes me -- and I do really mean always -- that when I tell folk that trans people work for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) causes, many don't believe me. Many of these folk seem to become the Show Me state residents, asking me to name trans people who serve the broader LGBT community.
Well, for those who need the show me thing, here's a name you should learn: Shannon Minter. From Teh YouTubes description of an interview I did with Mr. Minter at the California Transgender Leadership Summit:
Shannon Minter works at the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR). He has been the lead attorney in the combined marriage cases that led to California's legalization of same gender marriages back in spring of 2008. That ruling was overturned with the passage of California's Proposition 8 in November 2008.
Early in 2009, Shannon Minter was again in front of the California Supreme Court, this time arguing that Proposition 8 should be struck down as unconstitutional, per the California Constitution.
Shannon Minter was at the California Transgender Leadership Summit giving one of the keynote addresses, speaking to the state of transgender civil rights in the state. In the interview with Pam's House Blend's transgender new media reporter Autumn Sandeen, he speaks about his talk to summit attendees, about marriage equality, and about Proposition 8.
And one of the first things you hear in the interview:
Autumn Sandeen: ...Well first of all, most people are not aware -- I'm always surprised when I mention it on Pam's House Blend -- they don't know you're an F-to-M that's been working on marriage equality in California -- You want to explain what you're doing, and why you're doing it?
Shannon Minter: Sure! I am a transgender man. I transitioned from female-to-male while I was on the job while working for National Center for Lesbian Rights -- I've been there for 15 years, and love the organization. I adore NCLR; I love our executive director Kate Kendall who has been my boss for a long time now. And, she's a great visionary leader.
And, because of my role at NCLR, I had the chance to be the lead attorney for same sex couples on the California Marriage Case, which was the honor and privilege of a lifetime. So exciting to be part of that case, and have a chance to argue on behalf of gay and lesbian couples, and bisexual individuals in same sex relationships before the California Supreme Court. It was wonderful -- I was so excited when we won.
Like everyone else, just heartbroken by the narrow loss on Prop 8...
There's more of the text of the interview below the fold -- Shannon Minter's take on what should happen with the Prop 8 challenge, and (since this interview was at the California Transgender Leadership Conference) how marriage equality effects trans people.
From John Wright at the Dallas Voice, quoting the executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Kate Kendell, on her assessment for the chances of the California Supreme Court Prop 8 challenge being successful (emphasis added):
A veteran civil rights attorney who's closely involved with the case told Dallas Voice this week she thinks there's a 98 percent chance the California Supreme Court will uphold Proposition 8, the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.
"We're going to lose," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, one of the organizations that filed the lawsuit challenging Prop 8.
"I think it was very clear from the oral arguments that the court intends to uphold Prop 8," Kendell added. "I've never seen a court so unequivocally telegraph their thinking."
It's a stark assessment. I hope she's wrong on this, but since she's in the know -- I doubt she's wrong.
This has been in the back of my mind for a while now, so I'm just gonna go ahead and say it: If the California Supreme Court upholds proposition 8, it will signify nothing less than the death of civil rights in this country.
Think I'm wrong? Well, which of these folks do you want voting on your civil rights?
I'll keep this short and hope it gets to the main page. The Guardian website posted the most wonderful series of video diaries made by gay couples in California, describing their lives, families, trials, tribulations and love. Also their responses to the passage of Proposition 8 and the effect that it has had on their marriages.
In the course of reading through Fred's docs, one name in particular caught my attention: Debi Hartmann. Could this be the same Mormon mom whom I'd recently seen speaking in support of her Local 5 union and its affirmative stance re marriage rights for all? Indeed it was, and here's Debi making her case around the 4:25 mark:
Local same-sex couples will request marriage licenses at the County Clerk's Office on National Freedom to Marry Day, as part of a planned action co-sponsored by Marriage Equality USA San Diego (MEUSASD) and the San Diego Equality Campaign (SDEC).
We'll, not exactly.
Meet San Diego's genderqueer couple who were the only San Diego couple to take vows in front of the San Diego County Administration Building complex this morning as part of the National Freedom to Marry Day -- Missy Luber and Connor Green.
Missy identifies by male, female, and gender neutral pronouns. Ze and partner Connor Green (Connor identifying as male, and "somewhere between transgender and genderqueer") recently moved from the Pacific Northwest down to San Diego, and decided to participate in San Diego's National Freedom to Marry Day event by attempting to obtain a marriage license from the San Diego County Clerk. As expected, their licence request was turned down as a result of Proposition 8.
But, Missy and Connor decided to have a ceremony on the courthouse steps anyway. The ceremony officiant was Sara Beth Brooks, the Executive Chair of the San Diego Equality Campaign. Sara Beth publicly identifies as a bisexual.
Many of us tend to believe that same sex marriage is just an issue reserved for the lesbian and gay subcommunities of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. This really isn't true. Not only do bisexual and transgender people work towards marriage equality for lesbian and gay people, but they work on marriage equality issues for themselves as well.
We need to remember that bisexual people often would like to marry their same sex partners, as well as that a significant portion of people who identify as transsexual, genderqueer, and/or transgender want to marry partners that their home state considers a same sex partner.
During this Marriage Equality Week, take a moment to consider -- to remember -- marriage equality is more than just a lesbian and gay issue. Marriage equality is an issue that applies to the entire, broad LGBT community, and sometimes the people who are in the front of the room fighting for marriage equality aren't lesbian and gay people, but they are often still LGBT community people -- such as was the case here in San Diego today.
Bill Clinton, can speak wherever and whenever he wants. But here is another example of our disappointment with him, as he is scheduled to speak this Sunday and the San Diego Manchester Hyatt. This hotel has been a boycott target of LGBT Rights oranizers, because they gave $125,000 to the Yes on H8 campaign.
In addition there are Labor and Immigration groups boycotting because the owner has been forcing harsh working conditions on housekeepers there.
Yet, despite the boycott and his own admitted opposition to Prop H8-- the former president is still scheduled to deliver remarks before the International Manufacturing Association this weekend.
A coalition of advocates, including Rick Jacobs (Courage Campaign), Fred Karger (Californians Against Hate), Cleve Jones (Founder of the NAMES Project/AIDS Memorial Quilt)...
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.
