Equality California released its findings and recommendations favoring a new electoral battle in the year 2012. Here is a copy of their report: Winning Back Marriage Equality in California - Analysis and Plan
Meanwhile the Courage Campaign also based in California proceeded with its plans for achieving marriage in 2010. The Advocate.com reports that: "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."
Showing posts with label Prop 8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prop 8. Show all posts
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Gay Marriage and the Constitution
Why Ted Olson and I are working to overturn California's Proposition 8.
By David Boies
Wall Street Journal - 7.20.2009
When I got married in California in 1959 there were almost 20 states where marriage was limited to two people of different sexes and the same race. Eight years later the Supreme Court unanimously declared state bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional.
Recently, Ted Olson and I brought a lawsuit asking the courts to now declare unconstitutional California's Proposition 8 limitation of marriage to people of the opposite sex. We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it. In 1978 the Court (8 to 1, Zablocki v. Redhail) overturned as unconstitutional a Wisconsin law preventing child-support scofflaws from getting married. The Court emphasized, "decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals." In 1987 the Supreme Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying.
There were legitimate state policies that supported the Wisconsin and Missouri restrictions held unconstitutional. By contrast, there is no legitimate state policy underlying Proposition 8. The occasional suggestion that marriages between people of different sexes may somehow be threatened by marriages of people of the same sex does not withstand discussion. It is difficult to the point of impossibility to envision two love-struck heterosexuals contemplating marriage to decide against it because gays and lesbians also have the right to marry; it is equally hard to envision a couple whose marriage is troubled basing the decision of whether to divorce on whether their gay neighbors are married or living in a domestic partnership. And even if depriving lesbians of the right to marry each other could force them into marrying someone they do not love but who happens to be of the opposite sex, it is impossible to see how that could be thought to be as likely to lead to a stable, loving relationship as a marriage to the person they do love.
Moreover, there is no longer any credible contention that depriving gays and lesbians of basic rights will cause them to change their sexual orientation. Even if there was, the attempt would be constitutionally defective. But, in fact, the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin or the sexual orientation of their straight brothers and sisters. It is also a condition that, like race, has historically been subject to abusive and often violent discrimination. It is precisely where a minority's basic human rights are abridged that our Constitution's promise of due process and equal protection is most vital.Countries as Catholic as Spain, as different as Sweden and South Africa, and as near as Canada have embraced gay and lesbian marriage without any noticeable effect -- except the increase in human happiness and social stability that comes from permitting people to marry for love. Several states -- including Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont -- have individually repealed their bans on same-sex marriage as inconsistent with a decent respect for human rights and a rational view of the communal value of marriage for all individuals. But basic constitutional rights cannot depend on the willingness of the electorate in any given state to end discrimination. If we were prepared to consign minority rights to a majority vote, there would be no need for a constitution.
The ban on same-sex marriages written into the California Constitution by a 52% vote in favor of Proposition 8 is the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay-bashing. California allows same-sex domestic partnerships that, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court, provide virtually all of the economic rights of marriage. So the ban on permitting gay and lesbian couples to actually marry is simply an attempt by the state to stigmatize a segment of its population that commits no offense other than falling in love with a disapproved partner, and asks no more of the state than to be treated equally with all other citizens. In 2003 the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas held that states could not constitutionally outlaw consensual homosexual activity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy elegantly wrote rejecting the notion that a history of discrimination might trump constitutional rights, "Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."
There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law.
Gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters, our teachers and doctors, our friends and neighbors, our parents and children. It is time, indeed past time, that we accord them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It is time, indeed past time, that our Constitution fulfill its promise of equal protection and due process for all citizens by now eliminating the last remnant of centuries of misguided state discrimination against gays and lesbians.
The argument in favor of Proposition 8 ultimately comes down to no more than the tautological assertion that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But a slogan is not a substitute for constitutional analysis. Law is about justice, not bumper stickers.
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Why Ted Olson and I are working to overturn California's Proposition 8.
By David Boies
Wall Street Journal - 7.20.2009
When I got married in California in 1959 there were almost 20 states where marriage was limited to two people of different sexes and the same race. Eight years later the Supreme Court unanimously declared state bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional.
Recently, Ted Olson and I brought a lawsuit asking the courts to now declare unconstitutional California's Proposition 8 limitation of marriage to people of the opposite sex. We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it. In 1978 the Court (8 to 1, Zablocki v. Redhail) overturned as unconstitutional a Wisconsin law preventing child-support scofflaws from getting married. The Court emphasized, "decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals." In 1987 the Supreme Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying.
There were legitimate state policies that supported the Wisconsin and Missouri restrictions held unconstitutional. By contrast, there is no legitimate state policy underlying Proposition 8. The occasional suggestion that marriages between people of different sexes may somehow be threatened by marriages of people of the same sex does not withstand discussion. It is difficult to the point of impossibility to envision two love-struck heterosexuals contemplating marriage to decide against it because gays and lesbians also have the right to marry; it is equally hard to envision a couple whose marriage is troubled basing the decision of whether to divorce on whether their gay neighbors are married or living in a domestic partnership. And even if depriving lesbians of the right to marry each other could force them into marrying someone they do not love but who happens to be of the opposite sex, it is impossible to see how that could be thought to be as likely to lead to a stable, loving relationship as a marriage to the person they do love.
Moreover, there is no longer any credible contention that depriving gays and lesbians of basic rights will cause them to change their sexual orientation. Even if there was, the attempt would be constitutionally defective. But, in fact, the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin or the sexual orientation of their straight brothers and sisters. It is also a condition that, like race, has historically been subject to abusive and often violent discrimination. It is precisely where a minority's basic human rights are abridged that our Constitution's promise of due process and equal protection is most vital.Countries as Catholic as Spain, as different as Sweden and South Africa, and as near as Canada have embraced gay and lesbian marriage without any noticeable effect -- except the increase in human happiness and social stability that comes from permitting people to marry for love. Several states -- including Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont -- have individually repealed their bans on same-sex marriage as inconsistent with a decent respect for human rights and a rational view of the communal value of marriage for all individuals. But basic constitutional rights cannot depend on the willingness of the electorate in any given state to end discrimination. If we were prepared to consign minority rights to a majority vote, there would be no need for a constitution.
The ban on same-sex marriages written into the California Constitution by a 52% vote in favor of Proposition 8 is the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay-bashing. California allows same-sex domestic partnerships that, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court, provide virtually all of the economic rights of marriage. So the ban on permitting gay and lesbian couples to actually marry is simply an attempt by the state to stigmatize a segment of its population that commits no offense other than falling in love with a disapproved partner, and asks no more of the state than to be treated equally with all other citizens. In 2003 the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas held that states could not constitutionally outlaw consensual homosexual activity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy elegantly wrote rejecting the notion that a history of discrimination might trump constitutional rights, "Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."
There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law.
Gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters, our teachers and doctors, our friends and neighbors, our parents and children. It is time, indeed past time, that we accord them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It is time, indeed past time, that our Constitution fulfill its promise of equal protection and due process for all citizens by now eliminating the last remnant of centuries of misguided state discrimination against gays and lesbians.
The argument in favor of Proposition 8 ultimately comes down to no more than the tautological assertion that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But a slogan is not a substitute for constitutional analysis. Law is about justice, not bumper stickers.
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Friday, December 12, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Run a CounterAd NOW!
Let HRC & GLADD pay 
Last Friday the Mormon Church took out a full page advertisement in the New York Times criticizing Post-Prop 8 protests held recently throughout the country. In response to the ad, Human Rights Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation urged supporters to write letters to the New York Times. Activist Peter Staley (POZ/AIDSMEDS.com) correctly faults that response as inadequate. He calls for HRC/GLADD to put its money where its mouth is and stand up for the community.
see details
http://blogs.poz.com/peter/archives/2008/12/hrc_defend_the.html
hattip: http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/
Last Friday the Mormon Church took out a full page advertisement in the New York Times criticizing Post-Prop 8 protests held recently throughout the country. In response to the ad, Human Rights Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation urged supporters to write letters to the New York Times. Activist Peter Staley (POZ/AIDSMEDS.com) correctly faults that response as inadequate. He calls for HRC/GLADD to put its money where its mouth is and stand up for the community.see details
http://blogs.poz.com/peter/archives/2008/12/hrc_defend_the.html
hattip: http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/
Friday, December 5, 2008
The Mormon Church Plays Victim
In today's New York Times, the Mormon church published an ad entitled 'No Mob Veto.'
The continuing assault on the civil rights and liberties of members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer community is the true outrage!
The continuing assault on the civil rights and liberties of members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer community is the true outrage!
Worthy Post-Prop 8 Commentary
365gay.com columnist John Covino makes the point that "California is NOT the first place where straight voters have taken away gay people’s rights" and continues with excellent commentary in the aftermath of the Prop 8 loss in the Golden State.http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-gay-rights-beyond-california/
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Top Court to Hear Prop 8 Challenge in California
The California Supreme Court announced on November 19, 2008 that it will review the Prop 8 challenge brought by Lambda Legal, NCLR, ACLU and others. This is exciting news!
In an order issued today, the Court agreed to hear the case and set an expedited briefing schedule. The Court also denied an immediate stay.
On November 5, 2008, Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court on behalf of six individuals and Equality California. The City of San Francisco, joined by the City of Los Angeles and Santa Clara County, filed a similar challenge, as did a private attorney in Los Angeles.
In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and violates the fundamental right to marry. Proposition 8 would completely eliminate the right to marry only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group.
Over the past 100 years, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging either legislative enactments or initiatives as invalid revisions of the California Constitution. In three of those cases, the Court invalidated those measures.
The LGBTQ Community has turned disappointment over the passage of Prop 8 and other antigay initiatives in Florida, Arizona and Arkansas into resolve.
Hat Tip: Lambda Legal
In an order issued today, the Court agreed to hear the case and set an expedited briefing schedule. The Court also denied an immediate stay.
On November 5, 2008, Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court on behalf of six individuals and Equality California. The City of San Francisco, joined by the City of Los Angeles and Santa Clara County, filed a similar challenge, as did a private attorney in Los Angeles.
In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and violates the fundamental right to marry. Proposition 8 would completely eliminate the right to marry only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group.
Over the past 100 years, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging either legislative enactments or initiatives as invalid revisions of the California Constitution. In three of those cases, the Court invalidated those measures.
The LGBTQ Community has turned disappointment over the passage of Prop 8 and other antigay initiatives in Florida, Arizona and Arkansas into resolve.
Hat Tip: Lambda Legal
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Next Steps for LGBT Civil Rights
By CHRISTINE C. QUINN
The Huffington Post
November 18, 2008
Since Election Day, I, like many LGBT Americans and their allies, have felt torn in two. On November 4th I was overjoyed to see Barack Obama become President-elect of the United States, and incredibly proud that the LGBT community played a central role in his victory. I was full of optimism at the prospect of a real ally in the White House, a president who has mentioned and credited the LGBT community in every major political speech he has given since 2004.
But then I woke on November 5th, to discover that hope and change were not coming to all Americans. Amendment 2 in Florida, Proposition 102 in Arizona and Proposition 8 in California had all passed, denying civil rights to thousands of LGBT families.
And I found myself asking: How could our nation embrace a movement for change, while three of its states voted to reject the rights of an entire group of Americans? Could this be real? And what did this mean for the future of our LGBT community?
I've carried that last question with me for the past two weeks. And on Wednesday and Saturday I got my answer, when I participated in two rallies that responded to this injustice.
Neither event was organized by established, well-funded institutions. They were fueled by modern day grassroots efforts. Thousands came together through word of mouth, text messages from a friend, or internet organizing. They were joined together as a community by a desire for justice and equality.
On Saturday, when I took the stage at a rally outside City Hall, the crowd stretched so far that you couldn't see the end. It took my breath away. The number and dedication of those gathered rivaled any demonstration I've seen in recent history.
I started to look at the faces in the crowd. It almost moved me to tears when I saw the looks in their eyes -- their smiles, their energy and optimism. They were not defeated; they were empowered, fueled by the possibility and the wonder of equality.
Of course people are angry -- I myself am angry. But what is significant today is that our community has taken an anger that might have turned to bitterness, and molded it instead into strength and action. We need to take this strength to our state capitals, and tell them that we are full citizens and deserve to have full and equal rights under the law.
The LGBT community's future is one of immeasurable possibility. It's bright and bold, strong and hopeful, and as limitless as freedom itself. Our community knows that our country is supposed to be the land of the free, where one can engage in the pursuit of happiness. On Saturday we once again demonstrated that we are committed to making it so!
By CHRISTINE C. QUINN
The Huffington Post
November 18, 2008
Since Election Day, I, like many LGBT Americans and their allies, have felt torn in two. On November 4th I was overjoyed to see Barack Obama become President-elect of the United States, and incredibly proud that the LGBT community played a central role in his victory. I was full of optimism at the prospect of a real ally in the White House, a president who has mentioned and credited the LGBT community in every major political speech he has given since 2004.
But then I woke on November 5th, to discover that hope and change were not coming to all Americans. Amendment 2 in Florida, Proposition 102 in Arizona and Proposition 8 in California had all passed, denying civil rights to thousands of LGBT families.
And I found myself asking: How could our nation embrace a movement for change, while three of its states voted to reject the rights of an entire group of Americans? Could this be real? And what did this mean for the future of our LGBT community?
I've carried that last question with me for the past two weeks. And on Wednesday and Saturday I got my answer, when I participated in two rallies that responded to this injustice.
Neither event was organized by established, well-funded institutions. They were fueled by modern day grassroots efforts. Thousands came together through word of mouth, text messages from a friend, or internet organizing. They were joined together as a community by a desire for justice and equality.
On Saturday, when I took the stage at a rally outside City Hall, the crowd stretched so far that you couldn't see the end. It took my breath away. The number and dedication of those gathered rivaled any demonstration I've seen in recent history.
I started to look at the faces in the crowd. It almost moved me to tears when I saw the looks in their eyes -- their smiles, their energy and optimism. They were not defeated; they were empowered, fueled by the possibility and the wonder of equality.
Of course people are angry -- I myself am angry. But what is significant today is that our community has taken an anger that might have turned to bitterness, and molded it instead into strength and action. We need to take this strength to our state capitals, and tell them that we are full citizens and deserve to have full and equal rights under the law.
The LGBT community's future is one of immeasurable possibility. It's bright and bold, strong and hopeful, and as limitless as freedom itself. Our community knows that our country is supposed to be the land of the free, where one can engage in the pursuit of happiness. On Saturday we once again demonstrated that we are committed to making it so!
Prop 8 Backlash Hits NYC Mormon Temple
10,000 March in Midtown Amidst Cal Vote Post-Mortems
By: ANDY HUMM
Gay City News
11/12/2008
No speeches. No leaders. But lots of anger.
Mobilized through social networking sites, an estimated 10,000 people turned out Wednesday night at the Mormon Temple near Lincoln Center in New York to protest the passage of the California amendment eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry and the fact that most of the money for the Yes on Prop 8 campaign came from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - the Mormons.
Gathering at 6:30 p.m. at West 65th and Columbus, the site of the temple, the crowd soon marched down Broadway behind a huge white banner saying "GOD LOVES GAY MARRIAGE" made by Gilbert Baker, creator of the Rainbow Flag 30 years ago.
Corey Johnson, one of the key organizers with Mike Signorile and Ann Northrop, said the turnout "was a tremendous outpouring of grassroots energy and support." He hoped that energy can be harnessed to win marriage equality in New York.
Signorile said, "It's about a right that was taken away, not just marriage." He wants those energized to demand all of our civil rights and that Mormon-owned companies such as Marriott "stop giving money to the Church."
Civil rights attorney Norman Siegel said, "The spirit of ACT UP is in the air."
Ben Shepard, a teacher and activist there with his daughter, Dorothea Imogene, 5, said it reminded him of the demonstration here after the killing of Matthew Shepard in October 1998, though that one turned chaotic after police tried to break it up. This march was peaceful.
"Tax the Mormon Church," the predominately male crowd chanted. "The Church of Latter Day H8te," a sign read.
Timothy Jordan, 18, said, "I just want to get married myself." He was there with friends Ivy Williams, 18, and Jellani Britton, 17, all from Safe Space, a group that serves at-risk youth.
Lavi Soloway, an activist and immigration lawyer there with his baby daughter Lily, is moving to Los Angeles and had hoped to get married. He knows he may have to settle for a domestic partnership there now.
State Senator Bill Perkins, a Harlem Democrat, along with City Council Speaker Christine Quinn among the few politicians spotted, was an early supporter of President-elect Barack Obama. "I believe in transformation," he said, adding that the Legislature in Albany will pass a marriage equality bill despite the obstruction of his colleague, Ruben Diaz, Sr., a Bronx Democrat (see "State Senate Control Iffy," in this issue).
The next stop for activists in New York is City Hall on Saturday, at 1:30 p.m.
This week's actions here are the latest in a nationwide wave of protests that followed the five percentage-point victory that anti-gay forces won in California on November 4 - despite a $35 million No on 8 campaign that matched the Yes effort.
In addition to the protests, however, there has also been an outburst of recrimination and defense over the way the No on 8 side waged its battle.
Those looking for a silver lining in Prop 8's win point out that in 2000, California voters approved a statute banning same-sex marriage by a 22-point margin. Still, the referendum seemed safely on the way to defeat as recently as early October. Mark DiCamillo, director of the respected Field Poll, wrote that the trend in his poll and that of the Public Policy Institute of California showed an increasingly narrow spread as Election Day neared. In August, before TV ads on the issue began, Field had Prop 8 losing 55-38 percent. By late October, the No side was still leading 49-44 percent.
The biggest last minute change in how people polled and how they voted, DiCamillo wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle, was among Catholics, who are about 24 of the electorate and whom late polls showed going 44 percent for the measure.
"However," he wrote, "the network polls showed that they accounted for 30 percent of the California electorate and 64 percent of them voted 'yes.' Regular churchgoers showed a similar movement toward the 'yes' side," growing from 74 percent yes in a pre-election poll to 84 percent yes in the exit poll.
Notably, the pre-election poll showed that 58 percent of Catholics understood that voting yes would not take away the full domestic partner rights that gay couples enjoyed before the court ruling "versus 47 percent among non-Catholics." Many Catholics seem to have been swayed by a letter from their bishops read from most pulpits on the Sunday before the vote.
While that may explain whose votes were moved and why, it does not offer a fuller view of the No campaign's failure to be more effective. The gay blogosphere was full of reproaches for a campaign that almost entirely refused to feature gays or lesbians or appeal to emotions the way the Yes side did, but the invariable answer from No on 8 leaders during and after the battle was, "We know what we're doing." They insisted their ads were focus-group and field tested and that they worked with the voters that they needed to win over.
Mark Monford, columnist at the Chronicle, called the response of the No side to the attack ads by the Yes people "utterly limp," writing, "As one of my politically savvy Chronicle colleagues put it, 'No on 8 was a bad campaign. Bad, bad, bad. Inept, amateurish, incompetent, and, above all, guilty of committing the first and worst sin of politics: taking the voters for granted."
The only direct appeal from a lesbian or gay person in a TV ad was from Ellen DeGeneres, who paid for airing it herself.
A reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog wrote that he or she worked on both No on 8 and the Obama campaign: "One was top-down, the other bottom-up. Ironically, it was the presidential campaign that was a grassroots model, not the state-level proposition campaign. As soon as I started working for the No on 8 campaign, I was amazed at the level of scripting: 'Don't say "civil rights," don't say "constitution," don't say "gay."' I couldn't believe it."
A source within the campaign confirmed for Gay City News that it was indeed a top-down operation and that its leaders got a lot of complaints about that from volunteers. "We did a really shitty job with our ads," the highly placed source said. "We should have had couples or families. Our ads were too abstract. People couldn't connect to them, unlike those of the opposition."
The Yes ads may have been lies - about churches being persecuted for not marrying gays and children being taught about gay marriage in elementary school -but they were effective. Even Barbara Walters on "The View" was repeating the Yes on 8 lies after the election, essentially saying that a Yes vote was understandable.
The right wing was also successful in exploiting Barack Obama's opposition to same-sex marriage in mailers and robo-calls, particularly in the African-American community. The No side responded with their own robo-calls citing Obama's opposition to Prop 8, but calls using his and Joe Biden's clear and early comments opposing Prop 8 went out only during the last weekend.
Some opponents of Prop 8, including sex columnist Dan Savage, aggressively seized on an exit poll that found 70 percent of African Americans voting for it, igniting a furious dialogue over race in the community. The morning after the election, he wrote, "I'm done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there - and they're out there, and I think they're scum - are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color."
Savage failed to note the critical role African Americans played in electing Obama - whose future judicial picks are the only hope for ever overturning all the anti-gay marriage measures in place across America - and he and others also ignored the fact that the largest harvest of Yes votes came from older people, Republicans, and churchgoers in general.
The leaders of the No side acknowledged that they did not make a serious outreach to the African-American community and did not feature blacks in their ads. After the campaign they wrote, "We achieve nothing if we isolate the people who did not stand with us in this fight. We only further divide our state if we attempt to blame people of faith, African-American voters, rural communities, and others for this loss."
Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, was credited with being a fantastic fundraiser, matching the right wing dollar for dollar- at least toward the end - in what became the most expensive state initiative campaign in US history.
Most of the Yes money - in excess of $22 million of it - was raised from Mormons and their temples late last week quickly became the target of street protests, mostly generated through the Internet, across California. There have been so many protests that gay journalist Rex Wockner dubbed them "Stonewall 2.0" as well as "Activism 4.0" because of the manner in which they have been quickly organized.
Three thousand LGBT people and their supporters demonstrated in Salt Lake City. Hundreds marched in Chicago. In Delta Township, Michigan, a militant gay group called Bash Back took responsibility for disrupting a service on Sunday at the Mount Hope Church.
And back in California, three lawsuits have already been filed to overturn Prop 8, making the argument that it constituted a wholesale "revision" of the California Constitution - not merely an amendment - requiring a two-thirds majority of the Legislature before going to the voters (see Arthur S. Leonard's legal analysis on page 6). Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who opposed the amendment but refused to campaign against it, supports the legal challenges.
"[Gay people] should never give up," he told CNN. "They should be on it until they get it done." Attorney General Jerry Brown said before the amendment passed that it would not apply to same-sex couples already married in California, an assessment the governor shares. James Esseks, veteran litigation director of the LGBT Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, agreed that the amendment was not retroactive, but the plain language of it says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The validity of existing same-sex marriages is sure to be contested and legal opinions vary, even among gay legal scholars.
If Prop 8 is upheld by the California courts, it can be overturned by a contravening amendment, which could be brought forward by the Legislature and governor, bypassing the laborious signature collection process. There have been calls to start down this path immediately, but most proponents of same-sex marriage are cautioning about going back to the voters too soon.
Meanwhile, the right wing, flush from its West Coast victory, knows what it is going to do next. With the legislatures of New York and New Jersey judged the most likely to move affirmatively on marriage equality, Christian right leaders have announced plans to head east pronto. They also pledge to make a cottage industry out of their win last week in Arkansas, where gays, along with any other unmarried couples, are now barred from adopting or even serving as foster parents. Pity the children, indeed.
Photo credit - Jefferson Siegel - Gay City News
©GayCityNews 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Prop 8 Protest in New York Announced
Following up on the protests in California and beyond, next Wednesday there will be a protest at the Mormon Temple in Manhatttan:
Tens of thousands of our brothers and sisters are in the streets in California and Salt Lake City and around the country protesting the votes banning same-sex marriage in California.Join them! Make your voices heard right here in New York City.We will tell the Mormon Church how we feel about its relentless campaign to condemn and control our lives. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was, by far, the biggest financer of California's heinous and hatefulProposition 8. The Mormon Church begged their members to donate money to Prop 8,pouring 20 million dollars into the campaign. And their attacks on us didn't start there and aren'tabout to end. They're plotting right now to bring their money and influence to bear against the LGBT community everywhere in this country, including trying to prevent marriage equality in New York.Join us in speaking out against Mormon hate! Stop them taking away your rights! Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Time: 6:30pm - 8:00pm
Location: New York Manhattan Mormon Temple
Street: 125 Columbus Ave at 65th StreetCity/Town: New York, NY
Hat Tip: The Gist - Michelangelo Signorile
http://www.signorile.com/2008/11/prop-8-protest-in-new-york-announced.html
Tens of thousands of our brothers and sisters are in the streets in California and Salt Lake City and around the country protesting the votes banning same-sex marriage in California.Join them! Make your voices heard right here in New York City.We will tell the Mormon Church how we feel about its relentless campaign to condemn and control our lives. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was, by far, the biggest financer of California's heinous and hatefulProposition 8. The Mormon Church begged their members to donate money to Prop 8,pouring 20 million dollars into the campaign. And their attacks on us didn't start there and aren'tabout to end. They're plotting right now to bring their money and influence to bear against the LGBT community everywhere in this country, including trying to prevent marriage equality in New York.Join us in speaking out against Mormon hate! Stop them taking away your rights! Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Time: 6:30pm - 8:00pm
Location: New York Manhattan Mormon Temple
Street: 125 Columbus Ave at 65th StreetCity/Town: New York, NY
Hat Tip: The Gist - Michelangelo Signorile
http://www.signorile.com/2008/11/prop-8-protest-in-new-york-announced.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)