I spend as much time as I can find building the Courage Campaign, a 750,000-member organization dedicated to building a progressive California and to bringing full equality to Americans nationwide. We focus on issues because elected officials can do only so much. And often they disappoint.
Our members determine the areas in which we act. Often times, we win; other times, we keep on fighting. In the course of my work as Chairman of Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in California, in building Courage and with charitable organizations such as Liberty Hill Foundation, I have seen repeateldy that America wins when political leaders stand up for principles. It’s okay to bend a bit to get something done; but to compromise so completely as to void recognition as a “political necessity” leads to disaster. Too few of our leaders understand and/or live by such principles.
I work for the Courage Campaign as the California field manager, and helped to organize this rally.
Last weekend, more than 2,000 people took to the streets to expose the secret billionaires cabal hosted by the Koch brothers near Palm Springs, California. Charles and David Koch invited powerful multi-millionaire conservatives to join them for a weekend at a posh resort to strategize and finance their nefarious plan to squeeze working families, gut social programs, destroy our environment for their profit, and buy our elected officials. The Courage Campaign, joined by an outstanding coalition, were there to let them know they can't come to California to do their dirty work in secret.
The Courage Campaign coordinated a diverse coalition of organizations, bringing together activists - with a broad array of concerns about the Koch brothers - to counter the billionaires cabal. Our partners include Common Cause, CNA, AFSCME, HCAN, Greenpeace, California Student Sustainability Coalition, CREDO, MoveOn, COPEPINK, The Ruckus Society and The Other 98%. My role was to coordinate logistics for the coalition, which is a cohesive panoply of groups committed to hold billionaires accountable for the damage they have done (and stop them before they cause any further harm). This demonstration is the kickoff for national campaigns for corporate accountability and good government this year.
It's election day in California and several other states. With the exception of one statewide race, (AG) Democrats and progressives won't be compelled to the polls. Republicans will because of the battle of the billionaires (okay, one billionaire two multi-millionaires). We can only hope that enough of us vote(d) to beat back two odious ballot measures put on by twobig corporations.
But there was already big news today in California about "the trial of the century." Judge Vaughn Walker today issued a series of questions for the parties to the federal Prop. 8 trial that began in January and was put on by Ted Olson and David Boies and colleagues and defended by the oxymoronic "Protect Marriage" proponents of Prop. 8.
The questions are stunning in their breadth, complexity and essence. Here are just a few:
What empirical data, if any, supports a finding that legal recognition of same-sex marriage reduces discrimination against gays and lesbians?
What are the consequences of a permanent injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8? What remedies do plaintiffs propose?
If the evidence of the involvement of the LDS and Roman Catholic churches and evangelical ministers supports a finding that Proposition 8 was an attempt to enforce private morality, what is the import of that finding?
The court has reserved ruling on plaintiffs' motion to exclude Mr Blankenhorn's testimony. If the motion is granted, is there any other evidence to support a finding that Proposition 8 advances a legitimate governmental interest?
Why is legislating based on moral disapproval of homosexuality not tantamount to discrimination? See Doc #605 at 11 ("But sincerely held moral or religious views that require acceptance and love of gay people, while disapproving certain aspects of their conduct, are not tantamount to discrimination."). What evidence in the record shows that a belief based in morality cannot also be discriminatory? If that moral point of view is not held and is disputed by a small but significant minority of the community, should not an effort to enact that moral point of view into a state constitution be deemed a violation of equal protection?
What does it mean to have a "choice" in one's sexual orientation? See e g Tr 2032:17-22; PX 928 at 37
I am not a lawyer, but I can without doubt say that never before has homosexuality been on trial in America in this way. The testimony in January, which I liveblogged, was breathtaking and so sweeping, that the defense (the folks who put Prop. 8 on the ballot) were left with only one argument: marriage has always been between a man and a woman so it should always be between a man and a woman. And Professor Cott and other experts even destroyed that argument. Even so, it's a bit like saying that some people were always forced to live in a certain place so they should always be forced to live there.
We launched Testimony: Equality on Trial because this court case has already changed history. As we can see from the Judge's questions - read them and pick your own favorites--the entire scope of the debate has been encapsulated in this trial. But the defense has worked at every juncture to stop you from seeing what happened and will happen in the courtroom. We seek to make this your trial. And soon, we'll seek to hear your testimony.
For now, as voting for initiatives and candidates across the state and country winds to a close, we can see unfolding the true story of human rights in America.
Watch the court. Whatever the ruling, this trial is history.
LOS ANGELES, CA - The Courage Campaign today called for more research and time to change hearts and minds before returning to the ballot to restore marriage for gay and lesbian couples in California. At least one initiative to restore same-sex marriage is currently circulating that, if it qualifies, would appear on the November, 2010 ballot...
"For months, we have laid out the criteria for moving forward. Like the Obama Campaign, we understand that we need a combination of powerful and clear research that informs an expertly run campaign, an unstoppable movement that harnesses the new energy we have seen since the passage of Prop. 8 and the connections through personal stories and outreach in order to win at the ballot box," said Rick Jacobs, the Courage Campaign founder and Chair. "We are taking the lessons learned from last year's Prop. 8 campaign, the campaigns in Maine and other states to understand the fundamental work that must be done before moving forward in California. We also must come together as a community to create a broad coalition and governance structure, put in place a strong manager and secure the resources to win. Right now, the pieces are not all in place to do so confidently."
I am understanding this to mean that the Courage Campaign is no longer on board with a 2010 campaign and will be shifting their resources to a 2012 effort (although the language is oddly vague-- if any Courage Campaign people are reading this, any clarification would be appreciated greatly). At a minimum the clear message of this release is that Courage Campaign does not at this time support the specific 2010 ballot filing by Love Honor Cherish, which they reference in the first paragraph.
Courage Campaign is currently soliciting volunteers for their Prop. 8 repeal and "Equality Team" efforts here. EQCA is also soliciting volunteers to canvass for their 2012 repeal campaign here.
This weekend's Camp Courage in Sacramento was a good tonic for the loss in Maine and part of our collective path forward to restoring marriage equality to California. The heart of Camp Courage is learning how to craft your "story-of-self" a personal, emotional version of who you are and why this issue matters so much to you. The goal is to empower activists to use their personal narrative to bring about political change. Stories-of-self can be used to recruit volunteers, to inspire a crowd or to change a persons' vote one door at a time.
It isn't easy to have people open up and share the most painful, scary, raw parts of their lives. But those are the stories that are the ones that need to be told the most. The power of Camp Courage comes from people risking sharing their stories of pain thus forming community and strength.
Adam Bink over at Open Left quotes Harvey Milk's famous "come out come out" speech and writes:
The same tactic Milk used for school employees everywhere must continue to be used in these communities. We have to encourage people in these towns to come out of the closet and say they want the right to marry. State Representative Mike Carey, who represents heavily Catholic downtown Lewiston and voted in favor of marriage equality in the legislature, pointed out to me that in these kinds of votes, the default vote is for fear, and it is a huge barrier to reach one's conscience if they have no personal knowledge of the issue. For all the "gay marriage will be taught in schools" ads our opponents ran in Maine and will run in other states that tap that fear element, we have to counter with people who can give voters that kind of personal touch on the issue.
It isn't just gay people that we need to come out and tell their stories, it is all of our wonderful straight allies. No, there is no application to become a straight ally, just start telling everyone you know your personal story of why you support equality for all.
One of our amazing volunteers that helped put together Camp Courage Sacramento Chris Huack brought his parents to Camp. He blogged about the experience at the Courage Campaign. Here is Chris relaying the three reflections his dad had about Camp. (more on the flip)
1 - He had no idea the pain that LGBT people had felt over discrimination and losing initiatives like Proposition 8 and Question 1 until he saw people speaking about them openly and honestly at the Camp. See, I have always been a more stoic, let's "focus on what we can do in the future" type of person, so for my Mom and Dad, they had never truly appreciated the pain this had inflicted on our community until they heard the stories of personal pain from others.
I'm at a beautiful retreat house on a hilltop in the mountains north of San Luis Obispo as thirty volunteers led by Courage Campaign's brilliant field team learn the skills to be community organizers. The spirit and energy in the room outshine the magnificent California countryside.
Every four years, California exports labor and capital for presidential campaigns. I witnessed that firsthand as chair of Howard Dean's presidential campaign here in California when, in 2003/4, we sent hundreds of people to Iowa, New Mexico and Arizona to fight in the early primaries. And we raised millions online from California to make Howard Dean the voice that forever changed the Democratic Party. But then what?
Doug Manchester played a relatively unsung, but crucial role in qualifying Prop 8 for the ballot. His $125,000 donation came in at a critical time when the proponents were running out of cash during the signature gathering process.
It is conceivable that Prop 8 would not have made it on to the ballot, if it were not for Doug Manchester. In response to that donation and the poor treatment of his workers a boycott of his hotels was established a year ago, and has now cost Manchester upwards of $7 million in canceled reservations.
He has hired gay heavyweight PR crisis man Howard Bragman to respond to the boycott. Their genius idea was to offer up $100,000 in hotel credits and a $25,000 contribution to any 501c3 organization that supports civil unions.
It was a cynical attempt to try and buy-off and divide the LGBT and labor communities. And it's not working. No way. No how.
Today, the Courage Campaign, Equality California, UNITE HERE and Californians Against Hate have teamed up to launch the "Say No to Manchester" website, asking our members to sign a pledge to uphold the boycott of the Manchester Grand Hyatt and Grand del Mar Resort.
It's a relatively unique campaign with labor and LGBT organizations coming together to support workers rights and equality. These types of coalitions are crucial for building progressive power here in California. Any repeal of Prop 8 will need support from our brothers and sisters in labor and they need our help on their organizing efforts for workers' dignity and rights.
Boycotts don't always work, but this one has been effective, though not perfect. Unfortunately, the California Bar Association has refused to move their annual. Jenny Pizer from Lambda Legal:
"The bar associations recognize that many of their members will not feel comfortable attending conference activities at the Manchester Hyatt given its owner's extraordinary personal support of the campaign that made gay people and their families unequal under law, and undermined the basic rights of all minority groups in California," she wrote.
Of course, Bragman tries to wedge labor and LGBTs.
Bragman added that the boycott was less about LGBT rights, and more about the hotel workers trying to unionize. "The union issues and the boycott and the GLBT issues are apples and oranges," he said. "They are two separate issues. We frankly have a boycott that is being funded and designed by people who have motives other than the GLBT community in an effort to unionize the properties."
Is it inconceivable to Bragman that LGBTs care about workers rights AND their own rights, not to mention the fact that shocker of all shockers, there are LGBT hotel workers? Like I said earlier, we are unified and will not let Manchester divide us, try though they might.
Flip it for the email we sent out to our members today.
California's government suffers from drastic dysfunction - our prisons overflow, our water system teeters on collapse, our once proud schools are criminally poor, our financing system is bankrupt, our democracy produces ideologically extreme legislators who can pass neither budget nor reforms, and we have no recourse in the system to right these wrongs. Drastic times call for drastic measures.
It is our duty to declare that our California government is not only broken, it has become destructive to our future. Therefore, are we not obligated to nullify our government and institute a new one?
Saturday I attended one townhall meeting to discuss process.
In her closing speech at the two-day grassroots organizing camp in Oakland, CA on Sunday, Torie channeled the energy of the movement when she announced that the Courage Campaign would be there to support and empower the grassroots for a November 2010 initiative to repeal Proposition 8 if the state's supreme court didn't overthrow it.
Rick Jacobs, founder and chair of the Courage Campaign, summed it up in a statement to Unite the Fight:
"At Camp Courage Oakland over the weekend, Courage Campaign staff conducted a series of conversations with various marriage equality activists, progressive organizers and grassroots leaders. As Torie Osborn's closing speech demonstrated, the consensus was clear: We are ready to go back to the ballot in 2010, assuming the Supreme Court rules to uphold Prop 8. But before we can make the ultimate decision to support an actual ballot initiative, the Courage Campaign needs to survey our members and consult with our allies in the polling group formed by several organizations a few weeks ago. Based on a vote of our members, we will move forward on a decision along with our partners in the marriage equality movement."
Some amazing volunteers put together this video for the Courage Campaign. Unlike some other ads out there (NOM NOM NOM), individuals appearing in this video are real people, including a carpenter, lawyer, priest, and a soldier discharged under the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy.
Speaking of NOM...they are out today with their latest ad, playing the victim and trying to claim that they lose their rights when gay people want to get married.
As "We the People" explains, marriage equality and religious freedom are not in conflict. The constitution provides for a separation between church and state, meaning that no religious organization can be forced to perform or acknowledge same-sex marriage if they choose not to.
NOM is putting Miss California up as their spokeswoman victim. They probably correctly assume that she is a better mouthpiece than their most prominent board member, best-selling fiction writer Orson Scott Card. PFAW:
(full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign)
At The Plum Line, Greg Sargent takes a look at Dianne Feinstein's lack of support for the Employee Free Choice Act. She remains the only Congressional Democrat from California not to co-sponsor the bill, and according to her spokesman, she's looking for the mythical bipartisanship pony.
"I have thought for some time that the way to approach this issue is by trying to see if there can't be a compromise between the business community, the agriculture community and labor. This is an extraordinarily difficult economy and feelings are very strong on both sides of the issue. I would hope there is some way to find common ground that would be agreeable to both business and labor."
This is complete nonsense. Employers are firing workers who try to organize. They intimidate workers into voting against their better interests. One out of every four unions elections were marred by illegal firings in 2007. I don't know how you can possibly reconcile the two sides given that scenario.
Furthermore, the invocation of the "difficult economy" is another red herring. Sen. Tom Harkin has already done away with this nonsense by pulling out his history book.
The bill's supporters are pointing to the downturn as the ultimate proof of their arguments that labor's decline has helped put the economy out of balance and that only by restoring workers' purchasing power can the nation return to broadly shared prosperity.
"In 1935, we passed the Wagner Act that promoted unionization and allowed unions to flourish, and at the time we were at around 20 percent unemployment. So tell me again why we can't do this in a recession?" said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), invoking the pro-labor changes of the New Deal. "This is the time to do it. This is exactly the time we should be insisting on a fairer playing field for people to organize themselves."
Because of Sen. Specter's announced opposition, the Employee Free Choice Act faces an uphill battle. But at the very least, Californians should expect that all of their representatives in Washington would understand the need to strengthen unions as a means to strengthening the overall middle class, increasing wages and BOOSTING, not hurting the economy. Feinstein has a choice to make, and you can sign this letter from the Courage Campaign to let her know you're watching her.
Attention San Francisco Chronicle: the truth called. They want Page B-6 of yesterday's paper back.
You see, in recent days, the Courage Campaign has come out with a new action asking Attorney General Jerry Brown to investigate Republican lawmakers for potential violations of the California Penal Code regarding vote-trading.
In comes John Wildermuth to save the day, and tell the Courage Campaign that they need to be careful:
You have to be careful what you wish for in politics, and Democrat-friendly groups looking to bash Republican legislators over state budget delays should remember that.
Well, John, a couple of points are in order here. I would say that the first one is your use of the word "bash." Now, in a political journalism context, "bash" is frequently used to refer to one side attacking another side on its policy positions, and implies a typical political attack. However, the Courage Campaign is not bashinig Republican legislators. They are encouraging the Attorney General to investigate a possible crime. And what are they going after? Not "state budget delays", John. The "delay" has nothing to do with it. It is, rather, allegations of vote-trading, which is illegal under the California Penal Code. After all, the Republicans appear to have made offers that they will vote for a budget compromise if the Democrats vote to gut certain labor and environmental regulations.
So, that's for starters: John, you're portraying this as typical partisan run-of-the-mill politics, when in reality it's anything but. But let's move on, shall we?
"The California Penal Code explicitly prohibits this type of vote-trading, and the attorney general is duty-bound to investigate this felonious activity," said Rick Jacobs, founder of the progressive Courage Campaign.
People on both sides of the political aisle say Jacobs seems to be attacking the type of horse-trading that goes on every day in Sacramento, Washington and every city hall and state capital in the country.
Now, there's a reason I titled this post "epic journalism fail": because that's exactly what your piece is, John. I would have you notice that nowhere do you actually mention what California's Penal Code actually says on the subject:
86. Every Member of either house of the Legislature, or any member of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, school district, or other special district, who asks, receives, or agrees to receive, any bribe, upon any understanding that his or her official vote, opinion, judgment, or action shall be influenced thereby, or shall give, in any particular manner, or upon any particular side of any question or matter upon which he or she may be required to act in his or her official capacity, or gives, or offers or promises to give, any official vote in consideration that another Member of the Legislature, or another member of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, school district, or other special district shall give this vote either upon the same or another question, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years and, in cases in which no bribe has been actually received, by a restitution fine of not less than two thousand dollars ($2,000) or not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or, in cases in which a bribe was actually received, by a restitution fine of at least the actual amount of the bribe received or two thousand dollars ($2,000), whichever is greater, or any larger amount of not more than double the amount of any bribe received or ten thousand dollars ($10,000), whichever is greater.
I have bolded the relevant section of the text. It's the part, John, that says, basically, that trading votes, either on the same question (i.e., bill) or a different question (i.e., "I'll vote for yours if you vote for mine") is illegal.
So I'll be completely honest here, John. I don't honestly give a damn if you claim it's the type of thing that goes on every day in Sacramento and Washington--and the reason I don't is that if you're going to write an article critical of the Courage Campaign's call for an investigation, you might actually want to discuss the merits of the case. I'm no lawyer, John, but generally, the way the law works is: state the law; state the facts; apply the law to the facts. And it doesn't matter whether "it happens all the time" or "all the kids are doing it" or any other such excuse or rationale. The only questions are: what is the law, and what are the facts?
My recommendation, John, is that if you have a problem with the Penal Code barring political horse-trading, take it up with the Penal Code. But critiquing the Courage Campaign for actually asking that the Code be enforced? That's just weak.
And I would end there, John, but your epic journalism fail is not yet done. I submit as evidence:
Under the interpretation by Jacobs and the unions, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and her GOP counterparts could be looking at prison time for negotiating Wednesday's agreement on President Obama's stimulus package.
FAIL! John, I did mention, did I not, that this is the California Penal Code, not the US Code? And that, according to the Penal Code, the law applies to "Every Member of either house of the Legislature, or any member of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, school district, or other special district"? So, no, Nancy Pelosi and her GOP colleagues could not be prosecuted under section 86?
And, John, even if there were some vague ambiguity about that, the United States Constitution would put that to rest--specifically, Article 1, Section 6:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
That provision, of course, as clarified by subsequent interpretations such as the 1966 US v. Johnson ruling, clarify completely that members of Congress cannot be prosecuted for any speech and debate (for example, negotiating the stimulus bill?) that they engage in as a part of their official duties.
I bring it up, John, because you're not only trying to compare apples to oranges. It's worse than that. It's worse because what you think is an apple is actually...say...a kiwi. And that, John, is a pure and unadulterated journalism FAIL. Until you know more about the law and the Constitution than I do, I recommend you stop writing about it for a major newspaper.
(full disclosure: I proudly work for the Courage Campaign)
Last night the news came down that the Yes on 8 campaign and their new lead lawyer Ken Starr filed a brief seeking to forcibly divorce the over 18,000 couples who were able to get married between the court case and election day. It was something they said repeatedly that they wouldn't do this. Liars.
I called up Brian L. last night and asked if he and Brian D. could take a picture holding this sign. We sent it out to several hundred thousand Courage Campaign members this morning asking them to do the same thing, or an adaptation: "Please don't divorce my mothers," "Please don't divorce my friends, Name and Name," or "Please don't divorce Californians."...
The pictures are pouring in and they are heartbreaking. And we are going to get them up and public as soon as we can.
But first, there are 51 MILK + LOVE events happening in 39 communities in California. Courage Campaign members picked a MILK screening and paired it with one of the "Light Up the Night" vigils organized by Join the Impact. Ironically, the vigils are in honor of the couples who have their marriages in the courts hands. The vigils were long planned, but they are taking on a much greater meaning in the wake of the court filing by the Yes on 8 campaign.
We are asking attendees to bring pieces of paper and markers to the events. I am headed to the one at the Tower Theater here in Sacramento at 1:40. There are 69 people who have RSVP'd!
Thank you Brian and Brian for taking the picture. I am damn proud that we finally get a chance to start showing all of these couples and make them much more than a number. It is just a start. We have a lot more work to do.
For a couple of years the fact that California is ungovernable has been plain to see to anybody who really pays attention. That is why you get calls for a constitutional convention from business groups like the Bay Area Council and from progressive groups like the Courage Campaign. We need fundamental change in our constitution. We need to fix the initiative system and the restore the underlying balance of power that should exist in a modern representative democracy.
Today we get a slew of articles in the mainstream media, saying, that well, perhaps California is ungovernable. Follow me over the flip.
This past Wednesday, NRO columnist Jonah Goldberg--who, for some reason, is syndicated in the L.A. Times--wrote an editorial condemning the "Home Invasion" advertisement I co-wrote that the Courage Campaign aired on election day. Why Jonah Goldberg can get a syndicated spot at the Los Angeles Times when no current Mother Jones columnist would get such a prominent placement is beyond me, but I shall ignore that bias from the so-called liberal traditional media for the time being.
Jonah's talking points were the same ones that we've been seeing frequently from religious organizations and right-wing commentators since the protest: that the ad was bigoted, that Mormons were just one member of broad coalition, and that homosexual radicals are suppressing harmless freedom of speech by religious groups.
Well, the Times has a section of their online version named "Blowback"--dedicated to full-length responses to editorial pieces. Today's Blowback features a response by Rick Jacobs, founder of the Courage Campaign, to Jonah's mischaracterizations.
The full thing is worth a read--Rick's piece systematically takes Jonah's editorial to task by showing that:
a) truth can't be libel;
b) The Mormons were the principals behind Prop 8, and have a history of obfuscation of their endeavors on that front;
c) The Mormons have every right to influence the political process through free speech; and supporters of same-sex unions have every right to expose the efforts they make.
Here's the key quote:
The LDS Church or any other organization has every right to use its power to influence elections to any extent that is legal. What it doesn't have a right to do is claim persecution when other organizations do nothing but expose the church's forays into the political arena before a discerning public.
Yeah...honestly. What's up with that? It seems like the "Protect Marriage" folks are really passionate about first amendment rights to free speech, but are really desperate to suppress another first amendment right--the right to free assembly.
Incidentally--if you haven't signed up to Power the Repeal, please do so.
I was going to write up a review today of the Courage Campaign's private screening of the movie "Milk" at the Arclight theater in Hollywood last night, but I saw that David Dayen beat me to it with a diary that is now recommended on DailyKos. Go read it--it encapsulates my thoughts exactly.
Probably my favorite part of the event was finally getting to meet Lilia Tamm in person. After all the conversations that we had both before and after the election, getting to meet and chat with someone I regard as one of the heroines of the fight for equality was a pleasant surprise.
The movie is superb--a lot of tears in the audience, that's for sure. But most importantly from my perspective is that so many different times during the movie--especially during the successful fight against Proposition 6--I found myself saying, "same shit, different day."
The consultant class was afraid to talk about exactly who was being harmed by the disgusting Proposition 6, and tried to talk about fairness--but only in general terms. Harvey Milk said no. And he went out and publicly talked about the hate and the oppression of Proposition 6. He debated Briggs in San Francisco and in Fullerton.
The parallels are similar to Proposition 8 in many ways, but what I found most noticeable is that the supporters of Proposition 6 and the supporters of Proposition 8 tried to frame themselves as playing defense. They consistently used the framing of defense and preservation to push their discriminatory agenda.
The difference between Harvey Milk's response to Proposition 6 and the No on 8 campaign's reaction is simple: Harvey Milk said, "You're not playing defense, you're doing a witch-hunt." The leadership of the official No on 8 campaign basically said, "we're not trying to hurt people, really!" Not exactly a winning message to create an effective contrast.
If you haven't seen the movie, go see it. Oh yeah--Sean Penn's performance is worthy of an Oscar nomination.
The Initiative Reform Task Force met during the Democratic Party's November E-Board meeting in Anaheim to propose changes in California's initiative process.
Chief among them is the immediate creation of a statewide "watch
network" to analyze proposed initiatives as soon as they appear--
BEFORE they are released for signatures.
Findings will then be published widely on the internet through both websites and e-mail networks. This requires no action by the legislature.
It requires grassroots activists to join together and become
researchers and bloggers who assemble and disseminate information about
the propositions that are about to enter the pipeline.
(From the Courage Campaign's own Rick Jacobs. - promoted by David Dayen)
About thirty of us gathered in front of the closed Starbucks on the plaza in front of the LA courthouse to assemble our petition materials for the rally and march a few blocks away. MoveOn.org, Courage Campaign (full disclosure: I founded Courage) and Credo Mobile have, over the past week, gathered over 200,000 signatures on a pledge to repeal Prop. 8. Our group that met for the first time this morning, was volunteers who signed up to get more sigatures from the crowd. And boy did they ever!
We made our way to the staging area outside of City Hall where we were greeted by thousands of jubilant folks with home made signs. The backstage set up reminded me in some ways of the May 1, 2006 immigration march on Wilshire Boulevard that had also sprung up from the peoplem, but was managed by organized labor: there was security, a rope line, a little blue tent under which speakers gathered before their turn. Rodney Scott, who puts on LA Pride every year, did a brilliant job with logistics along with a new group of young people called FAIR.
The Catholic League condemned the Courage Campaign's 'Home Invasion' ad opposing Proposition 8 via press release earlier today. Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in part:
Radical homosexuals have a long history of anti-religious bigotry, so it is not surprising that with a pro-marriage initiative on the ballot in California (Proposition 8 would secure marriage as a right between a man and a woman only), they would resort to gutter tactics. This group is not some fringe operation-it works closely with George Soros' MoveOn.org, another organization that has not shied away from bashing people of faith.
Making Bill Donohue's list is no small feat. In the past he's attacked Bill Maher, Marilyn Manson, Joan Osborne, secular Jews who run Hollywood and hate Christianity and John Edwards bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. He has also declared the Catholic Priest scandals "a homosexual scandal, not a pedophilia scandal." Somehow, it seems, Bill Donohue and Catholics are constantly under attack from some agent of intolerance. But when it comes down to it, Proposition 8 is an attempt to insert religion into the California Constitution. It just is. And its proponents proudly sell that point. We're glad they worship passionately in they way they see fit, but it has no place in our Constitution.
In related news so far today, the Catholic League and Mormon Church picked up a new Yes on 8 ally. As already noted today, arranged-mass-marriage enthusiasts The Moonies have jumped aboard the push to "save traditional marriage." Which simply serves to confuse the "traditional marriage" waters all the further.
I work for the Courage Campaign as the California field manager, and helped to organize this rally.
