Remember all those experts who were scared of appearing on YouTube? Well, I don't know if they knew this when they were lining up to be deposed, but depositions become part of the public record, and fortunately for us, we have said depositions. And even more helpfully, we have clips on YouTube of Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, you know the people who believe that men are constantly and subtly being discriminated against.
Anyway, these folks go around doing expert testimony for social conservative causes. Apparently hiding their faces while doing so. Perhaps Paul Nathanson should have hidden more than his face during the Iowa same-sex marriage, Varnum V. Brien, and just gone mute. It would have done more benefit for the opponents of marriage equality. Nathanson's testimony Varnum was so ridiculous that the court struck it from the record stating that his testimony was "not based on observation supported by scientific methodology or . . . on empirical research in any sense."
Forgetting my legal training, and just looking at a quick behavioral and textual reading of this testimony, it is clear that neither of these two witnesses would have done a lick of good for the Prop 8 defense. As we go through these clips, you'll know exactly what I mean. Let's start with Paul Nathanson (transcript here):
Q - Let's try to break that down into two parts. First, you recognize that gay couples are today raising children, correct?
A - Yes.
Q - And you believe that enabling those gay couples to marry would enhance their ability to be good parents to the chi-
A - Yes.
Basically, this guy admits something that David Blankenhorn ended up admitting on the stand: lack of marriage equality harms children being raised by LGBT parents. While the defense completely failed to prove that there was any damage whatsoever from marriage equality on the children of straight parents, over and over again, event the defense's own witnesses acknowledged that there was real and serious harm done to not only LGBT couples, but their families. Meanwhile, Nathanson is looking unhappy and snippy. All in all, he was just another Blankenhorn debacle waiting to happen. And, I think even the defense would privately admit that could have gone better.
And Katherine Young would not have been much better. See the thing is that with these scientists, they've actually read these studies, and understand the background. This is where Boies picked apart Prof. Miller. Miller had to eventually admit that his position was contrary to the great bulk of research in the field. And Miller's testimony, at its best, could only go to a small portion of what they were trying to show. Young wound up admitting a gold mine's worth in her deposition. It's almost hard to pick out selections from the transcript of Young's deposition.
Q - My question is, is it your view that because something was the norm in the past, it should be continued in the future? ...
A - Just because something is a norm, it doesn't necessarily mean it is an appropriate norm, and it has to then be reassessed in the contemporary context to see if t norm should remain.
***
Q - And you believe that allowing gay couples to marry will increase the durability of those gay couples relationships, correct?
A - Okay. I'll say yes.
***
Q - Okay. And increasing the durability of those relationships is beneficial to the children that they're raising, correct?
A - On that one factor, yes.
While Young does come across looking annoyed, she doesn't seem quite so smug as Blankenhorn and Nathanson, so point for her on that. However, the factual admissions she makes were just too much for the Prop 8 defense to consider putting her on the stand.
At any rate, both Nathanson and Young hardly look fearful of appearing either on YouTube or on the witness stand. This was a purely tactical decision masquerading as something else. After all, they have written several books together about how men are an oppressed minority, they are hardly afraid of spouting controversial opinions in public. The reason these two didn't testify has nothing to do with being scared, and everything to do with the fact that they were simply bad witnesses.
This is crossposted from the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. Today should be the last day of testimony, with the closing arguments coming in a couple of weeks as to let Judge Walker digest the evidence a bit. You can get a whole slew of information about the trial at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker.
Well, this should be the last day of testimony, and the defense's case is looking pretty shabby so far. Unless Blankenhorn's redirect is simply amazing, he's also going to be a net loss for their side. But don't worry, Pugno can tell you how it really is:
The afternoon brought the testimony of our second witness, David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, who provided his expertise on the institution of marriage, fatherhood and the family structure. He rejected the suggestion by plaintiffs that marriage is purely a private construct between two adults. Rather, he explained, marriage between a man and woman is a globally recognized and historically public institution. In fact, it is the only social relationship with a "biological foundation" found in the complementary nature of man and woman and their ability to procreate. Across all cultures and times, no other human relationship has been more closely connected to the ultimate goal of uniting the biological, social and legal dimensions of parenthood for the raising of children.
You'll be shocked (shocked!) to know that Pugno doesn't mention Blankenhorn's cross examination where he goes on to say that "We would be more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage than the day before." Pugno argues that their definition is the correct definition, the only definition. But Ted Olson puts the lie to that:
This is the game that they're playing. They define marriage as a man and a woman. They call that the institution of marriage. So if you let a man marry a man and a woman marry a woman, it would de-institutionalize marriage. That is the same as saying you are deinstitutionalizing the right to vote when you let women have it. It's a game. It's a tautology. They're saying, 'this is the definition. You're going to change the definition by allowing people access that don't have it now, and that would change it so that people who currently have access won't want it any more because it's changed.' This is all nonsense. They are not proving that. This is a syllogism that falls apart. The major premise, minor premise and conclusion are empty.
Pugno responds that voting didn't really change when women were allowed to vote. History might disagree. The effects of women voting were pronounced and dramatic. The world, and this country specifically, would be a very different place without universal suffrage. But even if we take Pugno's point on its surface, that the definition of marriage would be changed, it doesn't take much more than a few google searches or a little time with a history book or two to realize that the concept of marriage is and has been a hodgepodge across the nations. Pugno's definition, while perhaps true for him, needn't be given more weight than the definition which excluded miscegenation or the definition of marriage that viewed women as property.
Marriage itself began as a way for human, who were living in caves at the time, to be sure of paternity. In some societies, it became a virtual indentured servitude to the husband. For example, a simple Wikipedia search for marriage will net you several different definitions. The Comanches and Ancient Greeks used marriage to subjugate, the medieval Europeans saw love as antithetical to marriage, and used it as a means of sealing political bonds. In fact, early Christian rulers almost always forced their daughters and siblings into marriages for their games of political chess. The fact behind all this ranting is that you can only use tautology for so long. Eventually, you need some real facts. And throughout this entire case, all we've seen is more empty vessels. Even NPR remarked today that Blankenhorn was the fifth defense expert who ended up giving testimony that favored the plaintiffs.
Today, the dust should settle on the testimony, and the judge will move on to consider the evidence before him. We should get a date for closing arguments soon, but we will definitely keep you posted.
This is cross-posted from the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, where we are following the Prop 8 trial going on in federal court in San Francisco.
I dropped in to the overflow courtroom to join Rick for a while today. I just couldn't stay away from the testimony of William Tam. For those of you not able to make it into the courtroom, I think that the William Tam testimony just might be the highlight of the Prop 8 Trial Renactment Series.
While I was watching Tam squirm in the witness, I was brought back to my youth. I had that uncle that everybody seems to have. The one who would make inappropriate jokes, or say things that just made jaws drop. But with Tam, it wasn't so much that he was gruff, or trying to be a jokester, just that he simply held some deeply disturbing views. I expected at any moment for him to just stand up and say "just kidding! Got you big-time, you don't think I actually believe that garbage, do you? Ha-ha!"
Suffice it to say he never said that. But what he did play was the sympathy card. More than once, he tried to go for the "aw-shucks, you city lawyers are just too smart for me" card. At the beginning of this liveblog post, Rick points out that Tam said "that Boies is using his legal expertise to pin my words in way I did not intend." But, from just the plain language, it is hard to argue that what Tam said was anything but some of the most salacious and offbase anti-gay propaganda that I've seen outside of the Klan or other similar hate groups.
And Boies just shreds whatever logic or reasonable basis that Tam had for his statements:
Boies: You said that you thought Prop. 8 would lead to legalizing prostitution. Why?
Tam: Measure K in SF. I saw some homosexuals hanging around there.
B: You know that Measure K has nothing to do with Prop. 8.
T: Yes.
So, his first argument was that he saw some homosexuals hanging around San Francisco's Prop K, a poorly drafted attempt to decriminalize prostitution. Not that all people who opposed Prop 8 supported Prop K, or vice versa. Just that he saw some homosexuals hanging around it. Well, as somebody intricately involved in San Francisco politics, I can assure you that many in the LGBT community opposed Prop K, including elected leaders and much of the community. Prop K had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the LGBT community or Prop 8, and Tam acknowledges that. By the way, Prop K lost by a wide margin, even in a city that Tam said was "controlled by homosexuals."
But that line in the gay agenda that Tam thrusts upon the community pales in comparison to the offensive claim that tops off Tam's flyer.
B: You told people that next will be legalizing sex with children. That's the homosexual agenda. Do you believe this?
T: Yes.
T: Asks and B gives permission to talk. "I'm afraid of the liberal trend. Canada and Europe are liberal and they allow age of consent 13 or 14 and children can have sex with adults and each other.")
B: You did not mention age of consent in the fourteen words you wrote?
T: No.
B: Age of consent has nothing to do with this [But Tam admitted that he told people that's what would happen if 8 lost.] Age of consent did not change because of passage of ss marriage in Canada or Europe, right?
T: Canada right. I cannot say about Europe.
But this is more than merely patently offensive, it is just plain factually incorrect. And it takes just a few moments of Googling (or binging, whichever you prefer) to figure that one out. Same-sex marriage became the law of the land in Canada in 2005. At the time, the age of consent in Canada was, in fact, 14 years. However, in 2008, while same-sex marriage was legal in Canada, the age of consent was raised to 16. By Tam's logic, he should be arguing that it is clear that the gay agenda includes an item of increasing the age of consent.
But, of course, the problem with Tam is his rejection of logic. He uses innuendo and vague emotional statements about the welfare of children, and then depends on the website of NARTH, an ex-gay group condemned by mainstream mental health professionals, over accredited, peer-reviewed scientific studies from real professionals. This has nothing to do with what is going on in the real world, but what is going on in a few small minds.
As the Prop 8 trial continues, I'll be doing some blogging over at the Courage Campaign's Prop 8 Trial Tracker. Check it out as the trial proceeds: http://prop8trialtracker.com/
With the New Jersey State Senate rejecting gay marriage last week, the path to equality is now back in the courts. Lambda Legal has filed suit in the New Jersey Supreme Court, and the odds of success - based upon that state Court's ruling in 2006 - appear favorable. But all eyes this morning are on San Francisco - as District Court Judge Vaughn Walker hears Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, the controversial case to overturn Proposition 8 on federal grounds. For years, civil rights groups had carefully kept the federal courts out of gay marriage fights - and the prominent lawyers in Perry filed the suit without consulting them. But with most of marriage's legal benefits coming under federal law, it was only a matter of time before the federal courts weighed in on this issue. The trouble is that a wiser battle to start with would challenge the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - and in fact, there are such efforts in place. If the federal courts uphold Prop 8, it's not likely to affect New Jersey - but it could hurt efforts to repeal DOMA.
The federal trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger is supposed to start on Monday and Judge Walker has ruled to allow delayed YouTube posting of video. But earlier today the defendants (Prop 8 supporters) filed an emergency petition with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asking them to stop the trial and overturn Walkers' ruling on YouTube. Merc:
In court papers, lawyers for the Prop. 8 campaign argue that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker did not have the legal authority to permit cameras in the trial, which is set to begin Monday in San Francisco. Prop 8 backers say that broadcasting the proceedings "is likely to negatively affect the fairness of the trial."
The plaintiffs had until 3 PM today to respond. This is all likely to move pretty quickly, given that the trial is supposed to start the next business day.
Meanwhile, NOM thinks they are going to lose the case.
Over the last few days they have been clearly communicating to their email list that Judge Walker is not friendly to them and now are blatantly saying they expect to lose the trial.
Brian Brown just sent out an email to NOM's list. Karen Occam has part of it up at LGBT POV. Brown writes:
We do not expect to win at the trial level, but with God's help, at least five members of the current Supreme Court will have the courage to defend our Constitution from this grave attack.
Their major complaint is that Judge Walker has made this a full-blown trial, complete with witnesses and a broad set of issues under consideration. It will be a full and complete vetting of the issues, motivations and law surrounding marriage and equality for all.
This is perhaps my favorite part of Brown's massive missive:
That's right, the Constitution drafted by our Founding Fathers contains a right to gay marriage--in their twisted view. This is judicial activism on steroids, and a flagrant disrespect for civility, common sense, and democracy.
Gay-marriage advocates believe they have a right to win. They think you and I don't count. NOM will be filing an amicus brief in this litigation, and will work with Protect Marriage and the lawyers for Prop 8 in every way we are asked.
My Mr. Brown your real feelings about marriage equality supporters seems to have slipped out. Usually you are so nice and polite, but now we are "twisted"? Would that be your bigoted side, showing about how you really feel about LGBTs?
So a legal trial, where there is lots of structure, procedure and rules is now disrespectful, uncivil, lacks common sense and is undemocratic? Pardon me while I laugh.
Yes, we do believe we have a right to win a court case. The judicial system creates winners and losers, shocker I know...
It isn't that we think you don't count, it's just that we think there are three branches of government with checks and balances on the other two. The judicial system has a role to play in determining the constitutionality of both federal and state law. That's exactly what will happen in the courtroom (with some luck) on Monday.
This trial is going to be full of drama. I'm very much looking forward to it. I know I've been a bit of a slacker about blogging as of late, but expect some more writing from me over the next few weeks about the trial.
As you are no doubt aware, starting on Monday, a Federal Court in San Francisco will review the California Supreme Court decision to uphold the infamous Proposition 8.
This trial will be one of the most important civil rights cases in a generation, in which Bush/Gore 2000 adversaries David Boies and Ted Olson team up to defeat California's Prop 8 ban on same-sex marriages. We don't want to miss it.
Firedoglake wants to bring Scooter-Libby-trial style reporting to San Francisco's Federal Courthouse. We have a California team -- David Dayen arrives from Los Angeles this weekend and I'll provide commentary and video interviews -- and will welcome Libby liveblogger Marcy Wheeler later in the week.
Gathering signatures for any initiative is a challenge, make it a constitutional amendment with the added number of signatures, and it is even harder. To assure qualification, you'll need at least a million signatures, probably close to 1.2 million, as you will have a fairly substantial rate of invalid signatures. Pointing that out isn't meant to be a dash a cold water, but an idea of the size of the challenge in front of Love Honor Cherish. LHC is now gathering signatures to repeal Prop 8. From a LHC press release:
SignForEquality.com today launched a groundbreaking effort to gather signatures to repeal Proposition 8 and restore equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, marking the first time that social networking technology has been used to qualify a California initiative for the ballot.
"We're taking names," said John Henning, who is heading the SignForEquality.com effort as Executive Director of Love Honor Cherish. "SignForEquality.com will make history by using custom social networking tools, as well as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, to support an all-volunteer signature drive to repeal Prop 8. People throughout California can now help us win marriage back by the simple act of signing and collecting signatures."
For historical context, the last time a measure has qualified with a completely volunteer signature gathering force was 1984, 25 years and hundreds of initiatives ago. However, if there were ever motivated volunteers, this is the cause, and this is the time. Good luck to LHC and their supporters as they attempt to put the repeal measure on the ballot.
If you are interested in helping out, go to SignForEquality.com for more information.
You'll find the text of the measure over the flip.
November's California Bar Journal, the newspaper sent from the State Bar every month to all California lawyers, off-ledes with a story entitled "Chief justice: Initiative process has led to dysfunctional state."
The Journal referred to Chief Justice George's remarks as "unusually blunt." George's remarks seemed to indicate he thought reform was important. George is a Republican and was nominated by Governor Wilson for the Chief's position. George also suggested that money, not merit, had more to do with initiatives passing.
George's remarks may seem to some to have a tinge of "sour grapes" because he was the author of 2008's landmark In re Marriage case that legalized marriage equality in California, only to have it reversed by the voters in November.
I believe in democracy. I am both an upper- and lower- case 'd' democrat. This means I don't believe in rule by royalty. Just the same, it also means I do not believe in rule by the mob. These are not the same.
In particular it relates to the process by which laws are made. Democracy means people have the final power, but it is tempered by the wisdom of millenia to go through the process of elective assemblies. When even our state constitution can be amended by only a majority of voters who vote on a certain day-and it has been shown that even our most sacred rights, such as equal protection are subject to this-without much more deliberation than provocative television ads, it is not democracy, it is ochlocracy, mob rule.
This is not to suggest that our representative assemblies in this state are not also disfunctional and broken. But in my opinion, they need reform, not abolition.
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.
A year later, I don't know what went wrong. I don't know how to fix it.
We had the money. We had a stable campaign. We had the a robust well-oiled field campaign. We had a strong campaign manager. We had the turnout we wanted. We had great coordination between the netroots and the campaign. We had a not particularly religious state. We neutralized the church issue. We had a manageable voter universe. We had an opposition with an inferior media and field operation. We had TV ads with gay people in them. We responded to their attacks swiftly.
And we still lost.
Our campaign wasn't perfect. But it was damn good.
And that's why this loss is so hard. The lessons to be learned are not as obvious. Not knowing how to fix it makes it tempting to throw our hands up in the air and say at 0-31 we just can't win marriage rights at the ballot box. Or we have to wait a decade until we can.
But that would be letting them win. That would be giving up. That would be accepting inequality.
John Garamendi received the endorsement of the Contra Costa Times today. It's basically the same stuff that they said back on the September 1 election. He's experienced, he knows his stuff, he'll have an impact. All stuff I can agree with.
However, there is at least one thing to quibble about, specifically the part about Harmer in this quote:
Garamendi supports the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and a change in the law to allow same-sex couples to legally marry. Harmer has not taken strong positions on either.(CCT 10/28/09)
Now, if one were to peruse over to the SF Chronicle's database of donors to Prop 8, you'd find one David Harmer of San Ramon having given $2200 to Yes on Prop 8. I'm not sure how much stronger of a position somebody could make. He literally put his money where his opinion is. He steadfastly opposes equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
We lost Prop 8. No matter how you want to slice and dice it now, who you blame, or what organizations were at fault, we lost Prop 8. The fight to repeal Prop 8 will be long and arduous, whether that is next year or in 2012.
But the fight to repeal Prop 8 is always continuing. Two ballot measures from opposite sides of the country deserve our attention at this very moment. It cannot wait.
Paul Hogarth has done a great job bringing the Maine story back to California (and Calitics) by going there to do canvassing and other campaign work. In Maine, the legislature passed a marriage equality bill, and it was signed into law by the Democratic Governor there, John Baldacci. Unfortunately, the opponents of marriage equality were able to gather enough signatures to put the law up for a vote as "Question 1." You might recall many of these same organizations from the Prop 8 fight. The biggest donor to the anti-equality Yes on 1 Campaign is the "National Organization for Marriage." NOM, as it is known, was very active in Prop 8 helping to raise money and spread lies and distortion about what exactly marriage equality was all about. And the Yes on 1 Campaign is even using the same consultant as the Prop 8 campaign, Frank Schubert. And yes, even the same ads, just replace the Pepperdine professor with a professor from Boston College.
But the No on 1 Campaign is fighting back. They've launched several ads (also available over the flip) that directly respond to the lies and distortions. However, while they've booked the TV time, they can still use resources to get the message out. Please consider giving to the No on 1 Campaign on our ActBlue Page:
And in Washington state, some right-wingers are trying to repeal domestic partnership rights. If Referendum 71 fails, we will be back at square one in our West Coast neighbor. It is imperative that this measure succeed in protecting rights for same-sex couples. Here on Calitics, Laurel has been giving us updates from Washington.
You can give to both campaigns on the Calitics ActBlue page. Alternatively, you can fly up to Seattle for $40 from SFO or $60 from LAX on Virgin America. I imagine it's similar on other carriers. Seems like a small cost to help protect human rights from the right-wing attacks.
Sen. Mark Leno has a diverse legislative platform, from single payer health care to fighting against toxics in our homes. However, it is for his work for marriage equality that he has built his name in San Francisco and Sacramento.
Today, the Senator bags two more achievements. First, after getting a veto from the governor last year, the state will now declare May 22 Harvey Milk Day (not a day-off though). The recognition for a man who was dedicated to pushing for equal rights for himself and his community is an important marker for the fight for full equality for the LGBT community. It does not win us any additional rights, but it does give the state a chance to pause and reflect on a man who gave everything for the struggle.
On the other hand, Sen. Leno's SB 54 does have an immediate and real impact that goes beyond symbolism. The bill would grant marriages performed outside of the state before Prop 8 was passed full marriage status, just as the same-sex marriages performed between June and November. Marriages that were performed after that Nov. 5 date will get all the rights and benefits of a California marriage save the moniker "marriage."
Apparently Arnold saw the confusion brought about by the situation that Californians who had previously been married in, say Massachusetts, were in. They were told that they didn't need to renew their marriage, but the law was entirely unclear on the issue.
In a signing message, Schwarzenegger said California will not recognize the couples as married but will "provide the same legal protections that would otherwise be available to couples that enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships out-of-state. In short, this measure honors the will of the People in enacting Proposition 8 while providing important protections to those unions legally entered into in other states." (SacBee 10/12/09)
Expect SB 54 to be challenged by at least some of the right-wingers. There's not much of a substantive legal argument against these measures given the case law as it stands, but that's never stopped them before.
UPDATE: I forgot to point out that Arnold vetoed two transgendered focused bills, but Pam caught it. The vetoed bills would have made birth certificate records easier to handle and allowed for special protection of transgendered prisoners.
In court papers filed late Friday, Proposition 8 backers argue that allowing Brown to remain as a named defendant in the case "unfairly advances" the challenge to the gay-marriage ban because, like the plaintiffs, the attorney general maintains California's law against same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
"As matters now stand, plaintiffs have a party on the other side of this dispute who shares their ultimate goal of invalidating Proposition 8," Proposition 8 lawyers wrote in court documents. "Plaintiffs might well turn the old adage on its head and ask: With enemies such as these, who needs friends?" (MediaNews 10/06/09)
Ooh, that's funny, enemies like these. I think they're ready to get into the Shakespearean game. At any rate, the case is now heading for a summary judgment hearing, which is scheduled for next week.
Love Honor Cherish has officially submitted ballot language for a repeal of Prop 8 in 2010. The language still has to wind its way through the official process before signature gathering can commence.
But while Equality California opposes the measure, preferring to wait until 2012, Geoff Kors is still trying to ensure that he reigns supreme in the California LGBT land.
We helped Love Honor Cherish draft the language they have submitted, by spending hours with them on the phone for discussion and feedback. We didn't approve the final version, as we aren't involved in the effort to file this language, but we wanted the language to be as good as possible. Submitted language should always be shown to key stakeholders, and different options should be tested.
Good luck with that Geoff. The LGBT community still has some serious soul searching to define who exactly our leaders really are, because I'm not sure if Geoff Kors really has the authority and respect of the community at this point. And while elected leaders are pivotal to broad progressive goals, they cannot be the leaders on a ballot fight.
At any rate, congrats to Love Honor Cherish on this. Whether this actually has the institutional strength to get on the ballot is an open question, but no matter what happens, it must be the priority of every member of the LGBT community, and our progressive allies, to fight like hell once we get a measure on the ballot.
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.
"Yes on 1" - the Maine campaign to repeal marriage equality - aired its first San Francisco produced ad this week, which was kind of a dud. It was like the first "Yes on 8" ad in California - minus the Gavin Newsom footage. Within 24 hours, the "No on 1" campaign aired a strong rebuttal - in contrast to the 12 days it took "No on 8" to respond. Rather than simply deny the "gay marriage in public schools" charge, the ad accused outsiders of harming kids - and that schools protect "all Maine families," allowing our side to stay on the offensive. With 53 days to go before the election, a new poll today shows Question 1 narrowly ahead by 48-46. Supporters of marriage equality should realize that every effort will make a difference - and that we now have an opportunity to finally defeat anti-gay bigotry at the ballot box.
(This appeared in the Sacramento Bee. I'm on the board of Alice, and helped a bit with this. It is an important and valuable proposition. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
After months of paralysis, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community has been unable to reconcile the different strategic perspectives for repealing Proposition 8.
A consortium of groups, spearheaded by the Courage Campaign, is moving forward with an initiative to repeal Proposition 8 in November 2010. Meanwhile, Equality California, or EQCA, the largest LGBT advocacy organization in the state, has released its plans to repeal Proposition 8 on the November 2012 ballot. Efforts to reconcile have apparently been exhausted.
Make no mistake: We will repeal Proposition 8, but the current situation is untenable. Both factions are working with one hand tied behind their backs. The 2010 proponents are moving ahead with an undeveloped, piecemeal strategy with very little fundraising support or infrastructure. While we commend their energy and commitment, this is an overly risky way of running a campaign when so much is at stake.
Conversely, the very word "EQCA" has become a lightning rod in the discourse surrounding marriage equality. EQCA has been on the ground since the beginning of this year, conducting extensive outreach to communities across the state, particularly minority and religious communities, but it has not done enough to reinvent itself and its mission since the passage of Proposition 8. Nor has it done enough to address the lack of trust with which a large portion of the community, particularly younger, grass-roots activists, views them.
So what are the solutions to this quandary? While the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club decided in July that a slightly longer timetable culminating in a 2012 election is the appropriate strategy, we do feel that there is a lot of middle ground that we are failing to acknowledge. We can, should and must build a bridge to meet in the proverbial middle by creating a governing structure that provides accountability to both camps.
Perhaps our suggestion of a supervising structure will be a difficult pill for both sides to swallow. But think about it - is there any other way? The current situation is untenable. Whether this proposal is the solution or the beginning of the conversation that moves us toward a solution, it is clear that the status quo is completely unacceptable. Accordingly, we propose that a new campaign structure be formed that will govern the longer-term aspects of both the 2010 and 2012 efforts that are compatible.
Campaign structures must be set up to govern both the 2010 and 2012 efforts anyway, and there is no time to lose.
The new organization that we propose will have two distinct branches, both responsive to a central, governing body. One branch will focus on the efforts to repeal Proposition 8 in 2010. The other unit will focus on repealing Proposition 8 in 2012 and presumably will execute the public outreach plan for the 2012 election.
A central governing structure that supervises these operations must reflect the community and be accountable to it. It should conduct and be the repository for the research that is necessary to mount a successful ballot measure. It would coordinate and build upon the political research that the Courage Campaign has begun in support of a 2010 ballot measure and expand that work should a future initiative be necessary.
This central governing structure would also maintain voter databases and voter profiles that both the 2010 and 2012 efforts will inevitably create. This overarching structure would safeguard the data collected and determine what information to release or withhold based on what's good for the community as a whole.
Finally, each consortium, 2010 and 2012, will be responsible for its own fundraising and executing its plan. However, should either initiative wind up on the ballot, this overarching structure would transform into a single campaign committee to oversee, supervise and manage the campaign. Creation of such a structure will bring consensus and, most importantly, accountability to the divergent paths our community has taken.
The 2010 consortium is a fireball of energy, committed to repealing Proposition 8 now. An overarching structure responsible for research, education and expansion of coalitions within ethnic and religious communities would provide accountability to the community and free both the 2010 and 2012 consortiums to focus on the intense grassroots efforts necessary for the success of a ballot measure.
Regardless of how we proceed, we must establish a structure that will have the trust of the entire community and ensure the integrity of any campaign to win back marriage equality. Whether you believe in 2010 or 2012, we are fighting for the same goals and ideals. We need to mutually co-exist and flourish.
The Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, our nation's oldest chartered LGBT Democratic organization, urges the LGBT Community to create the structure, supervision and, above all else, accountability needed to move us closer to full equality.
This article was written by Susan Belinda Christian and Charles Sheehan, Co-Chairs of the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, based in San Francisco. It was approved by the Club's Board of Directors. For more information: alicebtoklas.org.
Suffice it to say he never said that. But what he did play was the sympathy card. More than once, he tried to go for the "aw-shucks, you city lawyers are just too smart for me" card. At the 
