New York has passed marriage equality. Let's repeat that. In. A. Big. Bold. Font.
New York has passed marriage equality!
or even better
Why not then California?
With an incredible victory in the New York State Senate as tailwind, the question of whether to pursue repeal of Proposition 8 now comes to the fore. Is California to be left in the proverbial dust, awaiting a Supreme Court decision that even if favorable will take years and years? Or will the state put this scourge to rest a little less than seventeen months from now?
The answer is not blowing in the wind. The answer is in the hands of LGBT organizations similar to those that came together in a unified front (or perhaps were pushed!) to win marriage equality in New York. The answer is in the hands of donors similar to those who were willing to go to bat for marriage equality to the tune of millions of dollars in New York. The answer is in the hands of grassroots advocates similar to those who, in New York, worked their butts off. They called, they gathered signatures and postcards, they called some more, and they demonstrated on the streets and in the Capitol in anticipation of the vote. Would their analogues in California work their butts off to pass marriage equality in California if they were given the chance?
There's no doubt in my mind: the answer is 'yes'. 'Yes' to putting it on the ballot. 'Yes' that the money and enthusiasm will be there.
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.
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.
I'm back home in San Francisco, after spending 10 days on the ground in Maine with the "No on 1" campaign. After my time there, I truly believe that - with our help - Maine will become the first state in the nation to successfully defend marriage equality at the ballot box, providing a roadmap for California to repeal Proposition 8. Maine activists have been working hard for five years to pass gay marriage, but events in the last few days now point to what should be an historic victory on November 3rd. With only 19 days left, what I'm seeing from the "Yes on 1" campaign reminds me of where "No on 8" was at this point last year - outgunned by the opposition, unable to control the message and at a loss about what to do. If Question 1 passes, it will be our fault for not having done more. But if Question 1 fails, those of us who get involved will have made history - which is why I hope to go back for the last four days. Here are the reasons for my optimism ...
Tonight, I'm taking a red-eye flight to Maine - arriving in Portland tomorrow. I'll be there for 10 days, volunteering for the "No on 1" campaign to protect marriage equality. And I'm taking my laptop with me - so readers will get my daily dispatches. As a Californian, the fight against Question 1 is personal. Gays and lesbians last year had their rights snatched away, and it can never happen again. Proposition 8 was eminently beatable, but our side ran a bad campaign - and I'm determined to take my work and experience to assist the effort in Maine. The right has long argued that every time "the people" get to vote on same-sex marriage, it loses. It is time to deliver them - and their consultant, Frank Schubert (who ran "Yes on 8" and is now running "Yes on 1") a humiliating defeat, one with national implications. But one person can only walk so many precincts. That's why we'll be working to help send volunteers from across the country over the next 32 days, because everyone needs to chip in for this fight.
There has been a lot of discussion about when to go back to the ballot to repeal Prop 8 over the last few months.
One thing we cannot do is let the clock run out. With that in mind, please read the statement we just put out to our community partners and chime in with your reactions in the comments.
From: Rick Jacobs, Chair, Courage Campaign and the staff of the Courage Campaign
To: Our friends, allies and partners in the marriage equality movement
Subject: 2010: It's time to make a decision
I write to you today with urgency and seriousness. After months of discussion and debate, the time has come to make the tough decision.
In May, 83% of Courage Campaign members said that our organization should work with our partners to place a marriage equality initiative on the ballot in 2010. If the Courage Campaign and our allies in the movement want to initiate the repeal of Prop 8 in 2010, we must make that decision very soon.
Frankly, too much attention has been placed on the political consequences of running an election in 2010 or 2012. The bottom line is that we must begin now to convince the people of California that civil marriage rights should be made available to all people, period. None of us should have to wait one more day to achieve equality at any level.
And while I say that, I also don't want to lose this critical battle. Going to the ballot in 2010 is a decision that obviously comes with potential consequences.
Even more dramatically, Olson and Boies, who have an amazing track record of winning cases, had requested a preliminary injunction against the initiative while the courts heard the merits of their case. In other words, this would have put the enforcement of Prop 8 in the Golden State on hold during the trial, consequently allowing same-sex marriages to occur again.
The hearing on July 2nd would've centered around the merits of the injunction, but Judge Walker had other thoughts in mind, calling recently for a move to "proceed expeditiously to trial."
"Given that serious questions are raised in these proceedings ... the court is inclined to proceed directly and expeditiously to the merits of plaintiffs' claims," the judge declared. "The just, speedy and inexpensive determination of these issues would appear to call for proceeding promptly to trial."
One of the smartest people in politics, gay or straight, is former California State Senator Sheila James Kuehl, the first openly LGBT person ever elected to the California Legislature. She sent out this brilliant analysis of the California Supreme Court Prop 8 ruling in Strauss v. Horton yesterday. Kuehl is thought to be running for Zev Yaroslavsky's Los Angeles County Supervisor seat in 2014 (!) when he is termed out and the 3rd District Seat is open.
Read the analysis, in its entirety, below the fold.
Let me begin by admitting that the plural of anecodote is not data--unless you have a statistically significant number of anecdotes.
That being said, in the aftermath of the California Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 yesterday, I have been hearing some of the same arguments in favor of the ruling that I heard during the campaign. It is especially irksome because some of the people making these arguments against equality are people who logically should be on our side because they support equal rights.
As a professional qualitative researcher, I know that when you're doing focus groups on a particular subject, one of the first things that you ask is, "when you hear the term 'x', what comes to mind?" It may be a long stretch from there to the advertisement or concept that you're actually testing, but the purpose of the question is a sound one: you can't make a proper judgment on you successful your executions are unless you know the baseline of the instantaneous emotional associations your target audience makes with a particular phrase or idea.
So let's take "marriage." What if you asked a hypothetical focus group the question outlined above regarding the term "marriage"? You'd get a lot of emotional associations, most likely from women. You'd get some discussion of the idea of commitment, and the joy it brings. And, true enough, these are some of the ideas that marriage equality leaders have been using to win support for marriage equality in the state of California--and rightfully so, because they are emotionally persuasive to a particular section of the electorate.
But let's move on to the legal rights issue. For an exercise in contrast, it would be useful to examine a second question: where does a wedding take place? You might get a few different responses, but religious institutions are likely to be high on the list, while the county courthouse and city hall are likely to be very low on the list.
Marriage equality advocates know that when we're talking about gay marriages, what is really under discussion is the right for a same-sex couple to be able to go down to the civil institution of their choice to get a marriage license to obtain the full legal rights of marriage to that individual, without regard to any private or religious ceremonies being held in recognition of that couple.
Now, marriage equality advocates will never be able to reach the deeply religious who feel that homosexuality is an affront against God, in the same way that parental notification advocates shouldn't go fundraising from Emily's List. However, there is a sizable--and persudable--middle ground: the people who want to maintain the exclusivity of their cultural trappings, but whose sense of fairness still dictates that gay couples should have equal rights.
Without hard statistical evidence to back up my assertions, I believe that this is the key segment that needs to be won at the ballot box in 2010. And the problem is, we're losing them. The opponents of equality were out there with their advertisements front and center in 2008 with a very targeted message that said two things:
1) gay couples already have all the legal rights of straight couples through civil unions;
2) given the fact above, the only reason they're pushing for this is to wage a culture war against your churches and schools.
It was persuasive, and left marriage equality advocates defending themselves against the accusation that they were waging a culture war by trotting out the likes of Jack O'Connell. But the underlying argument had already been lost, simply because the opposition had done such a good job of convincing people that civil unions allowed all of the same legal rights as marriage.
And this fact was again borne out in the aftermath of Tuesday's decision. On the radio, on comments of other online opinion pieces, and in my inbox were all variations of the same theme: that gay couples already had equal rights through civil unions, and that they should be happy with that as opposed to trying to insinuate themselves into full acceptance at churches and schools.
So what's the bottom line: Until marriage equality leaders outline concretely in their communications the specific rights that are available to married couples that are not available to straight couples, they will continue to leave themselves open to this argument. And making that same argument will not just refute an attack, but actively win the votes of those who do legitimately believe in equal rights, but voted for Prop 8 anyway. The road to victory at the ballot box will be difficult, and we can't just rely on changing demographics to enable victory. We have to change minds.
With the California Supreme Court's decision on Prop 8 today, California cemented its transition to a radical form of government unintended by the framers of the U.S. Constitution.
The pain of LGBT couples at the decision is understandable, and should serve as a motivator to defeat this bit of hateful discrimination at the polls in 2010. From a policy standpoint, today's decision may actually be a blessing in disguise: a decision to overturn Prop 8 today would have engendered major backlash for decades against a supposedly tyrannical court, while winning a majority in less than two years' time will have a more unifying effect without the sort of significant blowback a judicial overturn would have produced.
From a broader perspective, however, the Court's decision is revolutionary in terms of what it means for the structure of our government. The People of California have long constituted a 4th branch of government in the state through the ballot initiative process. Until 1978, the People were essentially coequal with the legislature and the CA Supreme Court.
Proposition 13 was the first major change to this delicate 4-way balance of power. Proposition 13 not only capped property tax increases; more importantly, it forced a 2/3 supermajority not only to pass a budget as in the past, but for revenue increases as well. Meanwhile, ballot propositions still only required majority vote of the People.
Overnight after the passage of Prop 13, the legislature and the Governor's Office became subservient branches of the government beneath the increasingly powerful Fourth Branch. From that point onward, the only restriction on the power of the Fourth Branch was the CA Supreme Court.
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."
According to many of the university's alumni, he is.
With the infamous lawyer's long track record, ranging from being the prosecutor that impeached President Bill Clinton to Solicitor General, and now his position as lead counsel for the supporters of Proposition 8, many who attended Pepperdine are not comfortable having Ken Starr as the current dean of the university. They feel his stance on Proposition 8 is "a disgrace."
In the letter, they urge the school to underscore the difference between the university's beliefs and that of its figurehead. ". . . you and the school have a responsibility to clarify where the line between your personal beliefs and the school's position differ regarding the issue of equality."
Tuesday's Daily Roundup by the Capitol Weekly reports on a new poll which shows a closely divided electorate on the question of whether marriage equality should be allowed in California:
"Voters in California are sharply divided on same-sex marriage, and an amendment to overturn Prop. 8 would depend largely on campaigning and voter turnout, according to a Field Poll to be released today," writes the Chron's Leslie Fulbright.
"The poll of 761 registered voters shows 48 percent in favor of a constitutional amendment to allow same-sex marriages, with 47 percent opposing and 5 percent undecided.
"The California Supreme Court is currently considering challenges to Prop. 8, the initiative passed by voters in November that banned same-sex marriage. Proponents say that if the court doesn't side with them, they will work on a measure to overturn the ban."
Though views on same-sex marriage vary greatly according to age, geography, political party and religious preference, the numbers overall are almost equally split."'
Opinions haven't changed much since November,' said Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo of the election where 52 percent of voters approved Prop. 8. 'The closeness of the divide suggests it would depend on the quality of the campaigning and voter turnout.'" Dan Walters reads the poll and writes: "It could be argued that gay rights groups had their best shot in 2008 as they sought to defeat Proposition 8 and allow an earlier Supreme Court decision, validating same-sex marriage, to stand. It was an extremely high-turnout presidential election in which Democrats dominated from the White House down."
It's likely that 2010's voter turnout will be millions of voters smaller and somewhat less liberal than the 2008 electorate, although it's not certain yet whether a pro-gay marriage measure would be on the June primary ballot, whose turnout would be even lower, or on the November general election ballot."
If the Supreme Court were to uphold Proposition 8 and gay rights groups were to seek a 2010 measure, only to lose again, their cause could be stalled for many years."
So, what do you think? If the California Supreme Court does not overturn Proposition 8, should we try and repeal it in 2010 or 2012? MadProfessah votes for going forward on November 2010. I seriously question Dan Walters' views on this topic since he has been so wrong before.
There are some other interesting facts in the crosstabs of the poll:
According to the poll, Democrats favor same-sex marriage by 63 percent and 32 percent oppose. Republicans are 70 percent opposed and 24 percent in favor. In the San Francisco Bay Area, those polled are 64 percent in favor and 31 percent opposed. In Los Angeles County, 55 percent favor and 40 percent oppose. Voters aged 18 to 39 favor gay marriage by 55 percent while those 65 or older are 58 percent opposed, according to the poll.
The California Supreme Court finds itself center stage tomorrow when it will hear oral arguments on whether it should uphold Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage.
The case touches the heart of our democracy and poses a profound question: can a bare majority of voters strip away an inalienable right through the initiative process? If so, what possible meaning does the word inalienable have?
The state faced a dilemma like this before. In 1964, 65 percent of California voters approved Proposition 14, which would have legalized racial discrimination in the selling or renting of housing. Both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts struck down this proposition, concluding that it amounted to an unconstitutional denial of rights.
As California's Attorney General, I believe the Court should strike down Proposition 8 for remarkably similar reasons - because it unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples and deprives them of the fundamental right to marry.
Some vigorously disagree. That's the position of Ken Starr and those who argue that a simple majority can eliminate the right to marry. But such a claim completely ignores California's history and the nature of our constitution.
Fundamental rights in California are recognized and protected by our constitution, which declares in Article I, Section 1 that "all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights" and "among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."
These fundamental premises of a free people were declared when the constitution was first adopted. The initiative process came much later in 1911, when the immediate concern was to give the people power over the railroads, which were seen as having a stranglehold over the legislature. In creating this initiative process, there was no discussion or any evidence of intent to permit a simple majority of voters to take away the pre-existing rights deemed inalienable by Article I.
In 2008, the California Supreme Court was faced with the question of how the values enshrined in Article I apply to same sex marriages. It concluded that the concept of "liberty" includes the right to form the enduring relationship called marriage and that no compelling interest justified denying this right to same sex couples. Just like the right to be free from discrimination in housing, citizens have the right to be free from discrimination in state-granted marriage licenses.
With this Supreme Court decision, same sex marriage has the protection of Article 1 and, like other inalienable rights, cannot be taken away by a popular vote - whether it be 52% (as was the case in Proposition 8) or 65% (as it was for Proposition 14).
I believe, therefore, the Court must conclude as I have that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and should be stricken.
Jerry Brown is California's Attorney General. Become a supporter of Jerry on Facebook or sign-up on his website (www.jerrybrown.org/join).
(full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign)
News broke Tuesday that the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on March 5, and will then make a decision within 90 days on the validity of Prop 8 and the 18,000 marriages that took place last year before the election.
When Ken Starr's legal brief, on behalf of the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund went public in December, the Courage Campaign immediately launched the "Don't Divorce..." campaign, asking our members to send us pictures with a simple message for Starr and the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund.
Those pictures, and the heartfelt messages on them, inspired Calitician and all around great guy Paul Delehanty (kid oakland) to send us a suggestion: Would Regina Spektor allow us to put your pictures to the words and music of her hit song "Fidelity"? So, we asked her and she very enthusiastically said yes.
Regina Spektor's song, in concert with the pictures, shines a beautiful light on the 18,000 couples that Ken Starr wants to forcibly divorce.
Watch "Fidelity" and then tell the Supreme Court not to divorce 18,000 California couples. Tell the Court to invalidate Prop 8, reject Ken Starr's case, and let loving, committed couples marry.
Clergy leaders were underutilized by the No on 8 campaign.
• Clergy leaders, particularly those who had performed marriage ceremonies, were the best spokespeople to counter faith leaders used by the Yes on 8 campaign.
• Over reliance on focus group findings directed clergy to phone banks, instead of visibility actions and outreach to congregations.
• CA marriage case and now Prop 8 amicus briefs identified supportive clergy across California.
Slide 5:
Leaders of color were underutilized by the No on 8 campaign.
• There is a deep bench of Leaders from the Black, Asian, Latino and Native American communities. We must have a campaign where all communities are well-represented as leaders, spokespeople, and in campaign literature.
• "We need to engage with all people and not just people "like us"...to ensure we are not acting in unintentionally marginalizing or discriminatory ways."
• "I feel that some of the language used in the ads, particularly „unfair and wrong? was very Caucasian centric. Most people of color live in a world that is unfair and wrong, so this washed right over us."
• Funding to distribute Spanish and Asian language materials and ads were needed at the outset of the campaign.
• We must make institutional changes so that the LGBTI leadership and organizations reflect the natural diversity of our communities.
Slide 6:
No on 8 ads lacked heart and inexcusably excluded LGBTI people.
• Survey respondents and town hall participants agreed:
• "The decision to „hide? gay people was unacceptable."
• No on 8 messaging was "swift boated"by the Yes on 8 campaign.
• No on 8 ads were too abstract and "lacked heart."
• We can't take the personhood out of a human rights campaign.
• In moving ahead, community input emphasized the need to present personal stories.
It goes without saying that I believe the slideshow is worth watching, and the reports are worth reading. Lots of good info in the collected thoughts.
~~~~~
Crossposted from Pam's House Blend. Material from Mariage Equality USA used by permission.
(I added the report FOX 11 (LA) ran on the event to Unite the Fight's crossposted piece. Note: I work for the Courage Campaign; "Unite the Fight" does not. - promoted by Robert in Monterey)
Of the countless meetings I've attended after the election, focusing either on the postmortem of the No on 8 Campaign (including Saturday's Equality Summit), brainstorming strategy, figuring out how to build coalitions, planning events and actions, and trying to determine next steps for the movement, I have not been to one meeting that was as effective, inclusive, practical and educational as the Courage Campaign'sCamp Courage.
Held in West Hollywood and knowing that it was going to last from 8:30am-5:30pm, I thought spending my whole Sunday at the event made the whole thing seem daunting. And I was skeptical. After feeling let down after so many attempts to do what the Courage Campaign was attempting, I was prepared to get bored, lose interest in the speakers and eventually tune out altogether. But amazingly, they held my attention the whole time, and I learned a lot. Borrowing the mantra, "Respect - Empower - Include" from the Obama campaign, Camp Courage succeeded in doing just that.
(Due to my having to write the Equality Summit report, I missed the kick off reception the night before, where many told me Cleve Jones gave a riveting speech. Unfortunately, I can't report the details, but if any of you were able to make it, please write me and tell me about it, and I'll post it. Also, I hear there is video of this - please let me know when it is up!)
