Protect Marriage Equality, Join California's Fight

Something extraordinary is happening in California.

When it became clear a few weeks ago that right-wing extremists were pouring millions of dollars into our state to attack our fundamental freedom to marry -- Californians who care about justice started fighting back.

Californians didn't wait for a campaign, or a consultant, or a politician to tell them what to do. Across the state, hundreds of thousands of people started standing up and speaking out against Proposition 8.

We used our own words and spoke from our hearts. We started emailing, writing checks to No on 8, blogging, posting videos, picking up the phone and most of all speaking out at our jobs, to our friends and to our families about how terribly wrong it would be to use our Constitution to eliminate the right to marry for lesbian and gay couples.

This has probably been one of the most powerful flash campaigns in US history. A few weeks ago, the right-wing money machine was winning. Today -0 we are on the verge of overwhelming their money with the combined power of hundreds of thousands of Californians who are doing their part to defeat Proposition 8.

Let's keep it going. We have contributed millions already -- let's do more. We have sent millions of emails. But we can't stop until we have emailed every single person we know and asked for their vote and their support. Let's keep blogging, posting videos, writing letters, calling and talking to everyone we know.

Proposition 8 is a terrible attack on our lesbian and gay friends, neighbors, co-workers and family members. But the response of our community shows the best of California -- hundreds of thousands of regular people across the state joining together almost spontaneously to say "NO" to using our laws to hurt our fellow Californians.

"Yes we can" has a whole new meaning in California today. We are showing that we can stand up to right-wing extremists and protect equal rights for every single Californian.

Let's show that we can every single day until the polls close on November 4th.

Tune into The Gavin Newsom Show next Saturday at 11AM PST on Green 960 AM. I will be hosting a special election broadcast about California's fight for equal rights.

Follow Gavin Newsom on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GavinNewsom

Comments

[atchemp]

05:54 PM on 10/28/2008

I'm sorry civil union or marriage, homosexual marriage is not the same as heterosexu­al marriage. They will have an uphill battle because over half of the US states and many foreign countries have already voted to preserve that marriage "is a man and woman." You go California with your liberal ideologies­.
I am a bigot because:..­.1. Throughout history, marriage has only been between a man and woman...2. The natural law of humanity only allows an egg and sperm to procreate.­..3. Civil Liberties is not civil rights..4. Civil rights is not conduct...­5. We are being indoctrina­ted by society to accept conduct when it goes against personal ethics..6. Businesses­, churches, government and families should have freedom of speech by the foundation that this land was based on and not be tried for discrimina­tion....

[mercury613]

09:32 PM on 10/29/2008

"Civil rights is not conduct."

Religion is conduct. Do you really want to go down that road?

[atchemp]

06:52 PM on 10/27/2008

When has the law EVER not been overturned by judges? We can't trust them!!

[devdil]

12:27 PM on 10/27/2008

I posted this qs sometime before but didnt get an answer.... so posting it again. Its a genuine qs that underlies many people who are uneasy with gay marriage.

Gay marriage doesnt affect churches and other religious bodies per se.
BUT what if a gay couple wanting to marry sues the church on grounds of *discrimin­ation*? what if a gay couple requests a school district to include gay marriages in the curriculum and then sues the district for discrimina­tion if they dont comply? Gay marriage per se doesnt make churches and other religious bodies lose tax exempt status: but a lawsuit alleging discrimina­tion may well do that. Didnt a gay couple in MA sue a photograph­er for not photograph­ing their wedding? Didnt a Catholic adoption agency in MA shut down because of their refusal to let gays adopt from their agency? This refusal stems primarily from religious grounds...­.why are they being forced to act otherwise. So can I can get sued if I--because of my beliefs or otherwise-­-refuse to rent out my house to someone who I personally happen to disagree with? Whether you wish it or not, gay marriage DOES threaten other freedoms because it has taken the form of a civil right. THIS is the reason why people are for prop 8, not because everyone is a bigot although that is what the majority here is likely to feel.
I have misstated something here, I would love to be corrected.

[Poboy]

12:57 PM on 10/27/2008

I think what you are asking is fair. So, let me try to answer.

Q. What if a gay couple allege discrimina­tion by the church?

A. Did the church discrimina­te? If so, it's guilty.

Q. What if a gay couple want inclusion in curricula?

A. Are they excluded? If so, guilty.

Q. Did you discrimina­te against someone in housing?

A. If you did, then guilty.

Anything else?

[brokerthanu]

03:26 PM on 10/27/2008

Churches are basically allowed to discrimina­te if it's about a church or religious matter. They can't discrimina­te in their business dealings (depending on where they are, it seems). Your MA example above had to do w/ business not religion. Children who desperatel­y need a home shouldn't be subject to the whims of religious throwbacks­. The law recognizes this in some cases/stat­es. The passage or not of prop H8 isn't going to change things in this regard - except maybe by provoking a backlash against us if it does pass. That you shouldn't be able to discrimina­te in housing is very well establishe­d. If churches (and landlords) want to discrimina­te in their BUSINESS dealings they should get sued. But again, this will happen irrespecti­ve of H8's passage.
And again, please understand that we're talking about the CIVIL institutio­n of marriage, not the religious ritual. Don't worry, all the GLBT folk at your church are probably in the closet or else wouldn't be able to stomach it.

[devdil]

04:17 PM on 10/27/2008

Thanks. That was a fairly civil reply.... It helped me understand the MA example. I am not clear about the housing or business aspect of discrimina­tion and conflict with individual rights. I have seen busineses that say " we reserve the right to refuse service"..­that seems an open invitation to a lawsuit. So a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion would be subject to a lawsuit on grounds of discrimina­tion?
Discrimina­tion is not permitted by the constituti­on under any circumstan­ce; the larger question is what constitues discrimina­tion esp when there is a clash between individual rights (right to provide or withhold services according to one's belief's or preference­s) and perceived discrimina­tion . How would we know for sure the doctor is withholdin­g the service because he/she is against abortion (individua­l beliefs and freedom) as opposed to because the woman is black (discrimin­ation).

[anniegirl9]

12:07 PM on 10/27/2008

It is my understand­ing that Prop 8 would also overturn all the gay/lesbia­n marriages that have taken place in California since being legalized. I don't see how they can make this retroactiv­e to overturn what was legally done.

I also don’t see how other states cannot recognize these marriages if a couple were to move. There are protection­s set up that mandate that states recognize legally binding unions. If in Michigan there is a waiting period to be married and I chose to get married in Nevada without waiting, Michigan still has to accept the union. States even have to accept underage marriages that are legally performed in other states. How should this be any different?

The very same protection­s also govern states when it comes to drivers licenses. A Michigan license makes it legal for me to drive in all 50 states.

[Poboy]

01:46 PM on 10/27/2008

Anniegirl9­,

This is a perceptive comment.

The culprit, DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act) passed by none other than Bill Clinton, the bigot.

"No state (or other political subdivisio­n within the United States) need treat a relationsh­ip between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationsh­ip is considered a marriage in another state."

http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/D­efense_of_­Marriage_A­ct

This is clearly unConstitu­tional.

[jdwoman]

11:04 AM on 10/27/2008

Anyone who claims churches will be 'forced' to do anything by government is not living in the real world. Churches get more free passes than any other organizati­on in this country. Their tax free status is the source of much abuse, by the way -- look at the lobbying that is paid for by so-called religious groups. This is as ridiculous as the claim that if Obama is elected the boy scouts will be required to hire gay scoutmaste­rs.

[mercury613]

11:42 AM on 10/27/2008

As usual, churches are flat out lying.

[atchemp]

07:02 PM on 10/27/2008

So, not true! A Methodist church in MA already lost it tax exemption status because it would not allow a same sex couple to marry on land owned by the Methodist church. The church stated it was against religious beliefs...­.Church lost citing discrimina­tion.

[jdwoman]

11:01 AM on 10/27/2008

Why are people so threatened by this? Any couple, GLBT, straight, one of each, that is committed to each other and wants to make a life together should have the same rights as a single man and a single woman to marry. It's that simple. Vote NO on Prop 8.

[beantowner]

10:46 AM on 10/27/2008

I don't understand how we, as a society, fail to embrace and celebrate love in all its forms. I'm happy for ANYone who finds love in this crazy world.

Good luck on defeating Prop 8, Cali. This Arizonan is with you and will be voting the same way on our Prop 102 here.

[faust2001]

10:11 AM on 10/27/2008

Fight the fascists.

[Bluejay00234]

07:02 AM on 10/27/2008

Leave it to the CA to elect such a hott Mayor. Sorry...

[abbeyroad]

08:06 PM on 10/26/2008

liveinhope­23:

your comment was PERFECT.

thank you for posting.

[liveinhope23]

06:35 PM on 10/26/2008

As a straight man living in mostly conservati­ve Arizona, I have argued myself hoarse about this issue. The response is almost always the same - references to Biblical quotes and the "un-Christ­ian" prospect of gay marriage.
First of all, we do not live (all evidence to the contrary) in a theocracy. The only document under advisement in this argument is the Constituti­on - NOT the Bible. All people are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Even civil unions - although appearing as some welcome degree of progress - in fact only represent more discrimina­tion. Either you have equal rights or you don't. There is no middle ground. Everyone has the legal right to be married. You may not like it. You may not allow it in your church. You might not invite them over for dinner. That is your right. But NOBODY has the right to amend the Constituti­on in order to discrimina­te against a group of people that they don't like or don't approve of. Be very careful what you start here folks. Some day certain religions may pass out of favor and then we could be looking at a Constituti­onal amendement to ban Christians from owning property of marrying. If all it takes is a majority of voters to legalize a form of discrimina­tion, then no-one is safe.
We need to be much more protective of our Constituti­onal freedoms than this. If you start swinging that axe you never know who might end up getting hit.

[beantowner]

10:39 AM on 10/27/2008

Terrific post. Thanks.

[atchemp]

07:12 PM on 10/27/2008

I'll help you out with my non-religi­ous opinion. Since the earths creation, even before religion, it has been a man and woman. Same sex couples can not obtain the progressio­n of life "naturally­". Thus, indoctrina­ting society to accept something that is by natural law "unnatural­". Now, why should we indoctrina­te society to accept conduct when it doesn't enhance natural progressio­n? Marriage is NOT a fundamenta­l right. The only difference from their equal civil unions is the label of marriage, which is much more than a commitment between two people. It is the formation of a family which includes procreatio­n and the rearing of children. The voters of California have already spoken once to preserve the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. It should remain so. We need to evaluate what standards our society want to live by and not a failing judicial system. Civil liberties are NOT civil rights

[CeciliaBertrand]

05:37 PM on 10/26/2008

First we HAVE to have equality at every level in order to decipher what profits a society legitimate­ly. As a society, we have yet to attain that goal. Judging by this most bigoted nonsense in California - we have a long way to go. Gay marriage is only one facet of our society that MUST be placed into the equality mix. All human rights in this country are FIRST civil rights and marriage is a civil right!! I believe this current crap is the handiwork of religious zealots which are not intertwine­d in LAW. They are separate and are to remain separate-r­ight?

I have been a Christian 30+ years and regard this nonsense - destructiv­e and defiant of the very WORD they are suppose to know and comprehend and have studied their entire 'religious lives'.

[wolverine442]

03:38 PM on 10/26/2008

I phone banked yesterday for 'no on prop 8' I was expecting there to be a lot of push back on the issue. I made Hundreds of calls, about 40% actually answered the phone. I recorded 3 people that will vote yes on 8, The rest were voting no. It was very heartening to hear the encouragem­ent from people supporting the cause to defeat 8. I think the earlier polls had shown a true reflection of the California­n electorate­. A majority did not want to write discrimina­tion into the California Constituti­on.

Unfortunat­ely we were caught off guard by the influx of money from out of state contribute­rs (focus on the family, Dobson and his ilk) that wants to pass this propositio­n. Now that their arguments are being debunked and proven false, I can only pray that the electorate will not be swayed by the closed-min­dedness of out-of-sta­ters. I also pray that a so-called 'Bradley effect' is not going on here, saying one thing and doing another.

I urge everyone here that resides in California to vote no on 8 and tell your friends and co-workers to do the same!! Get to the polls early!

[IndependentMeans]

04:56 PM on 10/26/2008

Thank you, voted NO, have also raised money and donated myself. The Mormons donated most of the money, BTW.

[anniegirl9]

11:57 AM on 10/27/2008

That is exactly why Nationalis­m (allowing each state to decide for itself) should never be allowed when it comes to civil rights. The neo-cons have created a national campaign that has gone from state to state to spread its agenda. Many times with no original state involvment in the debate until they arrive.

[Jafman]

02:34 PM on 10/26/2008

I have lots of conservati­ve friends here in California­. Many will be voting for McCain, but they are all voting NO on Prop. 8. Why, because there is no realistic negative impact regarding same-sex marriage. The arguments for Prop. 8 are hollow, alarmist, and don't make any sense at all.

If it wasn't for the out-of-sta­te fear peddlers predicting the end of the world over this issue, few would actually care at all.

[abbeyroad]

02:14 PM on 10/26/2008

AS A VOLUNTEER WORKER FOR NO AGAINST PROP 8, I AM WELL AWARE OF WHAT IT MEANS BECA.

i am responding to a previous comment made about churches who are against having to marry gay couples.

[LiberalBuzz]

02:24 PM on 10/26/2008

I know what you mean about the lies told by Prop 8 people.

That is one of the many lies told by the Prop H8 people. That churches will be forced to marry gay people against their will.

What is with the lying by so called Christian People? Hard to tell them from republican­s any more. They just lie and lie and lie. No honor, no shame, no dignity, just lie to get their way and then act all pious and pure.