California Gay Marriage on The Huffington Post

Movement Under Way In California To Ban Divorce

2009-12-01T12:52:38Z

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Til death do us part? The vow would really hold true in California if a Sacramento Web designer gets his way.

In a movement that seems ripped from the pages of Comedy Channel writers, John Marcotte wants to put a measure on the ballot next year to ban divorce in California.

California Gay Marriage Vote Unlikely In 2010

2009-11-30T21:04:24Z

SAN FRANCISCO — The chances of California voters being asked to repeal the state's ban on same-sex marriages next year are looking more remote after another prominent political group said that more time is needed to build a winning campaign.

Rick Jacobs, founder of the Los Angeles-based Courage Campaign, said Monday that polling and other research his organization commissioned shows that gay marriage supporters do not have the financial backing, leadership or edge in public opinion to try to overturn Proposition 8 in 2010.

Mark Olmsted: Do We Want to Be Right, or Have Rights?

2009-11-19T14:57:19Z

I'm a gay man who supports the right of consenting adults to enter into whatever relationship they'd like, including marriage. I have several married friends who took advantage of the pre-Prop 8 window. I love these men and respect their relationships. I volunteered in the campaign against Prop 8 and was disappointed by the results in Maine. But just because I believe gays should be able to marry if straights should doesn't mean I think marriage is a very good idea.

One advantage of same-sex love is that we are relatively unshackled by the expectations most heterosexuals are hard put to avoid. This doesn't necessarily mean we have better or longer relationships, just ones more likely to color outside the lines of societal expectations. The end result is that we have a lot to show the world in this department -- including (horrors!) arrangements that don't necessarily hew to models of monogamy, particularly among gay men. (We're not supposed to talk about it anymore, of course, but the nature of male sexuality does not change when you sign a marriage certificate. If you were a one-partner-man before you got hitched, you still are. If you weren't, you still aren't. We're just like straight men that way, except few heterosexuals since Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir even allow themselves to contemplate separating commitment and fidelity.)

But what have gay people done with this singular, "outside-the-box" legacy? Have we trail-blazed new legal frameworks recognizing non-traditional families and relationships? Have we led instead of followed? In a prodigious failure of imagination, we have instead decided to pursue for ourselves an institution with a success rate of a mere 50%. (And I use "success" advisedly. I bet you can count the couples married more than a decade that you think of as "happy" on a few fingers, if that.)

Despite this lousy track record, the state of being married is still held up as the ideal, and society confers status on those who conform to it. It's as if getting married is some kind of accomplishment, like getting a degree after years of school. No one even questions the premise that married people should have more rights or status than unmarried people in the first place. And they do. Ask any single mother or divorcee, particularly over 40. Within the gay community I'm noticing the same subtle fissure growing between the wed and unwed, as the words "my husband" are stamped with a legitimacy absent from "my boyfriend."

The divide will grow deeper when we get full marriage rights. This, by the way, is inevitable without the expenditure of millions of more dollars. It is simply a matter of demographic patience, as the young entering the voting pool replace the old leaving it.

Since time will win the marriage war, we don't have to keep losing the battles on the way. Our money and energy should be expended in the fights we can presently win, like the one we just did in Washington State. Our campaign there wasn't savvier than in Maine or California, but it didn't involve the word "marriage," except preceded by "Everything but." The haters and the ignorant spread the same nonsense on the airwaves, but the arguments seem to lack traction for that crucial 10% swing vote when the "M-word" is unattached from the idea of equal rights.

Every time I embark on this dissent I get accusing of defending the principle of "separate but equal." This was the legal theory advanced to justify segregation; the reason it was preposterous was that the economic resources accorded to blacks were so egregiously inferior to those accorded whites that separate could never be anything but unequal.

If "separate" was inherently "unequal" for civil unions, wouldn't we have seen gays in France and England up in arms over their supposed second class citizenship? By all accounts they seem perfectly content with their legal status. (Full Disclosure: my mother is French, and has always been slightly appalled by American weddings. "In France, we walk down to city hall and then go to a nice restaurant.")

What makes civil unions at present unequal is not their separateness, but the host of federal benefits conferred by marriage that even the best state domestic partnerships can't accord. So let's change that by calling Barack Obama's bluff on his stated support of civil unions. Let's also call the bluff of our electoral foes who proclaim they are not anti-gay, just pro-marriage. Deprive them of their most potent electoral argument.

Let them have their word and their failing institution. We can do much better.

Lee Camp: Moment of Clarity - Yet Another Reason Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

2009-11-12T11:31:32Z

Geoff Kors: Now What? The Long and Winding Road towards LGBT Equality

2009-11-11T10:54:41Z

It has been a tumultuous week since
last Tuesday’s elections. Maine voters stripped their lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender friends and neighbors of the right to marry. Meanwhile,
Kalamazoo residents voted to preserve anti-discrimination protections, and
Washingtonians said “yes” to domestic partnerships. Now that the votes are in,
it’s time to reflect on what is next in the push for full equality.

It’s the responsibility of
legislatures to pass laws that prohibit discrimination in employment, housing
and public services and facilities based on sexual orientation, gender identity
and other protected classes like race and religion. It’s the responsibility of
the courts to intervene and interpret those laws when needed. It is the courts
that ensure the government does not discriminate against individuals in these
protected groups. They ensure that individuals in these groups cannot be denied
marriage licenses, access to government programs or government jobs when the
legislature doesn’t do so.

For instance, the courts stepped in
when California voters tried to repeal protections against housing
discrimination based on race and tried to strip the children of undocumented workers
of health care and education. The courts stepped in when Colorado voters tried
to repeal protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation and
prevent the legislature from enacting laws in the future to protect gay people.

Why? Because the majority does not have the right
under the United States Constitution to overturn laws providing equality to a
protected minority group and deny the legislative and judicial branches their
right -- and obligation -- to enact such laws. Period. End of story.

Well, it should be the end of the
story. But over the past year, voters have stripped away marriage rights in
California and Maine. And the California Supreme Court failed in its obligation
to protect our fundamental freedom to marry.

So now what? What does the path
forward look like?

1. Federal
courts are considering a challenge to Prop 8 on the grounds that it
violates the United States Constitution. This case argues that Prop 8 denies
same-sex couples the same right as opposite-sex couples to obtain a government-issued
marriage license for no reason other than the majority’s animus towards us. Equality
California strongly supports this case. We have filed a powerful brief asking the Court to overturn Prop 8 and restore the right of
same-sex couples to marry in California. The Obama Administration needs to join
the fight and stop the abhorrent abuse of the initiative process to eliminate
the rights of any targeted minority. The Administration can do this without
taking a position on marriage, even though Obama’s continued opposition to
equality for same-sex couples remains extremely troubling to us. I strongly
encourage you to sign our petition asking the
Administration to file a brief in support of this case, and ask your friends
and family to sign it, too.

2. We must
stop endorsing and giving money to candidates for office who do not support
full and complete equality for every person regardless of sexual
orientation or gender identity -- and let them know why. EQCA’s Political
Action Committee does not support candidates who do not believe in our equality
100 percent, including marriage equality and insurance coverage for transition-related
care for transgender people. And that has been our policy for many years. Until
the politicians who take our community for granted realize that they no longer count
on our vote unless we can count on theirs, they will not change their ways. We
must make it clear that there is no middle ground. Either you support equality
or you don’t.

3.
We must make it clear that there
is nothing wrong with children learning that there are LGBT people. Our
children should understand why every child should grow up in a world where they
know they are safe and will be able to fall in love and get married regardless
of their sexual orientation or gender identity. That is why we worked so hard
to pass a bill in California establishing Harvey Milk Day, and we will continue
to work for an inclusive curriculum. Those who oppose marriage equality are
using fear and children to scare people. By working to ensure an inclusive
curriculum we can take this argument away from them. And in the meantime, we
need to test different messages and messengers in response to their attacks so
we can learn how to best respond now, rather than in the middle of an election.

4.
Most importantly, we must continue
to come out and tell our stories. This is critical no matter what the court
decides or if another initiative moves forward. The Let California Ring
coalition, which includes allies such as the American
Civil Liberties Union, California NOW and the NAACP, has the goal to achieve
not just equality but understanding and acceptance. And every time we share our
lives and every day we live authentically as LGBT people or as out and vocal
allies, we create the change we are seeking.

While I remain sad and angry about
what happened in Maine, the results in Washington and Kalamazoo and the
election of LGBT candidates in places throughout our nation demonstrate the
progress we have made. Add these victories to the passage of federal hate
crimes legislation, the signing of the Harvey Milk Day bill, marriage victories
in Vermont and Iowa and the many other gains our community has made this year
alone, and there is much reason for hope. We are making tremendous progress and,
while there will continue to be setbacks along the way, we will prevail.

Michael B. Laskoff: Gay Marriage Loss in Maine Is a Straight Loser

2009-11-04T10:46:32Z

A year ago, it was Prop 8 that sullied my joy at the official end of the Bush era. One year later, this once proud son of the State of Maine is appalled. 52.7% of the voting electorate there voted yes to the question, "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?" In this denial of rights, some will see a brave defense of traditional values. I see the hideous specter of legally sanctioned discrimination.

Being gay is like being black, white or Latino. It's genetic, not a matter of choice; and it's recurrent in the population -- generation after generation, throughout human history. (If you don't believe me, read the Iliad.) There's also pretty good scientific evidence -- empirical, not moral -- to prove that being gay is one of the normal expressions of human sexuality, along with heterosexuality. The latter is more prevalent, but both are normal. To deny normal, law-abiding people their civil rights is no better than racism. It's that simple.

Gay marriage, therefore, is a straight-up civil rights issue; ultimately, it will take a Supreme Court decision or an amendment to the US Constitution to make this right. That's almost inconceivably hard work, but ending slavery -- an institution preserved by our 'founding fathers' in our most treasured document -- was no picnic either.

Apparently, it's also time to disentangle the issue of church and state with respect to this issue. That would mean that only the government would have the exclusive right to marry a couple legally. Let's take all churches, synagogues, mosques, shrines, etc. out of the mix altogether. This won't put the clergy out of work; they can still perform their symbolic ceremonies after the real wedding, marriage itself should be a purely civil affair.

Finally, and on a personal note, I feel real personal sadness here. I have live most of my life out of state, but I have always been proud of Maine's libertarian tradition, which was based less on personal likes and dislikes and more on keeping the government out of the private sphere. Sadly, a majority of Maine voters seem to think that government should have the right to tell people how to live their personal lives. So much for innocence!

Kevin Armento: Genderless Marriage: Redefining the Debate

2009-11-03T16:05:41Z

The contending premises in the debate over gay marriage have thus far been "Same sex couples deserve the same rights and recognition as heterosexual couples" versus "Marriage is only between a man and a woman". Essentially, the question has been whether or not to endorse these relationships as valid.

It seems evident now that this somewhat restrictive framing of the argument helped cost California its fleeting glimpse of progress last November, many voters feeling forced to register their approval or disapproval of homosexuality itself -- and understandably confusing moral convictions with their constitutional counterparts.

Subsequently, the national portrait of advocates has been largely oversimplified: gay men and women working to secure their rights. This is in great part what the movement is about, of course, but there is in reality far too diverse a spectrum of proponents working alongside these men and women for everyone to be agglomerated into one demographic. The portrait is, as every family member and heterosexual advocate for gay rights knows (and here I include myself), a gross misrepresentation.

This must change.

If we strip away the layers of debate that obfuscate the fundamental principles in play, we arrive at a simple premise: that legal marriage ought to be blind to gender. No more change in law need be affected beyond the alteration of select pronouns. Marriage is, after all, a legal partnership -- a civil union, if you will -- between two consenting adults of a reasonable age, which receives tangible rights and benefits at the local, state, and federal levels.

The question then becomes: On what basis do we exclude certain persons or arrangements from this institution? After the Iowa Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same sex marriage, Justice Mark Cady put it simply: "We are firmly convinced that the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective." Granting marriage to same sex couples? Yes, but also rendering marriage a genderless institution.

Re-branding the movement as such not only widens its scope, but does so in a way that puts it more squarely in line with the two biggest rights struggles of the twentieth century. These are not just fights for the equal treatment of racial minorities, women, or the LGBT community, but more broadly for our national definition of civil rights. It illuminates all of these as issues that speak to our national character, something in which every citizen has a vested interest - not just those groups who are directly affected by a given piece of legislation or court decision.

Further, calling it genderless marriage changes the focus from demanding new rights be granted, to obliging opponents to explain why they shouldn't already be granted. If no evidence can be shown that same sex couples impede governmental objectives, than the argument is over before it has begun. Tradition, religion, and morality need not even enter the conversation, nor in this instance should matters of anatomy.

Emma Ruby-Sachs: Obama and LGBT Rights: A Year Since Election Day

2009-11-03T10:20:50Z

Almost exactly a year ago, I was standing in a small house in Bloomington, Indiana receiving volunteers for Obama's get out the vote effort on election day. By the evening, I would be in Grant Park in Chicago, listening to a Presidential acceptance speech that actually mentioned gays and lesbians.

The gay hope swelled.

But soon, the hope-over began: Obama extended an invitation to Rick Warren, the reality of the Proposition 8 loss settled in and the great political machine trudged onwards doling out a few successes and a lot of disappointments.

In his first year, Obama has done very little for LGBT Americans.

He contributed to the passage of an inclusive hate crimes bill and finished a process started by George Bush to end the travel ban on HIV-positive visitors. As marriage controversy erupted around the country, Obama has stayed clearly out of the debate. He has made no move on Don't Ask Don't Tell, no move on the Defense of Marriage Act and, despite one speech at a Human Rights Campaign fundraiser, he has made it clear that LGBT issues are not a priority for his administration.

But today, looking back on a year of LGBT rights activism under the Obama umbrella, I wonder just how much we have done to make LGBT rights a priority for Americans.

The hope-over has seriously taken the wind out of our metaphorical sails and, most importantly, out of our wallets.

Compared to the national effort to step up fundraising in California just weeks before the Proposition 8 vote, Maine's fundraising against Proposition 1 has come almost exclusively from in-state.

This, for a vote that might be the first LGBT ballot win in the country.

The Human Rights Campaign has been struggling since early this year to meet fundraising goals, even attempting to negotiate with its employees for lower pay and decreased benefits. Their role as the largest fundraising force in LGBT politics means that trouble in the HRC leads to trouble for all gay rights organizations.

I know it's a recession.

But if we refuse to accept the political claim that the economic crisis and the war in Afghanistan can push LGBT rights completely from the Presidential agenda, then we cannot accept that our own financial insecurity should push LGBT rights from our personal economic agenda.

It's time to give money. And we need to do it quickly.

Tonight will be a lot like a year ago for many of us: glued to televisions and computer screens waiting for polling numbers to roll in. If the fundraising data is a fair indicator, we will be celebrating at the end of it all again.

But as we look back on the otherwise difficult year since Obama's election, let's remember that, with enough commitment, enough financial backing, the future could look a lot more like this battle in Maine, and a lot less like the painful hope-over of the Presidential election.

So, one year after the election, what do you think Candidate Obama would think of President Obama? Tweet your response (our Twitter hashtag is #OneYearLater), or post it in the comments section.

Rev. Eric Lee: Marriage Equality Struck Down in California -- One Year Later

2009-11-02T08:48:46Z

November 4th will mark both the one-year anniversary of the historic election of America's first African American president, and the historic denial of the fundamental civil right of marriage to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens of the State of California under Proposition 8.

The idea of Marriage Equality as a civil right was clouded last year by an effective campaign led by conservative evangelical Christians who framed marriage as a purely religious institution. The campaign used scripture to justify their notion that same-gender marriage is against God's will. Many voters, who consider themselves to be Christians, and many African-American voters who normally vote to uphold civil rights, instead cast their vote based on their religious convictions, without regard to their actions' impact on freedom, justice and equality.

On this anniversary of the passage of Proposition 8, the challenge that proponents of marriage equality face now is how to reframe the issue within the context of social justice so voters are not unwittingly contributing to the discrimination, oppression and marginalization the LGBT community has faced based on a conservative interpretation of 2,000-year-old texts.

The only way to reframe the issue of marriage equality amongst those who voted against It, is to engage voters at their point of reference...religion. This is not to suggest that we must stay at that point of reference, but we must start there. The reasoning behind this strategy is simple: on any journey, you must meet people where they are before you can get them to where they need to be.

I have encountered many well-intentioned and otherwise justice-minded Christians who voted against marriage equality last November because, "their Christian conscience would not allow them to support same-gender marriage." To them I ask, does your Christian conscience allow you to discriminate, oppress, persecute, condemn or judge others? One of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is that God is the only One able to judge us. Therefore, for Christians who struggle with marriage equality as a matter of conscience, perhaps they should have allowed God to be the judge by abstaining from voting in that political election. Imagine how different the outcome of the November elections would have been if all those who voted against Marriage Equality based on their religious convictions simply hadn't voted on the measure at all.

Many voters who voted against marriage equality strongly believe in the idea of marriage as a religious institution, rather than a civil one, and claim that the Bible's example of a traditional marriage is between one man and one woman.

For those of us who have truly studied the scriptures and the Bible's patriarchs, it's clear that traditional marriage also included men with multiple wives and even more concubines. From Abraham to Isaac, David to Solomon, and every patriarch in between, the Bible characterizes traditional marriage as less than monogamous, with women being the property of men. Clearly, the Bible's traditions around marriage do not dictate the structure of marriage today. For women voters, this important detail is particularly resonant.

Indeed, I have also found it effective to state the obvious: marriage licenses are issued by the Secretary of State, an elected, publicly paid official. While clergy request the license and affix their signature and denomination, they require the signatures of two witnesses before conducting the ceremony; and they must verbalize as part of the ceremony, "by the powers vested in me by the state of California", indicating that they are operating as an Agent of the State. The religious component of the ceremony reflects the traditions and culture of the participants. Without the sanction of the State, no marriage would be legal.

The objective is to engage voters in a rational dialogue - one which questions why their personal religious convictions entitle them to deny a fundamental civil right to an entire a group of people. It is paramount to forcibly imposing their theology upon individual citizens and state institutions, violating the principle of separation of church and state. If the voter is of the Christian belief, ask them how they would feel if Islam was forced upon them. If the voter is a Muslim, ask them how they would feel if Judaism was forced upon them.

At the center of this issue is the right to choose how individuals live their lives. Freedom of choice is essential and critical to our democratic ideals, and also a core component of the Christian faith. At no time should any tax paying citizen be denied the constitutional right to freedom. The issue of Marriage Equality needs to framed as a right to freedom, justice and equality, the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

Jesus asked that we love our neighbors as we love ourselves. This is our opportunity to follow in His footsteps and show the true power of His words.

Tegan And Sara Interview: Gay Rights, Public Service And The Music Industry

2009-10-29T14:02:18Z

Identical twin Indie duo Tegan and Sara have been busy winning awards and producing work across genres since they first burst onto the scene in Canada back in 1995. Since then, they have been vocal in their support for various causes, including gay rights.

Causecast's Brandon Deroche recently caught up with the twins to discuss their take on Prop 8, civil marriage in Canada, community service, the Love Unites movement and being out in the music industry.

CC: What are the causes you're passionate about?

Tegan: Well, obviously most recently, our last American tour kind of fell at the exact same time as the American election. Obviously the election itself was extremely important to us, but the whole Prop 8 thing was very close to home for us as gay artists; we were obviously really hoping that Prop 8 would not pass in California. I was here for a month and a half after that, so I went to all the marches and you know, blogged online and tried to get people to support. Sara and I both did the Love Unites posters. We really tried to get involved and sort of wrap my head around how that happened. Like how California itself wasn't supportive of gay marriage just didn't seem to make much sense at the time. It was very anti-climatic to hear that President Obama was President, and then to hear that Prop 8 passed - it was like "ehh, I'm sad and happy all at the same time." So confusing...so Prop 8 was kind of the last thing that we got involved in. We're obviously still monitoring all of that and doing what we can to make sure that people know that still needs to change obviously.

CC: How do you feel that music can play a role in creating social change and pushing things forward?

Sara: Obviously, there's not been some huge wave of political music which is tough because and sometimes I find that political music is usually is so marginalized because it's political, that it doesn't have the impact that say, a pop band, like U2 being political, but still making pop music, with the occasional political song, how impactful that can be. So I'm thinking that, currently, though, you have really articulate, well-spoken musicians who are out canvassing and talking about things that matter to them. You know, for us, obviously, we talk a lot about gay rights and being gay and sexism and feminism, and all of those kind of things. But you have tons of people who are talking eloquently in the press right now about things like health care. And, in Montreal, for example, I'm really aware of, I love that the people in the Arcade Fire are constantly talking about Haiti and the things that are going on in the countries that are important to them, or where they're from or whatever. So when you see people not just talking about themselves or their music, I find it inspiring. I love it. And I never think when I see a band talking about something that is important to them that they're preaching, or that they're trying to push something down, you know, your throat. After the end of a long day, to be honest, it's nice to kind of talk about other people's problems, and other people's issues, and not necessarily just talk about, well, like, on tour relationships, and it didn't work out, I'm sorry, I wrote a bunch songs about it, and it's kind of nice to know that you are here for some other important reason, and I think a lot of bands are just chomping at the bit to talk about something that they care about, you know?

Read the full Tegan and Sara interview on Causecast.org

C. Brian Smith: Q&A With a California Homosexual

2009-10-29T13:01:47Z

www.HomosexualsAreALotLikeNormalPeople.com

Emma Ruby-Sachs: The Big Gay Speech We Wish Obama Would Give

2009-10-07T22:38:53Z

This Saturday, President Obama will be the keynote speaker at the Human Rights Campaign's big DC fundraiser. As the largest gay rights fundraiser in the U.S., it's a big deal to score a personality like the President. But his presence has many members of the LGBT community worried. Here's a guy who has done virtually nothing for gay rights since his election. What can he possibly say?

I'm sure his speechwriters have cooked up something special for the night, but I've got a few ideas of my own. I've written a little speech for the beloved President - the kind of speech we wish the man would give, just once.

Tonight is a night to celebrate the Human Rights Campaign - the work they have done, tireless, well organized, well executed work, to promote the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people in this country. It's also a night to celebrate all of you, the people who donate their money and time to help make this country a more equal and just society.

But it is also a serious night, a night to reflect on where we have been and, more importantly, a night to plan and commit to where we are going.

I have a plan and I am ready for that commitment.

I understand that, in the face of the economic crisis facing us at home, the military crisis facing us abroad in Iraq and Afghanistan and the environmental crisis facing the international community, there is a very real struggle for basic human rights engaged in everyday by LGBT people in the United States.

This struggle is not overshadowed by the big news issues. It is not lessened by them. It is a constant and painful inequality. I know something about this kind of discrimination. My family knows something about this kind of discrimination.

And so, I do not stand before you tonight with excuses for the delays in Washington, for the setbacks and political conflicts that have crippled many important equality initiatives and stalled others.

I am here tonight because my administration is committed to full equality for LGBT people in this country. I pledged that commitment early in the campaign and have not swayed from that position.

I believe in the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, the passage of inclusive immigration reform and the widespread protection of LGBT employees from retribution for their sexual orientation or gender identity.

I believe in hate crimes legislation that protects Americans from homophobia as well as racism.

And here's what I'm going to do to make the things I believe in, a reality.

Within one year, by November 2010, we will introduce comprehensive immigration reform. This immigration package will include spousal sponsorship for same-sex couples in a committed relationship. Immigration reform is a priority for my administration and no reform package will be complete without this provision for the unification of American families thus far separated by discriminatory immigration policies.

Within six months, by April 2010, we will introduce a bill repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. When we ask so much of our troops, send them back for repeat tours, ask them to fight in harsh conditions so far from home, we must support their right to be open with their colleagues and superiors. We simply cannot afford to lose anymore good people from our military simply because of their sexual orientation.

As we speak, members of Congress are mobilizing around an inclusive hate crimes bill. That is a success that is imminent and my administration pushed to include the Matthew Shepard Act in the defense bill before Congress. We will push to get it passed.

These campaigns will not happen without roadblocks. Sometimes it will seem like we are moving backwards. We have already seen this with Proposition 8 in California and the proposed Proposition 1 in Maine.

But, the United States of America is a community of people from many different countries and many different cultures. It is a nation that vibrates with diversity and rises from its people's differences as much as their shared experiences.

We are ready for progress. We are ready for equality. We, together, are going to make that equality happen.

National Equality March: DC Prepares For LGBT Community

2009-10-07T21:45:52Z

People from across the U.S. are converging on Washington D.C. this weekend for the National Equality March, a movement from the LGBT community to demand equal rights in all manners of public life, including the right to marry, donate blood and serve in the military.

Organizers are asking those who believe in equal rights (straight or gay) to sign up on the Equality Across America website and commit to joining the thousands in D.C. on October 10 and 11.

Though the gay rights movement has taken a backseat to the economy, health care and other domestic issues in 2009, last year's passage of California's Proposition 8 sparked continued outrage in the LGBT community, culminating in this weekend's event.

If you're attending the National Equality March in D.C. this weekend, we want to hear from you! Send your photos and stories to impact@huffingtonpost.com. On Monday, we'll publish the best photos and stories and spread your message across the country.

Tweet with the hashtag #ntleqmarch and let us know @HuffImpact. Personal stories are what create Impact and make a movement.

Chris Prevatt: With Time, Equality Will Blossom Even in Orange County

2009-09-18T09:14:21Z

In the annals of the modern gay-rights movement, Orange County has a less than stellar role. The stomping ground of the late state Senator and anti-gay initiative sponsor John Briggs, firebrand former Congressman Bob Dornan, and longtime antigay funder Howard Ahmanson and activist Lou Sheldon has gained a reputation for antagonism to gay people that political observers of all stripes still take at face value.

But history reveals a more complicated picture. The approval of the antigay Prop 8 by county voters last year belies recent developments in local politics. In the past 2 months, a diverse network of LGBT leaders and progressive organizations in California has coalesced around a 3-year effort to win back marriage equality by repealing Prop 8 in 2012. The drive, inspired by a statement called Prepare to Prevail, holds a special opportunity for Orange County voters. We can reconsider our stand on the equality of committed same-sex couples under state law and whether we want the image of intolerance, however deserved, to be a lasting legacy.

Right-wing politics is losing its hold on the longtime hotbed of conservatism, home base and final resting place of Richard Nixon. County voters evicted Dornan from his Garden Grove-area House seat 13 years ago. The Anaheim-based cottage industry of fear and loathing that once brought Sheldon millions of dollars from donors like Ahmanson is now a fading shadow of itself. Just last fall, the Obama campaign reduced to a mere 30,000 votes the traditional “Orange bounce,” or the margin of more than 200,000 votes by which the GOP, as recently as 2004, has carried the county in presidential elections.

Careful reflection shows that even Briggs’ measure attacking gay teachers actually failed countywide en route to rejection across the state in 1978. The stance of former governor and future president Ronald Reagan, who said the Briggs measure had “the potential of infringing on basic rights of privacy and perhaps even constitutional rights,” proved particularly useful for gay-rights supporters that year in swaying Orange County voters.

Today, a similar case can be made on conservative grounds for undoing Prop 8 and restoring the right of committed same-sex couples to marry under state law. Rank-and-file conservatives need to grapple with the issues of liberty inherent in reneging on marriage equality through a popular vote. Should government interfere in denying some couples the same respect and rights that others routinely enjoy through marriage? Should the constitutional amendment process be used as a tool to target the freedom and equality of any group of Californians—and by majority vote restrict it?

These are questions more people will confront in the 3-year campaign now under way to undo Prop 8. They hold the possibility to engage the attention and even change the views of some Republicans on the equality of gay people and same-sex couples. The presence of a pro-equality GOP candidate on the campaign trail, former Congressman Tom Campbell, promises to keep the issue in front of Republican voters.

In August, the respected Field Poll released an analysis of its own statewide surveys showing that Republicans’ views on same-sex marriage had largely held stable in the 30 years since the Briggs vote. Over the same period, Democrats and Independents had actually reversed their prior stance, from 2-to-1 and 3-to-2 margins of disapproval, respectively, to precisely opposite margins in support of marriage equality.

The Republican numbers made headlines for how little they had changed. Yet deserving more attention was that Republicans showed the highest level of any group expressing “no opinion,” and the largest expansion of that number, from 5 up to 9 percent. This uptick suggests a sliver of doubt wedging into the moral absolutism that long has dominated conservatives’ view of gays and the permissibility of same-sex marriage.

Prop 8 passed last fall with 52 percent of the statewide vote. The ripest prospects for building increased support for equality and reversing Prop 8 are among new and young voters, who are more progressive on the issue and replacing less equality-minded seniors every day. But whether the pool of Republican doubters expands and shifts toward support for marriage equality in the next 3 years may also help determine whether gay-rights supporters gain the additional margin of support needed to amend the state constitutional ban and win back marriage equality.

Orange County, like the rest of California, has grown more diverse and more moderate over the last generation. Yet its reputation as a conservative, antigay bastion persists, despite evidence to the contrary. Orange County voters, with a shift in our own stance on Prop 8, could help change the image and reputation for the county and restore an important state standard of equality under law.

Mary-Charlotte Domandi: Gay Marriage: Just Because You Can, Does that Mean You Should?

2009-08-24T14:16:01Z

Frederick Hertz, a divorce lawyer in a long-term unmarried same-sex partnership, has co-written with Emily Doskow a book called, Making It Legal: A Guide to Same-Sex Marriage, Domestic Partnership, and Civil Unions. It covers a wide range, from the first same sex couple to apply for a marriage license (two men in Minneapolis in 1970 -- who are still together, by the way), to marriage and domestic partnership in Europe (marriage there is an entirely civil affair, legally speaking), to the shifts in both gay and straight cultural values since Stonewall and the AIDS pandemic (mainstream culture has become more open-minded, and gay culture more mainstream). Especially interesting are the potential benefits and losses associated with marriage, particularly if there is a divorce... and of course gay divorces are no less ugly or amicable than straight divorces.

Listen to an interview with Frederick Hertz on The Santa Fe Radio Cafe with Mary-Charlotte Domandi.

Paul Hogarth: Maine Next Battleground for Marriage Equality

2009-08-18T09:40:06Z

In just 77 days, Maine voters can set the national agenda for marriage equality. The state legislature passed same-sex marriage earlier this year, but now the right has collected enough signatures to put a referendum ("Question One") on the November 2009 ballot -- and has hired the same political consultants who successfully passed Proposition 8. Supporters of marriage equality, however, are determined not to repeat the same mistakes we made in California -- and will run an inclusive field campaign with a pro-active and pre-emptive message that (with the right resources) can bring about victory. It does not cost a lot to win campaigns in Maine (only $3 million), and voter turnout is expected to only be about 500,000 people. In other words, the campaign is winnable -- but has not yet received the national attention it deserves. While Californians are divided on whether to repeal Prop 8 in 2010 or 2012, they can set aside their differences by helping us win in Maine. If we prevail on November 3rd, it will be easier to take our rights back in California.

The fight for marriage equality has made crucial progress in the past six months -- from a court victory in Iowa to legislative victories in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. The American Taliban is scared of the inevitable trend toward justice, and views the upcoming Maine referendum as "ground zero" in this battle. Groups like the National Organization for Marriage have already thrown massive resources into Maine and are taking it seriously. "The side that cares more will win," said "No on One" field director Monique Hoeflinger.

The LGBT community is aware that whenever marriage rights have been on the ballot, bigotry has prevailed. Arizona rejected an anti-gay marriage amendment in 2006, but it threatened both marriage and domestic partnerships -- and the campaign to defeat it focused on the latter. Two years later, the right put another measure in Arizona that only banned marriage -- and it passed by a 13-point margin. In other words, winning a campaign in Maine at the ballot box will change the conversation -- and help us repeal Proposition 8.

Everyone knows that defeating Prop 8 was winnable, but our side ran an awful campaign that -- like Michael Dukakis -- blew a seventeen-point lead. It had a reactive message that did not anticipate or preempt attacks from the other side, failed to run an adequate field campaign that included California's diverse constituencies, and suffered from an early complacency that led to its downfall. But after meeting some leaders from Maine's No on One campaign at the Netroots Nation conference in Pittsburgh last week, I am confident they have learned from our mistakes.

A Grassroots Campaign that is Proactive and Preemptive

Unlike in California, where gays and lesbians won marriage rights at the Supreme Court, in Maine the legislature and Governor passed it into law -- less than three months ago. It took an intense grassroots lobbying campaign to make this happen, and now the same Mainers who fought for their marriage rights are ready to defend them at the ballot box.

On Election Day last November, marriage equality advocates stood outside polling places in Maine with pledge cards for the legislative campaign. By the time the legislature voted six months later, they had identified 50,000 registered voters who support gay marriage - but what's interesting is where most of them came from. Lobbying efforts come down to persuading "swing" legislators, and most of them don't represent liberal communities. Most of the 50,000 identified supporters live in "swing" parts of the state, giving the campaign an advantage to make inroads in places that will decide this election.

Compare this with the "No on 8" field campaign in California, which focused almost entirely on gay neighborhoods in San Francisco and Los Angeles -- while ceding the rest of the state to opponents. Mobilizing your base is important (especially in a low-turnout election), but a winning campaign needs to have a visible presence in every part of the state.

"No on 8" also ran a reactive campaign that spent too much time responding to lies that the opposition hurled at us. It was inexcusable to not anticipate the "gay-marriage-will-be-taught-in-public-schools" line, because it's only been used as an attack from the right in every state that had a marriage amendment. The "No on 1" effort has already planned a TV ad when the other side makes this argument. And unlike in California, where we put a politician on the air (State Superintendent of Public Schools Jack O'Connell) to say it's not true, the Maine campaign will counter that message with teachers and families.

People of faith have been part of the coalition for years - and are framing support for gay marriage in moral terms. On the day after the California Supreme Court ruled for marriage equality, they had five press conferences throughout Maine lauding the decision. This pro-active show of force actually put the religious right on the defensive. If this is how they plan to run the "No on 1" campaign, it's an effort worth giving your money to.

Not a Lot of Resources Required

At Netroots Nation, the "No on 1" campaign said they needed about $3 million to win a statewide campaign in Maine ("We're a cheap date," they said.) All of us Californians laughed, because we spent $40 million last year only to have our marriage rights taken away. But it's not just how much money a campaign spends, but whether they use their resources wisely -- and when the money comes in. "No on 8" ultimately outspent the opposition, but too much of the funds came in late in the game -- when there was a tangible fear of losing. In Maine, it's important to send a contribution before Labor Day -- so the campaign can hire enough field directors that requires weeks of hard work.

Mainers have a "live-and-let-live" approach, but they don't like outsiders trying to buy the election process. Most of the "No on 1" money has come from Maine residents, in small contributions from supporters of the legislative campaign to pass marriage equality. The opposition has already raised $343,000 -- and all but $2,000 from four big donors: $160,000 from the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage, $100,000 from the Roman Catholic diocese of Portland, $50,000 from the Knights of Columbus and $31,000 from Focus on the Family Maine. No sign yet if the Mormons are sending in their millions from Utah, but when they do I hope to see more creative YouTube spots like this one.

Finally, the "No on 1" campaign is inviting volunteers to come "vacation" in Maine -- where they will put you up in the homes of supporters. Help is especially needed during the first week of October, when early absentee ballots get mailed out. Volunteers should go to the campaign website, and let them know when they plan to visit the state. This will be a campaign mostly run by Maine residents, but unpaid assistance from those passionate for marriage equality are welcome.

In California, gay marriage supporters who plan to repeal Prop 8 at the ballot box are deeply divided between doing it in 2010 or in 2012. Equality California has endorsed 2012, in part because their donors do not feel confident winning in 2010 is possible. But grass-roots supporters at the Courage Campaign want to try next year. It's a stupid internecine fight that threatens to hurt the LGBT community, when we should all be working together.

I'm undecided about 2010 or 2012, and am willing to be persuaded either way. But there's one thing I know for sure -- defending marriage equality in Maine in 2009 will make it easier to repeal Prop 8, regardless of what year it gets on the ballot. Californians who believe in marriage equality have a moral responsibility to help out the Maine effort. Depending on my vacation schedule and budget, I plan to fly out there in a few weeks.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

Rupert Russell: America's Gay Leadership Crisis

2009-08-17T22:20:31Z

The leadership struggle for civil equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Americans is in crisis. A glut of organizations, with competing interests and shifting priorities, of professional lobbyists pitted against grassroots activists, splintered over race and religion, jostling for influence whilst shirking responsibility, has created an unprecedented leadership vacuum.

It is this crisis of leadership -- not the conservative movement, the Republican Party or the Mormon Church -- that represents the single greatest threat to LGBTQ rights. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the attempts to overturn Proposition 8 and restore marriage equality to California.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest group, is abstaining from this "state" issue to focus on federal campaigns. A host of groups, lead by Prepare to Prevail, is undermining a 2010 attempt. Equality California, the single organization charged with repealing Prop 8, decided to ignore a ballot of its membership who voted 69 to 24 percent in favor of a 2010 challenge, to put it off until 2012 because that's when the "experts" told them they could win it.

So, the very organizations that so vocally criticized Congressional Democrats and the Obama administration for asking the LBGTQ community to "wait" for the appropriate political moment, have come to embrace the very same principle of "the fierce urgency of whenever," as Andrew Sullivan aptly puts it. Now, it is the Human Rights Campaign and Equality California, and not just the Democrats, who say: cut your checks now and wait a little longer, equality is right around the corner.

And they have been waiting, patiently: 13 years for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, 16 years to end Don't Ask Don't Tell, 22 years to lift the HIV travel and immigration ban, and 233 years to have their relationships recognized by a Republic that declared "all men are created equal."

Maybe the "experts" have a point. Isn't the practical road just the safest route to a principled destination? According to them, we must wait until support for repeal reaches a safe number, around 60%. How is this to be achieved? They say by a coordinated "grass-roots" campaign, "outreach" initiatives to minority communities, and "generational replacement," which is a cruel euphemism for waiting for our opponents to die.

Yet attempting to launch any mass volunteer based movement with the expectation that it will be able shift 10 points in the polls in the absence of an election campaign is perhaps the least practical of any of the options considered. The idea behind their thinking is that little actual campaigning needs to be done because in the long term society will move in a linear progression towards marriage equality by itself. But the long view has a short-term memory, forgetting that was precisely the mindset of activists in the 1970s on the eve of the Reagan-led conservative backlash that set them back decades.

Nor is this the consensus among political professionals: Steve Hildebrand, the deputy campaign manager for Obama's presidential bid, recently declared that "2010 is the right time to courageously win back marriage rights in California -- as strongly as I felt when I decided to devote two years of my life to help Barack Obama run for President despite warnings from the pundits and pollsters that he would never occupy the Oval Office."

America's LGBTQ leaders only want to lead when there is nobody left to be led. This could not be more opposed to the very leader from their own community who has been posthumously awarded this week the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Harvey Milk. Milk was not afraid to risk defeat, and was defeated many, many times. He also understood that each time he went into battle he was one step closer to winning the war, whether he won or lost.

This was not hopeless idealism, but a kind of pragmatism that is entirely missing from out political culture. Let us not forgot that the when the Brigg's Initiative was first placed on the ballot in September 1978, 61 to 31 percent favored the passage of the proposition. Had it passed, it would have fired the homosexual employees of California's public schools, under the slogan of Anita Bryant's "Save our Children." In fewer than three months, the numbers had flipped with 58% voting against the measure. The consultants who say we must wait for 60% approval before committing to a vote should take note of Briggs and Bryant's defeat.

At a time when gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are flourishing in America's public life like never before, those charged with advancing their civil equality have retreated into the closet. In the spirit of Milk, it's time to say: "come out!" not just to your friends and your families, but your own communities who need you now like never before. Now is the time to lead.

Fred Karger: Let the Money Laundering Begin

2009-08-17T17:55:54Z

The organization trying to overturn Maine's same-sex marriage law, Stand for Marriage PAC recently turned in 100,000 signatures to place the question on the November ballot. These gay marriage opponents hope to repeal LD 1020 -- the law passed by the State Legislature and signed by the Governor allowing same-sex marriage in Maine.

Of the $343,689.50 raised to pay the Brighton, Michigan based National Petition Management, Inc. to collect the signatures, only $400, or a mere .001 of that total came from individuals. The remaining $343,289.50 was given by various religious organizations and James Dobson's Focus on the Family. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) gave nearly half of that total, $160,000. The remainder came from Catholic organizations ($150,000) and James Dobson's Focus on the Family ($31,000).

It sure looks like they are trying to hide the donors in their latest effort to strip away marriage equality. There is no way these organizations like NOM and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland had all this money sitting in their treasuries (except for possibly Focus on the Family). They went out and raised it expressly for this campaign. It's very expensive to hire these signature gathering firms to collect 100,000 signatures in a short period of time."

National Organization for Marriage is a Mormon Front Group

There is an ongoing investigation into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) by the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC Case #08/735). The FPPC is looking into both the Church's lack of reporting its non-monetary contributions to Prop 8, and also whether NOM was, in fact, established as a front group by the Salt Lake City based Mormon Church. The Mormon Church has used this tactic in several states beginning in Hawaii in 1996.

I sent a letter yesterday to Jonathan Wayne, Executive Director of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Elections Practices (link to letter copy and release on our Blog) and warned of suspected money laundering by the major donors to Stand for Marriage PAC.

It begs the question; are they directing all contributions to their existing organizations, who in turn then give the money to Stand for Marriage PAC? We are very familiar with how this coalition operates, and we want to warn the political leadership and the residents of Maine to beware.

The coalition has also hired the highly regarded Schubert, Flint Campaign Management firm of Sacramento, California who ran their successful Yes on Proposition 8 campaign in California last year.

Who are the Victims Here?

These major backers of Stand for Marriage PAC will do their best to play the poor victim. They like to say that their contributors are being targeted simply because they give money to "preserve marriage." That's what they did in California after running a very nasty campaign and spending $40 million to take away marriage equality from millions of Californians.

Let's be clear. They are not the victims here. The Mormon Church and its coalition have qualified and passed Constitutional Amendments in 30 states to yank away civil rights from gay and lesbian Americans.

The Mormon Church began this fight in 1988. They have been destroying lives, intimidating people and demonizing an entire class to solidify their base and raise millions and millions of dollars.

After two decades of assaulting the LGBT Community, we are now fighting back with our talent, our numbers, our friends, our money and our purchasing power. They are not the victims in this equation, and even the best PR by all of their consultants cannot rewrite history.

Our hope is that as young people discover that they are LGB or T, they do not feel any less of a person because Maggie Gallagher (NOM $160,000 to the Maine campaign), Bishop Richard Malone (Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, ME $100,000 to the Maine campaign) Knights of Columbus (Catholic Church's Political Arm $50,000 to the Maine campaign) or James Dobson (Focus on the Family $31,000 to the Maine campaign) gave so much money to bully them and take away their rights.

Jason Mannino: LGBT Equality - It's About Love

2009-08-07T07:15:13Z

"I used to think that it was anger that motivated me...Then at some point I realized it wasn't really anger that was keeping me going..it was doing the work...Now...I don't think it's either the anger or the labor that keeps us going year after year. It is the love!" My heart was warmed upon hearing these profound words of truth spoken by John J. Duran when he accepted the Lifetime Achievement Award from Equality California on Saturday, August 1, 2009 at the Equality Awards held at the Century Plaza Hotel. Equality California was founded in 1998 and ever since has been at the forefront of the struggle for LGBT Equality in the state of California and in the country. In the past decade, EQCA has successfully passed more than 45 pieces of civil rights legislation for the LGBT community - more than any other statewide LGBT organization in the nation, and is working tirelessly for equal marriage rights for LGBT people.

In November, on the day that chickens were given rights, marriage rights were taken away from LGBT people in the state of California. It stung! And well, it stunk! Emotions were mixed on Saturday evening. Even in the elegant ballroom of the Century Plaza Hotel amidst fine wine, food, friends, and loved ones, the pain that we as LGBT people felt on that day was easily accessible. So, when John Duran, (who has been a fierce acitivist in the LGBT community for decades, a multiple term member of West Hollywood's City Council, and a pioneering attorney having won landmark civil rights cases here in Los Angeles) reminded us that it was the love that keeps us going, it was a salve upon my heart. In that moment, I shared with my gay, lesbian, and straight brothers and sisters the experience of knowing that the essence of the love we are made of is what keeps us steadfast on our journey to full equality. It is the love that holds our cells together that compels our full self-expression. It is the love that binds humanity that gives us the courage to keep loving our partners and keep moving forward in the face of ego-based identifications with hatred, anger, and violence.

Judy Chu, who has been one of our staunchest political allies here in California and now at the Federal level, accepted EQCA's Advocate Award that evening. Chu was just sworn into her seat in the House of Representatives as the first Chinese American woman in the U.S. Congress. Upon accepting her award she told her story from early in the decade when she was working diligently towards passing AB 2561, a bill that now protects LGBT youth in the foster system. She shared that when her fundamentalist Chinese critics asked how she could work for LGBT rights, she responded by saying that she had heard heinous stories of hate crimes in both the Asian American communities and LGBT community. She could not possibly work for the rights of one group and not the other. She left us on a triumphant note saying that 127 years ago Californians voted in a law prohibiting whites from marrying Chinese people that was eventually reversed, and that, "Marriage laws are not made in some divine untouchable place beyond the reach of morals, marriage laws are made by humans, Just as humans in the state of California have passed unjust marriage laws, humans can undo them."

Humans can undo them, which Abbe Lande (Mayor of West Hollywood), and I both agreed upon. Lande shared with me that in California the question is not "if" or "how" we will have LGBT rights. The question is only when.

The answer to that question is contingent upon each of us. Whether you are gay or straight, when you stand in the essence of your love and fully express your truth you shine a light upon humanity that cannot be denied. It is in this light that we recognize one another as divine beings. In this place the motivation to stifle another's expression does not exist.

In more mundane terms, research has actually shown that when people know others who are LGB or T (especially friends and family members) and have a better understanding of our true stories, they are more apt to support equality. Therefore, I encourage all of us, whether LGBT or straight allies to talk about the truth of who we are. Share your stories with your families and friends. Let them know that we are still human. We are still brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, cousins, friends, loved ones. We are all loving beings having unique human experiences that deserve to be freely and fully expressed. As we do this I envision a time when we no longer have to hold awards dinners to honor people who stand up for each other regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. In the meantime, I acknowledge all of those who have been honored in this vein along with John Duran and Judy Chu. And, I hereby put out a call to act in love, full self expression, and dialogue to eradicate the hatred and fear that still resides in the hearts of so many who would choose to extinguish the light of another, simply because it shines at a different angle.

You can learn more about Equality California at www.eqca.org

***
Sign up to receive updates from Jason Mannino regarding his writing, coaching, and events and receive his free e-book: Mind Your Mind: Tips to Turn Your Mind Into Your Ally. click here.

Fred Karger: First Anniversary of Boycott Against Doug Manchester

2009-07-18T15:21:19Z

How much food can $125,000 buy to feed the hungry? How many books would it buy to help children? How much medicine can it buy to help the sick? How many better uses of $125,000 are there than using it to take away marriage equality from millions of Californians?

San Diego hotel owner and developer Doug Manchester must be asking himself these questions each and every day since the coalition of GLBT groups and labor came together one year ago this Gay Pride weekend to launch a boycott of Doug Manchester's two San Diego hotels: the Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel and the Grand del Mar Hotel. (www.boycottmanchesterhotels.com) Manchester's good buddy Terry Caster persuaded him to give that enormous check on Jan. 18, 2008. Manchester's contribution provided enough money to hire a professional signature-gathering firm to begin collecting the 1.1 million signatures necessary to qualify Proposition 8 for the ballot. These two high-powered San Diego businessmen were two of the biggest contributors to Proposition 8. Caster, who owns A-1 Self Storage Company, ended up giving $693,000 to Proposition 8, and the coalition has boycotted his company too. (www.boycottA-1selfstorage.com)

Do these two bullies expect gays and lesbians and our families, friends, co-workers, neighbors and supporters to continue to patronize their businesses, only to have that money used against us? They sure got that wrong.

The Boycott of Doug Manchester's Grand Hyatt Hotel has cost him at least $7 million -- not a very good return on his investment. His flagship hotel is now a pariah. More than a dozen major conventions have canceled their meetings at his hotels, representing more than 100,000 room nights. There is really no telling how much business Manchester has lost the last year due to the boycott. The Manchester Grand Hyatt will forever suffer the stigma of its owner's $125,000 contribution.

Manchester has tried to buy his way out of the boycott twice. Ten days after the boycott began, he offered up money, but did not include any labor component in his "settlement" offer.

Then, in February, he hired gay Los Angeles publicist Howard Bragman, after an incredible new round of bad publicity: Former President Bill Clinton was forced to honor a speaking engagement at the boycotted property, resulting in international news stories that drew even more attention to the beleaguered hotelier.

Bragman's PR plan tried to circumvent boycott organizers by offering $100,000 in hotel credits to San Diego GLBT groups so that they would hold fundraisers at the boycotted hotel. That dumb idea of "divide and conquer" backfired with another round of bad press. No one would accept their blood money. They couldn't even find an organization to take the additional $25,000 in cash they offered to a national GLBT group, because the community is unified like never before and backs this boycott.

They chose to announce their offers before the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association's annual meeting in Toronto, Canada, in May. That announcement, by Manchester's Marketing Director Kelly Commeford, backfired, too, when he was booed and hissed off the stage at the Hyatt-sponsored luncheon. It triggered another round of bad press for Manchester, and a lot more publicity about the boycott. At least half of the attendees were from out of the county and had not heard of it until Kelly's speech.

Now we enter year two of our partnership with labor and with so many more new allies in our fight for full equality.

We will soon be announcing our new and exciting plans for year two of the Manchester Boycott.

The gay and lesbian community is in the fight of our life, and we are not going to take it anymore. We want the world to know who supports us and who opposes us. Then consumers can make informed choices on where to spend their hard-earned dollars. We at Californians Against Hate will continue to ask them not to support these two mega donors to Proposition 8, which yanked away our brand new freedom to marry on Nov. 4 last year.

Visit our Web sites, and spread the word. Thank you one and all for making these boycotts so successful. We will continue to fight for our civil rights using our immense economic clout. We will no longer settle for being second-class citizens. Those days are over.

Orriginally Published in the GLT, San Diego

California Removed As Defendant In Federal Gay Marriage Lawsuit

2009-07-17T10:25:27Z

SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) -- A judge has agreed to remove the state of California as a defendant in a lawsuit challenging the 1996 law that prevents the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

U.S. District Judge David Carter says the state is no longer an appropriate target in the case because the gay couple who brought it got married in California last year before voters approved a ban on same-sex unions.

Carter issued the order Thursday acting on a request from California's attorney general.

The U.S. government remains a defendant. The U.S. Department of Justice is arguing to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act.

The department's position has angered gay rights activists, who see it as a betrayal of President Obama's campaign pledge to work for the act's repeal.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Isobel White: Same Sex Marriage in CA: 8 Reasons Why We Should Lay Off the Debate over 2010 v. 2012

2009-07-17T03:44:45Z

In recent weeks, some prominent LGBT organizations have been attempting to energize the rest of us by holding "2010 v. 2012 forums," where we debate when to return to the ballot box in California and ask voters to approve same-sex marriage. My first reaction was "2012, please -- I'm tired!"

But upon further reflection, I think the whole idea of this debate is based on a faulty premise that our only recourse is to return -- right quick -- to the same type of initiative battle we just finished. Herewith, my reasons why we should take a deep breath first.

1. Sad but true: it is just downright easier to get support when you're being threatened than when you're working for change affirmatively. Prop. 8 was an attack on us. When we're under attack, of course we've got to fight back (or else why would that chant "under attack/fight back" be so catchy?) It's harder to convince people to change the status quo and, to my deep dismay, this is the status quo that was just affirmed by the court. We had the advantage in 2008 when, for a brief moment, the law of the land was in our favor.

2. Voters weren't decided then, but they are now. The ugly Prop. 8 campaign caused most undecided voters to make up their minds by November 4. Even if some of those who voted yes on 8 might still waver when asked if they think same-sex couples should have marriage rights, that doesn't mean they want to be forced to vote on it again so soon.

3. When you're under attack, it's easier to rally supporters to believe this is the most important thing they could work on. When I was a little kid, I used to fantasize about a big giant coming along and threatening earth, forcing us all to unite. Prop. 8 was the progressive community's big threatening giant. But really, if we had to choose among all the pressing issues LGBT people face, not to mention all the progressive battles we have to win, would this be #1? Mounting another initiative campaign by our own initiative (pun intended) should mean we're deciding to put everything we've got into this fight. Are we?

4. It's incredibly expensive. The battle for and against Prop. 8 cost $83 million -- more than any other initiative in U.S. history. Money poured in from every state. I personally asked for campaign donations from friends and family all over. I'd frankly be embarrassed to go back to them again without something concrete to show that this time will be different. Otherwise I'd feel like I was crying wolf.

5. Other states need more help. Even if same-sex marriage in California is the most important issue here in our state, we'd need significant nationwide support as well. Same-sex couples can't adopt a child in Arkansas, Mississippi, Michigan or Utah; 38 states don't fully protect against LGBT discrimination in employment. Nearly 9 out of 10 LGBT students reported being harassed in 2007. In California, we do actually have basic protections. We don't have same-sex marriage, but we do have a safety net. Shouldn't some of that national support be thrown at states that don't?

6. Return to the ballot box too soon, and it's easy for the opposition to argue that we're subverting the will of the people and the Courts. It's like we're handing them their talking points on a silver platter. And our talking points? How do we explain to Mr. and Ms. Middle of the Road why they should vote differently so soon after? "We know you voted on this in 2008 and it's only two (or four) years later, but maybe you were mistaken, so won't you please vote the other way now?"

7. If I were on the winning side of a proposition, I'd be downright pissed to be asked to vote on it again so soon. We'd risk the voter equivalent of "If I told you once I told you a thousand times - no!" Sure, that wouldn't influence actual same-sex marriage supporters or die-hard opponents, but my guess is that the very voters who are still swayable would be those most affected by the tone and timing of a campaign.

8. The waaaaiting is the hardest part. But it's more lasting. We and the other side can keep going back and forth, back and forth, spending millions upon millions. Or we can actually create enough of a cultural shift that being anti-same sex marriage is no longer widely acceptable. We can step out of the initiative process for now, and do the much harder work of talking one-on-one with supporters and those who can become supporters. I'm just not convinced that all those millions spent mounting an initiative in 2010 or 2012 would actually get us there any sooner than smart base-building and dialogue with conflicted voters.

So what do we do in the meantime? We organize. We fundraise. We talk to our family, friends, neighbors and coworkers about our lives, our relationships, and why this fight matters. We embolden our supporters to reach out and talk about why marriage equality is important to them. We go back to the ballot box when we're coming from a position of strength - when we have the funds, the know-how and the support to win this once and for all.

For more critical reasons why we should "prepare to prevail," including the "importance of building trust and relationships in communities that represent the full diversity of California voters," see this public statement by the Jordan/Rustin Coalition. And for tips on talking with your friends and family about why marriage equality and other LGBT rights issues matter to you, go to Tell Three.

Fred Karger: Is the Mormon Church Hiding Its Funding of the National Organization for Marriage?

2009-06-25T12:47:42Z

Maggie Gallagher's National Organization for Marriage (NOM) Refuses to
Turn Over Its Federal Financial Records as Required by Law.

Open Letter to NOM President Maggie Gallagher:

Californians Against Hate began requesting your 990s (IRS non-profit tax filings) over three months ago, Maggie. You have not responded as required by law. We visited your national office in Princeton , N.J. twice to view the Form 990s, and sent our requests there by certified mail.

Someone at that address signed the US Postal Service receipt on April 25, 2009. You then had 30 days to comply with our request, but you still have not sent us your federal tax flings for 2007 and 2008.

We have also been to your "office" in Manassas , VA , and no forms there either, Maggie. It looks to be the home of your Treasurer, Neil Corkery. The Corkerys are apparently traveling around the world, and again, the forms are not available for public inspection as required by federal law.

Are you trying to hide all the involvement by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) who we believe created and funded the National Organization for Marriage, Inc.? That is exactly what the California Fair Political Practices Commission is investigating (Case # 08/735) right now.

As you are probably aware, the IRS fine for noncompliance is $20.00 per day for every day that you do not turn over your records up to a total of $10,000. For the 92 days so far, you owe the United States Treasury $1,840. While that won't put much of a dent in the national debt, it is what you owe the government so far in fines. Frankly, Maggie, we are tired of waiting, and are exploring other actions to force the release of your filings.

In another very interesting development, we received a letter from the IRS last week in response to the request that we filed with them on May 6, 2009 for your Form 990s. The IRS said that, "we have no record of any organization by the name (National Organization for Marriage, Inc.) or address ( 20 Nassau Street, Ste. 242 , Princeton , N.J 08542). Now, can you explain that?? They do have a record of your Educational Fund, the 501(c)3, but that apparently was just established last year. NOM, Inc. was established in May 2007 to get Prop 8 on the ballot, so there should be 2 annual filings available on NOM, Inc.

Maggie, why don't you do the right thing and release your 2007 and 2008 form 990s? Just what is in there about your funding and expenditures that you don't want people to see?

A recent Washington Post story had this to say about the Mormon Church's involvement in the same-sex marriage battles in six Northeastern States.

Mormon officials have tried to stay out of the controversy that followed the California vote, when the church's prominent role in the marriage fight became clear. A spokeswoman in Salt Lake City declined to say whether the church is involved in debates going on in states such as New Jersey and New York , except to say that leaders remain intent on preserving the "divine institution" of marriage between man and woman. The faith holds that traditional marriage "transcends this world" and is necessary for "the fullness of joy in the next life."

That admission by the Mormon Church raises many more questions.

Who is paying for your multi million dollar TV campaign? Who is funding your $500,000 New York State PAC? Your California PAC? Who is paying for all the direct mail robo-calls and millions of direct connect calls in New York alone? Where did you get the $6 million that you admit to spending as reported this week in your hometown newspaper, The Journal News: www.LoHud.com?

How much are you and your executive director Brian Brown getting paid? Is the Mormon Church paying you directly or through another one of your other organizations like the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy

Is the Mormon Church producing all of your slick new commercials? Your controversial and often-maligned "A Gathering Storm" commercial that was made using actors pretending to be real people was chock full of Mormon actors, mostly from Arizona . Most of the bad actors on your audition tapes appear to be Mormon as well. We have that documented.

Just how much money is the Mormon Church spending now to fight same-sex marriage in at least 7 states? Mormon families spent close to $30 million in California to pass Proposition 8 last year. The Mormon Church has likely spent tens of millions of dollars directly throughout the country on all their efforts to stop gay marriage since they hired the world's largest PR firm, Hill and Knowlton, in 1988. It even appears that the Mormon Church, through its Public Affairs Committee, was monitoring same-sex marriage activities and involved in Canada as well.

We know that the Mormon Church has not been truthful about all of its involvement in opposing same-sex marriage for 20 years. We have seen ample evidence of this in the Church documents that we received.

When we filed our complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission last November, Mormon Church officials first said they spent "zero dollars on Prop 8." Then 3 months after the election, they finally admitted to have made $190,000 in non-monetary contributions. Nearly all of that was supposedly spent the week before the election.

They later changed their story again, saying that the $117,000 reported in Salt Lake City staff time ($96,000) and facilities' usage ($20,500) was not actually spent just on election day as they had reported to the California Secretary of State. According to Church spokesman Scott Trotter, the staff time included work between August and November. Well, then shouldn't there have been other expenditures in August or even July and September? Come on Maggie, tell the truth!

The Mormon Church announced its active participation to pass Proposition 8 in the now famous letter read from Thomas S. Monson, President of the Church. This rare act took place on June 29, 2008, and was read to every Mormon in the Western United States. President Monson called on all Mormons to give of "your time and your means to pass Proposition 8."

Well, it worked. As we now know, the Mormon Church took over every aspect of the Yes on 8 campaign, and was largely responsible for its passage.

Please, Maggie, tell America the truth for once about where your millions of dollars are coming from. We are a country of laws, and we have the right to know.

Randi Reitan: I Ask President Obama for Full Equality for my Gay Son

2009-06-23T15:20:32Z

Dear President Obama,

I watched you preach on Father's Day and my heart was touched by your words. I listened with a mother's heart. I have been blessed with four dear children. Not a day goes by that I don't thank God for the gift my children are to me.

You told the congregation that the family is the most important foundation. You said we must take responsibility for those we love and we must set an example of excellence for our children. We must give our children dreams without limits and we must teach them the importance of having empathy for others. We must teach them to stand in another's shoes to know another's pain and their challenges so we can lift them up.

You said when you were younger you thought life was all about yourself and now you realize life is about leaving this world a better place for our children.

Your words touched this mother's heart but they also made me wonder if you are truly living your words.

I wonder if you are living those words as you listen to the gay community. There isn't a newspaper across this great nation that has not shared the news of the gay community's fight for equality. You must have heard their pain when your administration affirmed DOMA with their brief. You must have heard their pain as one after another brave and loyal gay soldier has been kicked out of the military because of DADT. You must have heard their pain as Prop 8 snatched marriage away from gay couples.

My youngest child is gay. As parents we were ignorant about homosexuality when Jacob came out to us as a 16 year old young man eleven years ago. We embraced him and we told him we loved him that night, but we were clueless about what it meant to be gay.

We had to educate ourselves. Another part of your message on Sunday addressed the importance of education. I ask you now to educate yourself about homosexuality.

When we visited with the medical community on our journey to understanding we learned that homosexuality was simply the sexual orientation our son was given. We learned it was not a choice that Jacob made. We were told it was a given for him and we as his parents should encourage him to embrace his orientation and live his life with dignity and respect.

This began a new chapter in our lives. We learned to live in the empathy you extolled. We met hundreds of young gay people who have had such difficult lives because of the ignorance of our society. We have listened to pastors condemning gays and teaching others to do the same. We have felt the pain of discrimination as our son has been harassed with words and attacks. We have listened to young people with tears in their eyes share that they have been rejected by their own parents. We have watched as our son tried to enlist as a gay man and was instead led away in hand cuffs.

We also took responsibility as you asked parents to do on Sunday. We have spoken out, marched and led rallies. We have been arrested numerous times doing civil disobedience to try to bring the issues of injustice to light. We have poured our financial resources into programs and agencies that work to educate the people. We have lobbied at the Capitol in our state of Minnesota and in Washington, DC. We have written hundreds of letters to law makers, pastors, teachers and now to you our President.

Our country needs your voice on this issue. I am impatient to see my dear son live his life with full equality. Can you imagine if one of your daughters had equality and the other did not? That is the reality for every family with a gay child. It is heartbreaking and it is wrong.

You may not be able to lift DADT today. You may not be able to end DOMA today. You may not be able to bring marriage back for the gay community in California today. But, as our president, you can move legislation that would right those wrongs. You can sit down with my son and others and listen to their stories so you can stand in their shoes with empathy. You can address this nation about the terrible discrimination the gay community faces in our country. You can live out your campaign promises on some level.

Your final lesson in your sermon was on the gift of faith and hope. You spoke of a hope that insists that something better is waiting for us. You spoke of your faith and your love of Jesus. The Jesus that I know would not make outcasts of God's beloved children. The gay community has been made into outcasts by many in our churches. We need to hear from you that no one is less than another. The greatest commandment that Jesus taught was to love one another as He loves us.

You talked about the importance of fathers teaching their children. If you don't address the issues of equality for the gay community, the discrimination will not end. Your daughters are watching you. They are learning from you and so are all the sons and daughters in this country.

You can be a president who not only embraces equality but who fights to see the day all God's children actually live it. To be able to bring equality to a group of people should be seen as not only a duty of justice but an honor of the highest level. You must be the one to lead our country by setting an example of excellence in treating all Americans with equality in all areas of life.

I sat on the lawn in front of our nation's Capitol on that cold day in January when you took the oath of office. My heart filled with hope that day because I believed the words you spoke as you campaigned. Those words seem hollow to me now.

I ask you with tears in my eyes, with pain in my heart and with a mother's enduring love for her dear children..... please bring equality ... true full equality to my son and to all in the gay community.

California "Yes On 8" Campaign Manager Goes To Maine

2009-06-18T09:34:08Z

Big news from Maine. On the plus side, the campaign to save Maine's marriage law has been launched -- and they've got a kick-ass campaign manager leading the effort. In Maine, new laws can be challenged via the referendum process. As I write this, the Catholic Church and its vehemently anti-gay allies are collecting signatures to get a measure on the ballot this November to repeal the new marriage equality law.