In the mode as a credentialed new media reporter for Pam’s House Blend, I’ll be heading up to Los Angeles early tomorrow morning to cover the Equality Summit. It’s billed as follows:

The Equality Summit is a gathering of community leaders committed to winning back marriage equality in California to network, share information and resources, and plan next steps.

You can read about the goals of the Equality Summit here.

Personally, I’m extremely pleased to see in the schedule that I there is a transgender interest/constituency group listed for the 11:30 AM breakout session. About to the same level that I’m pleased seeing the transgender specific breakout session, I’m concerned that I don’t see the phrase lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender used anywhere in the description, goals, or anywhere else on the webpage for the summit.

My concern stems from the lesson I took away from watching the film Milk: The LGBT community must be visible with our identifications in our political campaigns, and seeing that the phrase lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender is used in our campaigns is paramount. The lack of on the phrase lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender on the summit’s webpage seems like a huge omission.

To me, clarity matters; inclusivity matters; and language matters.

There are going to be a lot of mainstream and new media reporters at the event who are likely going to do a good job in covering the main thrusts of the Equality Summit. As someone who identifies and transsexual and transgender, I’m going to cover from a very militantly trans and you-”leaders”-better-say-the-phrase-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender perspective.

How I’m going to report goes to the core of what blogging is — new media reporting is reporting with a visible agenda.

I’ve been preparing for the summit this week. For those who follow my tweets on twitter, you know that I recently bought a new RCA Small Wonder just for covering events like the Equality Summit. I’ve been trying to figure out today who I want to get one or two minute interviews with, and what’s the one or two questions I’m going to ask all of those folk I have an opportunity to get on camera.

And hey, I like even steamed the wrinkles out of two blouses for wearing tomorrow! — I haven’t decided whether to go with a light blue or a white blouse. Hardly a world-shattering decision to make on blouses to wear, but I really do need to look somewhat professional at the summit.

It’s going to be a really long day, Saturday. The summit starts at 7:45 AM PST, and is scheduled to close at 7:30 PM. Add to it a 2-1/2 to 3 hour drive each direction from San Diego.

So hopefully I’ll have some interviews and a report or two from the summit up tomorrow. If not, Sunday for sure we’ll have something up.

~~~~~
Related:
* January Prop 8-related summit will restrict media access?
* Wockner: Equality Summit drops restrictions on media
* Taking A Short Break To Think About Freedom To Marry
* Writing A Toast; Being A Maid Of Honor
* Marriage Equality Beyond Just Gays And Lesbians

I have to admit, I’m confused by the sentiment and numbers of this Wall Street Journal article entitled Donor Disclosure Has Its Downsides; Supporters of California’s Prop. 8 have faced a backlash. The article begins with the line “How would you like elections without secret ballots? To most people, this would be absurd,” and then goes to make a case for keeping donations secret.

We have secret balloting for obvious reasons. Politics frequently generates hot tempers. People can put up yard signs or wear political buttons if they want. But not everyone feels comfortable making his or her positions public — many worry that their choice might offend or anger someone else. They fear losing their jobs or facing boycotts of their businesses.

And yet the mandatory public disclosure of financial donations to political campaigns in almost every state and at the federal level renders people’s fears and vulnerability all too real. Proposition 8 — California’s recently passed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage by ensuring that marriage in that state remains between a man and a woman — is a dramatic case in point. Its passage has generated retaliation against those who supported it, once their financial support was made public and put online.

For example, when it was discovered that Scott Eckern, director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater in Sacramento, had given $1,000 to Yes on 8, the theater was deluged with criticism from prominent artists. Mr. Eckern was forced to resign…

The writer then goes on to cite the cases of Richard Raddon (the director of the L.A. Film Festival who resigned under pressure), a Palo Alto dentist who lost patients as a result of his $1,000 donation, and restaurant manager Marjorie Christoffersen (the El Coyote restaurant manager who resigned due to loss of customers).

I don’t believe the losses of these four people match the possible future of marriage dissolutions of 18,000 same gender couples by the state of California who married while it was lawful in the state.

The authors of the WSJ op-ed conclude:

In the aftermath of Prop. 8 we can glimpse a very ugly future. As anyone who has had their political yard signs torn down can imagine, with today’s easy access to donor information on the Internet, any crank or unhinged individual can obtain information on his political opponents, including work and home addresses, all but instantaneously. When even donations as small as $100 trigger demonstrations, it is hard to know how one will feel safe in supporting causes one believes in.

Public disclosure laws aren’t meant to encourage violence, and there has been little to no violence against individual voters based on their political donations.

So since we’re not talking about physical violence, I actually believe disclosure laws were created in part specifically so citizens could respond to how people “vote” with their money — to know who is financially supporting political causes, and respond with protests, boycotts, and buycotts based on who supported what candidate and/or initiative that they didn’t. I certainly don’t want to go back to the days before disclosure laws were passed, and moneyed interests could purchase the government they wanted without any public knowledge of who was “buying votes” at the expense of a significant portion of the public.

So, don’t count on this Californian supporting any initiatives or laws that repeal campaign public disclosure laws. Good government demands more transparency — especially in the election process — not less transparency.

As a society, we need to invest in children. Better schools means higher standards of living for future generations. Better prenatal care, and better preventative healthcare for children means less money spent on healthcare for these same children when they become adults.

…Most U.S. children live in secure environments and sail into young adulthood healthy, becoming productive members of society. But as the numbers in this report show, this happy ending eludes millions of children.

The data which follow focus on a few key issues: health, child abuse, imprisonment, school readiness, child care, afterschool, and poverty. These are big issues affecting millions of children and families. There are others, equally important, which we have not addressed. The disturbing trends in the data presented are understated. Although they are the most recent available, they lag by at least a year the sharp downturn in the economy and its impact on families.

We can all agree: families are the best place for children, but often families need a little help. The private sector is an essential ally—but it lacks the resources to match the needs of millions of children. State and local governments are critical players, but vast disparities in child well-being among states confirm the need for a national government which promotes a level playing field for all children…
–Michael R. Petit; President, Every Child Matters Education Fund

And, this of course is an argument for recognizing same-gender family relationships on the federal level. Blocking adoptions by same-gender couples; not recognizing the parental and guardianship relationships same-gender couples have with their children — not treating children of same-gender households in a manner similar to the children of opposite-gender couples — is a also a means of taking money that could be spent on caring for children and applying giving it to local, state, and federal governments in the form of increased taxes.

Children matter. Equality of hope and opportunity matters. These instersect within in the issue of providing for all families; caring for America’s children.

~~~~~
Related reading:
* Homeland Insecurity; Why new investments in children and youth must be a priority for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress

“I have always held the belief that all people, no matter race, religion or sexual orientation, are entitled to equal rights. As many know, I consider myself a devout and faithful Mormon. I prefer to keep the details around my contribution through my church a private matter. But I am profoundly sorry for the negative attention that my actions have drawn to Film Independent and for the hurt and pain that is being experienced in the GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender] community.”
–L.A. Film Festival director Richard Raddon

Filling in the background of that public statement, the Los Angeles Times is reporting the following in their article L.A. Film Festival director Richard Raddon resigns:

Richard Raddon, the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival who has been at the center of controversy ever since it was revealed almost two weeks ago that he had contributed $1,500 to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California, resigned from his post over the weekend.

The nonprofit arts organization Film Independent sponsors both the Los Angeles Film Festival, held in May, and the popular Independent Spirit awards. Raddon is a member of the Mormon Church, which actively called on its congregants to work for the passage of Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

…After Raddon’s contribution was made public online, Film Independent was swamped with criticism from “No on 8″ supporters both inside and outside the organization. Within days, Raddon offered to step down as festival director, but the board, which includes Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker, Lionsgate President Tom Ortenberg and Fox Searchlight President Peter Rice, gave him a unanimous vote of confidence.

Yet, the anti-Raddon bile continued to bubble in the blogosphere, and according to one Film Independent board member, “No on 8″ supporters also berated Raddon personally via phone calls and e-mails. The recriminations ultimately proved too much, and when Raddon offered to resign again, this time the board accepted.

That $1,500.00 donation to the Yes On Prop 8 campaign has essentially cost him his career; it’s has cost him his ability to make a living in his chosen field.

They’re feeling this same lesson about how LGBT people vote with their wallets in Texas too, of all places. From the Austin American-Statesman’s Prop. 8 backlash reaches to Texas; Austin Web site has ‘blacklist’ for businesses linked to money that supported gay marriage ban:

[Below the fold: Dell, Cinemark, wingnut Michelle Malkin, and reference to a 2001 survey by Harris Interactive/Witeck-Combs Communications.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Last July, a JJ In Chicago posted a comment at the Box Turtle Bulletin that included the following statement:

…How much lobbying are transgendered people doing on behalf of gay men and lesbians?

(And no, trans board members on state and national non-profits don’t count. I mean private citizens.)

How many trans folks are lobbying to end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell??

How many trans folks are lobbying to end a relic of the Anita Bryant era– Florida’s complete ban on gay men and lesbians to adopt children??

The truth is very few, if any. That’s because it’s not their issue. They can’t have it both ways.

So, while fresh with same-gender marriage/marriage equality being in the spotlight, I’d like to hightlight that trans people have been involved working on marriage equality here in San Diego. Specifically how trans people were involved in San Diego’s Join The Impact event on Saturday, November 15th, if only just to highlight one example of involement as a representative example.

So although one of the reasons why I’m doing a little documentation is to accentuate the positive about working for change, what JJ in Chicago wrote last July reminds me that sometimes it’s also about stemming off negative perceptions that aren’t necessarily reality based; sometimes it’s about pointing out where people we don’t necessarily expect to be working on broad LGBT issues are working on broad issues.

“All men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality.”
–Martin Luther King Jr.

There were trans people marching, and there were trans people in the planning process. At the Marriage Equality/Join The Impact march in San Diego a week ago Saturday, there were at least 20,000 participants. There were trans people marching, and there were trans people in the planning process.

Let me cite just one who was in the planning process as an example of the many.

In San Diego, the “Face Behind FaceBook” for the march was Kelly Moyer. Never heard of Kelly? Well, like so many of the new grassroots leadership, she’s been somewhat quietly working for LGBT and trans-specific issues — she’s a volunteer at the Hillcrest Youth Center an San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, And Transgender Center facilitating trans discussion groups. She’s also very active in San Diego’s lesbian community, working on event planning (such as for Dyke March) and is a member of a key community standing committee. She’s also on Sun Microsystems’ Gays, Lesbians and Friends (GLAF) employee resource group, working with Sun to increase the company’s diversity. Basically, she’s been “behind the scenes” — yet in plain view — for awhile.

After the Join the Impact in San Diego, she gave a speech on staying on a positive message with regards to marriage equality. I don’t have to agree with everything she says to understand that her message is important.

Below the fold is the last few paragraphs from her November 15th speech.

Read the rest of this entry »

From the Los Angeles Times‘ Angrier response to Prop. 8 steps up:

Leaders of the campaign against Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California, raised nearly $40 million and ran a careful, disciplined campaign with messages tested by focus groups and with only a few people authorized to speak to the media.

They lost.

In the week since, California has seen an outpouring of demonstrations ranging from quiet vigils to noisy street protests against Proposition 8, including rallies outside churches and the Mormon temple in Westwood as well as boycotts of some businesses that contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign.

Many of those activities have been organized not by political professionals and established leaders in the gay community, but by young activists working independently on Facebook and MySpace.

The grass-roots activism is a tribute to political organizing in the digital age, in which it is possible to mobilize thousands of people with a few clicks of a mouse. It has generated national attention — and set up a series of Saturday demonstrations that organizers hope will attract tens of thousands of people to city halls throughout California…

I really recommend this entire article.

We’ve forgetten, apparenlty, that Stonewall began as mob justice in response to systematic, government injustice. The aftermath of the Prop 8 vote in California looks like its more a series of Stonewall style uprisings than a top-down, micro-managed/micro-messaged, LGBT Civil Rights organization led response.

Frankly, these marches and protest seem to be a further example of how the HRC doesn’t know or speak for the grassroots of the LGBT community; but it’s apparent now that other LGBT civil rights organizations — such as Equality California, The Gay and Lesbian Center of Los Angeles, the San Diego LGBT Center, NCLR, and the Gay and Lesbian Task Force to name a few — who were leaders in the No On Prop 8 Campaign didn’t and don’t speak particularly well for the grassroots of the LGBT community either.

If there ever is a time for the organizational reflection by LGBT civil rights organizations, I think winter of 2007 (remember ENDA?) is when it should have began, and it’s definitely way over due now. LGBT Civil Rights organizations are far behind the times on what the attitudes towards LGBT issues are, and their focus groups and marketing approach to messaging don’t speak at all to what the “mob” thinks about civil rights.

~~
A sorta related piece about this LGBT mob mentality would be in Edge Boston’s Queer Anarchists Disrupt Church Service in Mich. Times are o’ changing.
.

Update: The Sacramento Bee reported that Scott Eckern stepped down from his posistion as the artistic director of the California Musical Theater. Whereas Marjorie Christoffersen, the owner of the El Coyote Cafe briefly mentioned as the L.A. restaurant owner below, chose not to apologize or express remorse for her donation to the Yes On Proposition 8 Campaign when she met with about 75 of her gay customers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here’s an example of the real cost born by individuals for their financial support of Proposition 8. From the Sacramento Bee:

Scott Eckern, the California Musical Theater official embroiled in controversy following revelations of his donation to the Proposition 8 campaign, issued a statement Tuesday expressing shock over the backlash, saying “I had no idea this would be the reaction.”

Revelations over the weekend that Eckern, the company’s artistic director, had given $1,000 to the voter-approved ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage had drawn calls of an artistic and audience boycott Monday of the Sacramento theater company that produces the Music Circus and presents Broadway Sacramento.

He made a statement — From his statement:

I understand that my choice of supporting Proposition 8 has been the cause of many hurt feelings maybe even betrayal. It was not my intent. I honestly had no idea that this would be the reaction. I chose to act upon my belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved. I support each individual to have rights and access and I understood that in California domestic partnerships come with the same rights that come with marriage.

I definitely do not support any message or treatment of others that is hateful or instills fear. This is a highly emotional issue. I have now had many conversations with friends and colleagues and I now have a better idea of what the discrimination issues are, how deeply felt these issues are and I am deeply saddened that my acting upon my religious convictions has been devastating to those I love and admire… I am deeply sorry for any harm or injury I have caused.

Basically, it’s pretty much a Not good enough! moment for supporters of the theater who were against Prop 8. One example of a significant voice:

Gay and lesbian artists called Monday for an artistic and audience boycott of California Musical Theatre after learning that its artistic director donated $1,000 to a campaign that backed banning gay marriage in California.

…California Musical Theatre is the capital’s oldest professional performing arts organization and California’s largest nonprofit musical theater company. It has 32 full-time employees and its budget for 2007 was $16.5 million.

…”Hairspray” composer Marc Shaiman called Eckern Thursday to discuss his donation. “Hairspray” closed this summer’s Music Circus season.

In a post on one Web site, Shaiman relayed what he told Eckern: “The idea that your donation came from a salary that for a short amount of time was drawn from profits from a show I wrote upsets me terribly and I would never allow anything I write to play there and will encourage my colleagues to consider doing the same.”

Want to see another example of individual awakening to the economic cost to supporting the Yes On Proposition 8 campaign? There’s an example of a Los Angeles restaurant owner’s surprise at the economic backlash for supporting Prop 8 here.

Want to know how scary the economic impact is to business owners who were already aware that LGBT consumers vote with their pocketbooks? Take a read at The Facts About Marriott and California’s Proposition 8:

As many of you may know I’m a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Some might conclude given my family’s membership in the Mormon Church that our company supported the recent ballot initiative to ban same sex marriage in California. This is simply untrue. Marriott International is a public company headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, and is not controlled by any one individual or family. Neither I, nor the company, contributed to the campaign to pass Proposition 8.

The Bible that I love teaches me about honesty, integrity and unconditional love for all people. But beyond that, I am very careful about separating my personal faith and beliefs from how we run our business…

(Chino Blanco has a PHB diary on this Marriot statement here.)

If Prop 8 were put to a vote again in a year or two, I think the ProtectMarriage.com would have a lot of problems finding business owners and business executives who would donate to the campaign. There is a learning curve going on right now — these businesspeople are discovering that there is a real economic cost to their businesses if they don’t establish and publicize progressive policies towards LGBT people. And, their gods help their businesses if business owners and executives are perceived as being against progressive policies towards LGBT people to the point of supporting the withdrawal of fundamental civil rights of LGBT people.

As it’s been mentioned in our blog, here at PHB and Bilerico we’ve been discussing race and Prop 8, as well as faith and Prop 8. To illustrate that there’s a variety of post-mortems and stories on this from a really broad spectrum of perspectives, here’s a sampling of some of those from a wide variety of sources:

* Michele McGinty at BeliefNet: It looks like the black vote saved Prop. 8 - Quote:

Now, will criticism of the vote constitute racism?

Hey, at least they can’t blame the conservative Christian Republicans

* Fernando Espuelas at CNN: Commentary: Latinos should see gay marriage a civil right - Quote:

Once you start the process of taking away other peoples’ fundamental rights — like food and water in a jail cell, or the right to drive and listen to whatever music you like — you must ask yourself where to draw the line, and who will draw it? What — and whose — rights will be next on the chopping block?

As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.” You’d think that as Latinos, proud and strong and willing to fight for our own rights,- we’d refuse to turn against the “punier kid,” wouldn’t you?

That we might in fact stand up for that kid, tell the bullies to back off, the same way we told the bullies of racism and “the real America” to take a hike — and in the process carried Obama to triumph.

* Media release from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento: Former Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City Decries Religious Bigotry in Political Ad; Defends LDS Role in California Ballot Initiative Protecting Traditional Marriage - Quote:

“I call upon the supporters of same-sex marriage to live by their own words–and to refrain from discrimination against religion and to exercise tolerance for those who differ from them. I call upon them to accept the will of the people of California in the passage of Proposition 8.”

* Focus On The Family: Success in California–Traditional Marriage Restored! - Quote:

[W]hat you helped achieve on Tuesday night goes far beyond upholding the sanctity of marriage in California. It also:

… helps protect millions of children from radical indoctrination in the homosexual lifestyle. In Massachusetts, legalized same-sex “marriage” quickly became the pretext for redefining marriage in the classroom, and it had already started in California, too.

… safeguards religious liberty in our most populous state. Wherever same-sex “marriage” has taken hold, religious freedom has begun to crumble. In Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities was forced to shut down its adoption agency because of their refusal to do gay adoptions.

I’m so pleased to be able to report to you the critical role that Focus on the Family played in securing this milestone victory. From the earliest strategic discussions … to the monumental task of gathering a million-plus signatures … to the campaign itself, Focus on the Family has been integrally involved.

* Jon Stewart at The Daily Show:

Read the rest of this entry »

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, The American Civil Liberties Union, and Equality California have issued a media release indicating the organizations are jointly challenging the legality of Proposition 8. Their position is that the initiative process cannot be used to undermine the constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone:

The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court today urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes. The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group – lesbian and gay Californians. Proposition 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. According to the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first.

The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn’t happen with Proposition 8, and that’s why it’s invalid.

Having lost my faith in the basic fairness and decency of the majority Californians around 3:00 AM PST this morning, I’m hoping this latest legal maneuver is sucessful.

Tomorrow I’m going around the corner to vote at the YMCA Youth Center here in my hometown of San Diego, California. And, I’ll be thinking youth in California; thinking about the their future.

Today I’m thinking about what my Dad told me a few months before he passed away in 2002.

I was raised up in Granada Hills, California. My neighborhood was mixed race — Hispanics, African-Americans, and Asian-Americans all lived in my neighborhood, and all went to school with me. In the last few months of his life, what my Dad told me about why we moved us — his family — to a mixed race neighborhood actually surprised me. He told me that he didn’t want his children to be prejudiced against others, so he wanted us to be raised in a diverse neighborhood where we would be exposed to all kinds of people.

When we moved to house in Granada Hills, it was 1964 — the year of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It amazes me that he was thinking progressively back then — I remember him as being pretty conservative guy, although actually he was probably more of an independent voter.

But before he passed away, I’d already grown to respect my Dad as a gentle, wise man. After finding out that he actually was more active than I knew in his desire that his children not be raised to have racial prejudices, my respect grew for him tremendously.

The No On Prop 8 campaign has put out a couple of ads in the past few days highlighting a similar belief of parents believing in a world without unfair prejudices:

From the script of the second video:

“We have an obligation to pass on to our children a more tolerant; more decent society. Vote No on Prop 8. It’s unfair, and it’s wrong.”

Amen to that. I know I’m going to appreciate parents who vote against Prop 8: The parents who are motivated by wanting the world their children are raised in to be a just and tolerant one.

~~~~~
Further reading:
* For some white voters, Obama’s race is seen as a ‘bonus’

This week, the Washington Blade has a piece up by Dale Carpenter entitled Goodbye to the GLBT movement. In the piece, Carpenter spells out why he believes “that [the] marriage of gay left and gay conservatives has failed,” and that this year the language that LGBT (or as he writes, GLBT) progressives have used against conservatives has been the “worst vitriol against gay conservatives” he’s ever seen. His conclusion is that the marriage between “the gay left and gay conservatives under the umbrella of the ‘GLBT movement’ has failed.”

I believe Carpenter misses the point entirely. I don’t believe that the LGBT progressives that are spewing vitriol at Log Cabin Republicans because these folk have conservative ideologies, it’s because the Log Cabin Republicans have stuck with the Republican party. In other words, Carpenter has conflated “Conservative” and “Republican” — what LGBT people are commenting on isn’t how Log Cabin Republicans are conservatives, but instead are commenting on how Log Cabin Republicans are Republicans.

Let’s go back to the birth of the Log Cabin Republicans, as told on the Log Cabin Republicans’s A Proud History webpage:

Log Cabin got its start in California during the late 1970s. After several years of advances for the cause of gay and lesbian rights, a backlash was building. Singer Anita Bryant led a successful “Save Our Children” campaign to overturn an anti-discrimination ordinance in Dade County, Florida. Also, the legislatures of Arkansas and Oklahoma had banned gays and lesbians from holding teaching positions.

In California, Republican State Senator John Briggs, who had ambitions to be governor, proposed a statewide ballot initiative to prevent gay and lesbian people from teaching in public schools. The so-called Briggs Initiative also permitted the firing of any educator who was determined to be “advocating, imposing, encouraging or promoting” homosexuality. Briggs’ vicious campaign to “defend your children from homosexual teachers” seemed to be heading for victory. One poll showed support for the Briggs Initiative leading 61% to 31%.

Many prominent politicians in the Republican and Democratic parties were hesitant about standing up to the bigotry of Briggs and his allies. That’s when gay conservatives turned to former governor Ronald Reagan. At the time he was preparing to mount a campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 1980. His advisors all thought he was committing political suicide when he decided to be an outspoken foe of the Briggs Initiative. Reagan declared that the initiative “is not needed to protect our children - we have the legal protection now.”

[More below the fold.]

Read the rest of this entry »

This past weekend, Latter Day Saints (Mormons) were supposed get out and plant a million Yes On 8 yard signs in support of California’s Proposition 8. Well, I live in San Diego, and both the Yes On 8 and the No On Prop 8 are aware that San Diego County is very likely to be the key county that could very well decide whether or not Prop 8 passes or fails — I expected to see a lot of Yes On 8 signs throughout the county.

And yet, I’ve seen none of these yard signs. Having been an active Mormon myself for a year-and-a-half in the early eighties, I know as a group these are not a lazy folk.

So, I know I’ve been pretty curious as to why I haven’t seen any Yes On 8 yard signs. Well, leave it to Julia Rosen at Calitics to explain what happened:

This past weekend the Yes on 8 campaign had talked up passing out ONE MILLION lawn signs. It was going to be their big splash event, something big and bold to get a bunch of earned media.

To counter that push, the No on 8, Equality for All campaign organized a bunch of visibility events for the media and to raise the public face/profile of the campaign. Then shuttled the the volunteers back inside to do the work that will bring this election home: calling undecided voters.

But a funny thing happened…. There were no lawn signs, no big events from the Yes side.

I started hearing rumors that they had trouble with their vendor. It turns out they were stuck in China. Yes, China. Here is an email from a one Gena Downey, producer of the cult hit Mormon film (I’m joking about the cult and hit thing) God’s Army.

The YES on Prop 8 yard signs have been delayed in route from China. We expect to distribute them within the next two weeks. I will email you as soon as they arrive so we can make sure you have one immediately. In the interim, please continue to take note of any friends or family who would like one as well.

So, the Yes campaign, rather than purchasing some good old fashioned union made in America lawn signs, they went to some cut rate producer in China who blew the delivery date by at least three weeks. What, they couldn’t afford traditional American signs?

Heavens to Kolob — divine intervention, maybe?

Seriously, that’s a lucky break for the No On Prop 8 campaign; a lucky break for those of us who believe in the freedom to marry for California’s gay and lesbian couples. Every day the Yes On 8 campaign doesn’t have their yard signs up is a day they forever lose to influence any California voters with those yard signs — and we all have less than six weeks to go until the November election.

~~~~~
Related:
* The Unexpected Message The Yes On 8 Campaign Sends To Jews, Mormons, And Other Non-Evangelicals
* California’s Prop 8: Polling Showing Voters Moving To Defeat Measure
* PROP 8 ballot wording rewritten: to ELIMINATE RIGHT of Same-Sex Couples to Marry
* The Fundamental Freedom To Marry
* Pam’s House Blend tags: Proposition 8; Prop 8; Marriage Equality

I don’t always connect dots in the ways others do, so it’s usually interesting to me when someone connects dots in a way I never thought about — especially when it’s a particularly interesting character who makes the connections.

On September 8th, a Jewish, conservative Republican — David Benkof — wrote a piece entitled Right-wing nonsense, where he questioned the Yes On 8 - Protect Marriage Campaign’s hiring of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) as their legal defense team:

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, so I supported the man-woman marriage Proposition 8 in California - until I discovered the Proposition 8 campaign tolerates discrimination against Jews. ProtectMarriage.com’s legal counsel, the Alliance Defense Fund, has in effect a “No Jews Need Apply” policy for legal and even secretarial positions. They say they’re not a law firm, they’re a “ministry” and thus have a right to discriminate against Jews and other non-Christians. But even if that’s true, Proposition 8 had hundreds of law firms to choose from. The fact they chose one that refuses to hire a Jew like me is very disturbing. Interestingly, Jesus himself was a Jew, so when a group has a policy that would lead them to refuse to hire their own Messiah, you know something’s seriously wrong.

I wanted to check to see if the employment policies of the ADF were as Benkof described these policies, and he’s correct on that facts, in that the ADF doesn’t hire anyone but those who ascribe to the ADF’s vision of Christianity:

[Below the fold: The employment policies of the ADF, and the interesting personal history of David Benkof]

Read the rest of this entry »

While the political world is focusing on Sen. Biden’s selection as Sen. Obama’s VP pick, I’m about ten minutes away from getting in the shower, and about three-and-a-half hours from arriving at my best friend’s wedding. You see, I’m the Party A maid of honor for Vicki.

I haven’t yet written the toast for the wedding — I’ve been working pretty hard this past week at preparing for the Democratic National Convention, as well as trying to pin down the date and location for California’s Transgender Leadership Summit that will be held in San Diego next March. Busy-busy-busy — I have to get an outline written for the toast within the next few hours.

When I go to convention next week, Lynda’s and Vicki’s wedding will definitely be on my mind. My friends have the freedom to marry today, so preserving this freedom for gay and lesbian Californians in the many tomorrows — especially preserving this freedom for transgender gay and lesbian Californians — is pretty darn important to me.

Sometime this week (I hope), I’ll post pictures of the wedding. Hey — I’ll be the one in the wedding party wearing the violet maid-of-honor gown. ☺

~~~~~
Related:
* Marriage Equality Beyond Just Gays And Lesbians

This is a clear violation of the fundamental rights of individuals to live and practice their faith.
–Attorney Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, in OneNewsNow

The “gay” movement is in the vanguard of destroying religious freedom in this nation — even as “queer” activists (and their attorneys) continue to play the victim card. Homosexual “Rights” vs. Religious Freedom is a zero-sum game: when “gay” lawyers win, as in this case, look for freedom to lose. What further proof do we need that “rights” based on sexual perversion are themselves a perversion of genuine civil rights?

The lesson for pro-family advocates and lovers of liberty is clear: in states where there are no ’sexual orientation’ laws, they must never be passed. In states where pro-homosexual laws are on the books, they must be repealed to preserve freedom. And God help us if the Gay Lobby and its (mostly) Democratic allies in Congress succeed in their goal of creating federal “rights” based on homosexuality. That would be a homosexual lawyer’s dream come true.
–Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

In these two quotes above, “Christian” conservatives have spoken about fundamental freedoms in relation to public accommodation…in relation to Benitez v. North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group.

Some, like Don Wildmon of the American Family Association (AFA), are linking the Benitez v. North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group ruling to Proposition 8:

The California Supreme Court has ruled that doctors in a private clinic, based on their religious beliefs, cannot withhold unnecessary medical care to homosexuals and lesbians. A San Diego area lesbian claimed that a private fertility clinic refused to inseminate her because of her sexual orientation. The Court’s decision means that California’s civil rights law barring sexual orientation discrimination trumps religious freedom laws.

Here is another reason to vote YES on Proposition 8 and work to get others to do the same. Little by little our religious freedom laws are being lost because of activist courts and anti-Christian individuals.

Fundamental freedoms. These do include freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But, fundamental freedoms also include the fundamental freedom to marry:

Read the rest of this entry »