Protect All Marriage

Google Map of Donors to Prop 8

2009-02-09T12:14:00.000-08:00

It is truly disgusting how much money was spent on this. Their must be better things to spend money on, say, for California Teachers?!?! Such BS.

http://www.eightmaps.com/

Mormon's Hidden Contributions to Prop 8 Exposed

2009-02-02T11:34:00.001-08:00

From an email by Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate.

Late last Friday, January 30th the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints filled a Major Donor Report with the California Secretary of State listing $189,903.58 in non-momentary expenditures on behalf of Protectmarriage.com -- Yes on Prop 8. The Mormon Church finally admitted directly spending a huge sum of money as part of its monumental effort to end same-sex marriage in California http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1311334&session=2007&view=contributions

The Church waited until 5:00 pm on Friday, one business day ahead of the required filing date of February 2nd to turn in its first report detailing at least some of its involvement in the Prop 8 campaign. This was clearly timed by the Mormon Church and its attorneys to try and stay out of the media’s eye. This is an age old political trick, dumping bad news late Friday afternoon, but one that has not gone undetected.

The Mormon Church has repeatedly lied about its involvement in California’s Prop 8. Don Eaton, a Mormon Church spokesman, told KGO Television (ABC) in November, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints put zero money in this [the passage of Prop. 8].”

Up until Election Day, November 4th, the Mormon Church had only filed one non-monetary contribution, and that was reported just 4 days before the election for a mere $2,078.97. This prompted Fred Karger, Founder of Californians Against Hate www.CaliforniansAgainstHate.com to file a sworn complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Karger hoped that an investigation by the FPPC would determine exactly how much money was really spent by the Salt Lake City based Church on behalf of the Yes on 8 campaign: http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262980,00.html

Right after the complaint was filed on November 13, 2008 Church spokesman Scott Trotter said the allegations are "false" and the complaint -- filed by Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate -- has "many errors and misstatements." They said that the Church worked closely with its California political attorneys to comply with the law, and that it did not need to file anything further.

Eight days later when the FPPC announced it was launching an investigation into the Church’s expenditures, a Mormon spokesman said that they would send all necessary information to the FPPC for its investigation. Then days later, it switched its position once again, and said that it had complied by all election laws and it did not need to report any money spent, only its members did.

Then on December 1st ProtectMarriage.com – the official Yes on 8 committee – filed an amended campaign report showing $19,715.08 in legal expenditures made by the Mormon Church way back on June 23rd – 5 months late! This was reported 10 days after the FPPC had announced its investigation.

No other expenditures were reported until last Friday when the Mormon Church filed a Major Donor Report with the Secretary of State for an additional $170,072.18. Most of this was spent during October with 3 small expenditures from September. This included lots of travel expenses with 26 tickets purchased on Southwest Airlines alone. They reported $96,849.31spent on one day (November 4th) in “compensated staff time” that appears was just for Election Day activities.

In its latest campaign report filed over this past weekend for the period October 19th to December 31st, ProtectMarriage.com reported 4 non-monetary contributions from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. The first was dated October 25th for the formerly reported travel expenses of $2078.97, then two on November 1st -- one for more travel expenses $2864.21, and $19,715.08 for legal expenses and a final entry for November 3rd for staff salaries of $30,354.83. This totals $55,031.11 and it’s odd that ProtectMarriage.com coincidentally reported all the Church’s contributions after the October 19th cutoff to try and avoid any fines or FPPC penalties for itself. However, the amounts and dates are not the same as those reported by the Mormon Church.

Last June, in his now famous letter read to every Mormon Church, President Thomas Monson announced plans for the Church to become extremely active in the Prop 8 campaign Their fundraising took off soon after that. Mormon families were contributing over $300,000 per day by late July and over $500,000 per day by early August. This money kept pouring in though Election Day bringing the total Mormon money to Prop 8 to nearly $25 million: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122186063716658279.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Gary Lawrence, the Mormon Church’s “Grass Roots Coordinator,” started his activities well before he sent out his August 7, 2008 memo posted on his web site: http://yesonprop8.blogspot.com/2008/08/gary-lawrence-grass-roots-coordinator.html It detailed the grassroots Mormon Campaign Plan.

Show us the money!

Where are the rest of your non-monetary expenditures Mormon Church? What about the phone banks, precinct walks, all the slick videos and commercials, direct mail, busses, legal bills from your California political law firm, etc.? They could not all have occurred until late September and October. It is clear that you began your work in June.

And why didn’t ProtectMarraige.com report any earlier non-monetary contributions from the Mormon Church? Their report does not match up with yours.

The California Political Reform Act was passed by the voters 35 years ago and has been very effective in keeping our campaigns honest and fair. It certainly appears to us that the Mormon Church did everything possible to avoid complying with our election law, and only now, after an active investigation is underway by the FPPC (Case # 080735), did it decide to finally report some of its expenditures.

California’s election law is designed to let the voters know exactly where the money is coming from to fund our initiative and candidate campaigns. If the voters of California were aware of the massive expenditures by the Mormon Church prior to voting on November 4th, the results of the close Prop 8 election might have been very different.

-- end --

Federal Judge Denies Request to Keep Prop 8 Donors Private

2009-01-29T17:22:00.000-08:00

Statement by Fred Karger, Founder of Californians Against Hate regarding today’s Federal Court Ruling on Proposition 8 Contributors:

The Court today did the right thing by upholding California’s 35 year old Political Reform Act. The law requires that all contributors of $100 and above to state campaigns be reported and available to the public. Every California campaign has abided by this law for over three decades.

It is truly unfortunate that in the heat of a campaign donors are subjected to any undue attention. This has sadly been the case on both sides of last November’s highly emotional Proposition 8 campaign. But the law passed by the voters in 1974 has served our state well all these years and must remain in place.

The Executive Board of ProtectMarriage.com, who filed this lawsuit, sent a letter to many major donors to No on 8 – Equality California threatening to expose them and take action against their companies unless they gave to the Yes on 8 campaign. Now they complain of harassment?

Gay and lesbian donors fighting several anti gay initiatives in California beginning with the 1978 Briggs Initiative (Prop 6) have contributed to these campaigns in fear of job loss and being outed to their families. No exemption from the law was ever requested.

The Mormon Church and all the other major supporters of Proposition 8 knew the law when they qualified their Constitutional Amendment for the November ballot and must abide by it. The Mormon Church basically required over 60,000 of its members throughout the country to give nearly $25 million to take away the right to marry for same-sex couples in California. After winning their very deceitful campaign by only 4% points, they now hoped to keep the names secret of another 6,600 donors who must be reported on Monday, February 2nd. This is despicable.

The Mormon Church is currently under an active investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission – FPPC (Case # 080735) for allegedly not reporting what could amount to be hundreds of thousands of dollars of non monetary contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign. While this investigation is underway, their law suit named FPPC Chairman Ross Johnson and the other four Commissioners as defendants. Also named were California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Secretary of State Debra Bowen.

Well, if the Salt Lake City based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is going to be that involved California elections, they have to play by the rules. What is the Mormon Church trying to hide?

The Mormon Church is not a named plaintiff in the Federal lawsuit, and through its spokeswoman even denied knowledge of its existence, it certainly must be behind it. They have clearly been the focus of the post election unhappiness.

The Mormon Church is in the midst of a self admitted PR offensive to recessitate its wounded image as a result of their heavy handed involvement in the Yes on Prop 8 campaign (see ABC’s Nightline segment from January 9, 2009 http://www.truveo.com/Mormon-Leaders-Russell-Ballard-and-Quentin-Cook-on/id/696616726 ). This lawsuit is clearly an attempt by the Church to demonize its opponents, while having others front for them. They have a long and documented history of this type of activity.

We, like all millions of other Californians, applaud the Court’s decision today, and look forward to reviewing the thousands of additional donors to both sides of the Prop 8 campaign when the report comes out on Monday.
-- end --

Yes on Prop 8 Hypocrisy Letter from EQCA

2009-01-09T13:25:00.000-08:00

This was in an email to me from EQCA: http://www.eqca.org/

Yesterday, the leadership of Yes on Prop 8 filed a lawsuit in federal court to void a voter-passed proposition that requires the disclosure of information for people who donate more than $100 to a campaign. They claim their donors have been victimized for bankrolling the ban on marriage for LGBT couples.

Their hypocrisy is shocking.

This is the same "leadership" that sent menacing letters to Equality California donors and corporate sponsors, threatening to "expose" them if they did not make a similar donation to the Yes on 8 campaign.

This is the same "leadership" that filed briefs in the California Supreme Court that argue that the voter-passed proposition cannot--and should not--be overturned by a court.

For decades LGBT activists have stood proud, risking their jobs and safety for fighting intolerance. We've never asked for anything less than equality and now they want special rights.

Is there no end to their hypocrisy?

In solidarity,

Geoff Kors
Executive Director
Equality California

P.S. If you have a story about how you stood proud after being victimized for fighting for LGBT rights, share it at stories@eqca.org. It may be published on our website to profile courage in the wake of adversity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equality California is dedicated to achieving equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians.

Our work depends on individual financial contributions. Donate now using our secure website or download a donation form to send via fax or mail.

Donations to EQCA support our political work and are therefore not tax-deductible as charitable contributions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free No on Prop and Marriage Equality Graphics on Flickr!

2008-12-30T13:29:00.000-08:00

These are all of the pictures I have been collecting for no on Prop 8. Feel free to send me more pictures to include in this set, or if you are the copyright owner and would like something removed, just let me know.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bdollproject/sets/72157611848118487/

Free 90 Minute Documentary: "The Times of Harvey Milk"

2008-12-29T11:27:00.000-08:00

The Times Of Harvey Milk
http://www.hulu.com/watch/49577/the-times-of-harvey-milk

Feature Film 1:27:34
Release Date: October 07, 1984

This Oscar-winning documentary film covers the successful career and tragic assassination of San Francisco's first openly gay man elected to office. Harvey Milk was a controversial figure in American politics, who guided campaigns for civil rights. This documentary chronicles Milk's career in politics, as well as the aftermath and trial of his assassin. Must see!

Send an email to Obama to Dump Rev. Rick Warren

2008-12-23T09:12:00.000-08:00

From: http://www.dumprickwarren.com/

December 19, 2008
President-elect Barack Obama
Presidential Transition Office
Washington, DC 20270

Dear President-elect Obama:

The gay and lesbian community, our millions of friends and all other fair minded Americans are extremely hurt and angry with your choice of Reverend Rick Warren to give the invocation at your Inauguration next month.

In an interview just 4 days ago, Reverend Warren compared gay marriage to legitimizing incest, child abuse, and polygamy. He said:

"I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage." –Rick Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Church, December 15, 2008

How can he talk about loving same-sex couples who wish to marry like everyone else in this cruel way? This guy is a bigot plain and simple. He has a long history of saying mean and hateful things to so many Americans with whom he does not agree, that he seems an odd fit into your celebration as you assume the Presidency of the United States.

So today we are asking you to dump Rick Warren from delivering the invocation at your swearing in ceremony.

We will be launching a new web site www.dumprickwarren.com to ask others to join in our effort to help persuade you to choose another man or woman to take this place of honor at your historic Inauguration.

We hope that you will drop Reverend Warren soon, and instead pick one of the thousands of religious leaders who don’t offend the gay and lesbian community and so many other Americans.

You campaigned and were elected to unite this country and your removal of Rick Warren would go a long way toward achieving that goal.

Rick Warren was a major supporter of California’s Proposition 8, the successful ballot initiative to ban gay marriage. Many prominent national gay leaders have called for Reverend Warren to step aside or for you to remove him.

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese, declared your invitation to Rick Warren a “genuine blow” to gay Americans. “And by inviting Rick Warren to your Inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table,” he wrote.

Equality California Executive Director, Geoff Kors said yesterday that, “I have decided to decline the invitation to attend the inauguration as I cannot be part of a celebration that highlights and gives voice to someone who advocated repealing rights from me and millions of other Californians.

Mr. President-elect, we know that you are trying to be inclusive at your Inaugural and in your administration and we applaud that. We, however, strongly urge you to do the right thing and reconsider your choice of Rick Warren. If you drop Rick Warren, it will send a loud and clear message to America and the world that you do not tolerate discrimination and hatred from anyone.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely yours,
Fred Karger
Founder
www.CaliforniansAgainstHate.com

Vanasco: Tammy Baldwin named honorary inaugural co-chair

2008-12-22T21:18:00.000-08:00

from: http://www.365gay.com/news/vanasco-tammy-baldwin-named-honorary-inaugural-co-chair/

By Jennifer Vanasco
12.22.2008 5:08pm EST
President-Obama is nothing if not politically savvy.

Perhaps as a bone to gays upset over Rick Warren’s invitation to give the opening prayer during the inaugural ceremony, the openly lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) has been named one of 15 honorary co-chairs of the inaugural committee.

Of course, honorary co-chairs are just that - honorary. They don’t do anything. Their names are just on the stationary.

In other Warren news, Katha Pollitt points out that Warren has also disrespected Jewish people -they will burn in hell, he has said - and that Muslim leaders should basically be killed for being “evil.”

Do you think that once Warren’s anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim views become more widespread, Obama will stop defending him?

Project Postcard

2008-12-22T21:12:00.000-08:00

http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Project+Postcard

Visibility is the key! Spread the word!
Ask everyone you know to write a postcard from their hometown to Obama!

Our friends at LGBTQ Civil Rights Front have come up with a brilliant way for us to ensure that LGBTQ issues aren't forgotten as President-elect Obama makes his transition into the White House.

Their idea: buy a postcard from your home town, include a handwritten message, and mail it to Obama's Presidential Transition Office.

UPDATE: Looks like we're having an impact. Obama's transition office has stopped accepting postcards. They will take #10 (business-sized) envelopes only. So, we have to make a few changes. See below.

HOW IT WORKS
1. BUY A POSTCARD It would be great if it had the name of your city or state on it, but feel free to get creative.
2. WRITE A MESSAGE: Dear President-elect Obama,

Please ask Congress to repeal DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell!

or

Please reconsider your decision to have Rick Warren perform the inaugural invocation.

Sincerely,

3. POST A PIC OF YOURSELF Take a photo of yourself with your postcard and add it to THIS ALBUM!
4. MAIL IT TO OBAMA: Put your postcard in a #10 envelope and mail it to...

President-elect Barack Obama
Presidential Transition Office
Kluczynski Federal Building
230 S. Dearborn St., 38th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
5. TELL YOUR FRIENDS Email this URL to your friends! http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Project+Postcard

Nationwide DOMA Protest January 10th

2008-12-22T21:05:00.000-08:00

From: http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Nationwide+DOMA+Protest

Nationwide DOMA Protest
The fight for equal rights never rests!
We joined together for the November 15th National Day of Protest that shook our nation!
You have joined us for a night of action that shed light on our struggle as we came together to Light Up the Night for Equal Rights.

Now, on Saturday January 10th, 2009 we ask you to join us in making the LARGEST IMPACT YET!
Let's take our message all the way up the ladder to President Elect Barack Obama himself!

On January 10th, we will come together as one UNITED FRONT
asking the LGBTQ community to join us in signing an Open Letter to President Barack Obama,
during a NATIONAL DOMA PROTEST.

This letter will remind President Elect Barack Obama of the promises he made to us. It will also serve as a pledge from our community that we will hold him to his promises and help him achieve them.

We can’t just put a letter online and ask that people sign it.
We need to take to the streets. As we all know…
VISIBILITY IS THE KEY TO EQUALITY!
Outreach & Education Will End Discrimination.
We MUST Infiltrate, to Educate, and Stop Hate!

This is why we CONTINUE to come together as a community and
speak out about the injustices that exist nationally AND locally.

HERE’S WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Find out who is organizing a DOMA Protest in your area. If there isn't one, then volunteer to organize, or at least get signatures!

Grab the Open Letter (Check back here for the letter coming soon) and take to the streets to gain signatures.
Get one million signatures (in total) by the end of the day! Once we have a minimum of one million signatures, we will make certain that President Elect Barack Obama receives our letter on DAY 1 of his presidency!

Join Us on January 10th for 1 Million Signatures to Repeal DOMA!

About DOMA:
On September 21st, 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into federal law. DOMA, wrote discrimination into the Constitution with two strict regulations:
No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
To drive the point even further, 37 states slowly but surely adopted DOMA as a state-wide regulation further amending state Constitutions. This appalling law tells the American people that it is OK to discriminate. That it is OK to recognize the LGBTQ community as less than equal. This same law, that the California Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional set the precedence for Proposition 8. This same law has nullified many rights that come with Domestic Partnerships. This law has nullified the heterosexual rights that come with Common Law Marriage. This law blurred the lines of separation of church and state even further. And this law, is one of many that President Elect Barack Obama has PROMISED to repeal in his "Open Letter to the LGBTQ Community."

USA Refuses to Sign UN Gay Rights Declaration

2008-12-22T13:52:00.000-08:00

The United States refused to sign the United Nations Gay Rights Declaration presented in December 2008.

Here's what you can do to change this:

ENGAGE
Have conversations with your neighbors, friends and family about LGBT rights.

QUESTION
Ask President-elect Barack Obama to support HRC's Blueprint for Positive Change.

UNITE
Powerful change results when more than 10,000,000 LGBT people come together.

ACT
Go to the National DOMA Protests on January 10 and stand among over a million people who want change.

LABOR
We will not rest until all LGBT people are given full and equal civil rights.

For more information, go to Join the Impact at
http://www.jointheimpact.com

Please also join the Facebook Group
"Make the USA Sign the UN Declaration of Gay Rights" here:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=40563373601&ref=ts

This video can also be found on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCxvEXrc1g0

Protests Against Rev. Rick Warren @ Saddleback Church this Sunday: 12/21, "Debate, Don't Hate!"

2008-12-21T00:17:00.000-08:00

This just in--short notice!

PROTEST @ SADDLEBACK CHURCH TOMORROW
to protest President-elect Obama’s choice of Rev. Rick Warren for Inauguration Invocation.

Sunday, December 21, 2008 9:00am - 9:00pm
1 Saddleback Pkwy, Lake Forest, CA
(Cross streets: El Toro Rd. & Portola Pkwy, 92630)

GAYS UNITED NETWORK
http://www.facebook.com/n.php/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5mYWNlYm9vay5jb20vbi8_1ZXZlbnQucGhwJmVpZD00NDQ0NjUyMTMwNg

OUR MESSAGE:

This will be a peaceful protest where we send a unified message to Rick Warren and President-Elect Obama.

In that vein, please bring signs that say something like "Debate, Don't Hate!" or "Your choice in Rick Warren rises to the level of moral turpitude" and variations thereof.

WARNING: This is a private property and we'll need to be by the gates. There are two entrances to the church. However, I will be at the Saddleback Pkwy Entrance. We're trying to get the Media there so we ask that this be a peaceful show of solidarity and strength.

SEE YOU ALL TOMORROW!!

This is a field trip to visit our estranged friend Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. I believe we have to RISE UP and show Obama and the world that we will not sit IDLY by and be SILENT and WE CANNOT and WILL NOT BE IGNORED!

Obama said in an interview that America is a democratic country that is diverse and noisy, etc. Let’s show him how LOUD and NOISY our collective voices can be when provoked.

We're planning to be there all day from 9am to 9pm as the not-so-good-reverend works overtime and has 5 services each and every Sunday.

SERVICE/PROTEST SCHEDULES:

9:00am
11:15am
4:30pm
6:30pm
8:30pm

HOW DOES IT WORK?

This will be a peaceful demonstration in the spirit of the holidays.
Dress alike. Wear the same t-shirts or signs pinned to your coats. You can make or buy a "2nd Class Citizen" t-shirt, but the message is optional. Learn more about why we suggest "2nd Class Citizen."

WHAT WILL WE BE DOING?

Hosting peaceful candlelight vigils
We will stay silent unless asked a question, we will not yell, instigate, or bear signs. Instead, we will let our shirts do the talking and our candles pay our respects. Bring candles (battery powered if you'll be huddling inside).
Singing and/or silence encouraged...chanting is not....keep it peaceful and in the holiday spirit.

Prop. 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18K gay marriages

2008-12-19T18:51:00.000-08:00

From: http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=41576437893&h=m-BHZ&u=2OXAu

Prop. 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18K gay marriages
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 8 mins ago

SAN FRANCISCO – The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. The document reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.
"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.

The campaign submitted the document in response to three lawsuits seeking to invalidate Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment adopted last month that overruled the court's decision in May that had legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.

Both Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office is scheduled to submit its own brief to the court Friday, and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively.

The Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation as soon as March. The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr, a former federal judge and U.S. solicitor general, had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.
Proposition 8's supporters assert that the Supreme Court lacks the authority or historical precedent to throw out the amendment.

"For this court to rule otherwise would be to tear asunder a lavish body of jurisprudence," the court papers state. "That body of decisional law commands judges — as servants of the people — to bow to the will of those whom they serve — even if the substantive result of what people have wrought in constitution-amending is deemed unenlightened."
The cases are Strauss v. Horton, S168047; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078; and Tyler v. State of California, S168066.

Attorney General Says: Prop 8 is Invalid

2008-12-19T18:47:00.000-08:00

From: http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4061163&content_id=%7B9AFF8669-2ADA-4279-B451-3F9C650A91DA%7D¬oc=1
Read the brief here: http://www.eqca.org/atf/cf/%7B34F258B3-8482-4943-91CB-08C4B0246A88%7D/Strauss%20Brief.pdf

Latest News

December 19, 2008
Attorney General Says: Prop 8 is Invalid

Sacramento -- Today Attorney General Jerry Brown filed his brief with the California Supreme Court arguing that Proposition 8 should be invalidated.

Statement from Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors on the Attorney General's brief:

"Attorney General Brown's position that Proposition 8 should be invalidated demonstrates that he is a leader of courage and conviction," said Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors. "We are very pleased that upon review of the law, he has moved from his previous statements that he would defend Prop 8. As the state's highest attorney, Jerry Brown has done his job today to defend the Constitution and protect the rights of minority groups, including the more than 18,000 same-sex couples who married in California."
Strauss Brief >>

ACTION ALERT: DECEMBER 20, 2008, Light Up The Night For Equality

2008-12-18T13:47:00.000-08:00

From: http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Light%20Up%20The%20Night%20For%20Equality?t=anon

Light Up The Night For Equality

ACTION ALERT: DECEMBER 20, 2008 Join this site! Help us organize, connect, and communicate!

WHAT IS LIGHT UP THE NIGHT FOR EQUALITY?
On December 20th, we ask that you join us again for a nation-wide demonstration that will make an impact on the private sector. Candlelight vigils will be held at commercial centers in cities across the country in vigil for the rights of 18,000 same-sex couples who married and look forward to the day when those rights are available again - for EVERYONE. <>

HOW DOES IT WORK?

Please take to your local commercial district -- be it a shopping mall, outdoor financial center, you name it. Check your city page for the time and location of your event.

This will be a peaceful demonstration in the spirit of the holidays.
Dress alike. Wear the same t-shirts or signs pinned to your coats. You can make or buy a "2nd Class Citizen" t-shirt, but the message is optional. Learn more about why we suggest "2nd Class Citizen."

This will be the culmination of our National Food Drive for Equality

WHAT WILL WE BE DOING?

Hosting peaceful candlelight vigils

We will stay silent unless asked a question, we will not yell, instigate, or bear signs. Instead, we will let our shirts do the talking and our candles pay our respects. Bring candles (battery powered if you'll be huddling inside).
Singing and/or silence encouraged...chanting is not....

Why We Need Same-Sex Marriage to be Legal at the Federal Level

2008-12-17T16:32:00.001-08:00

Marriage equality should be done at a federal level. Married heterosexual people file taxes together for state and federal, so until it is at the federal level then it won't be the same. We can file state together but Federal has to be seperate. Holy Matrimony is religious, that is not what we want, it is the civil side that we want to be equal, because it effects the benefits we get. I think all marriages should be civil marriages, and if you have religious matrimony with it, fabulous, but we just want everything heterosexual couples get by being married. The government issues licenses for married people and gives benefits based on that.

As a lesbian married couple, we have to pay taxes on my medical and other benefits that I get through Nicole, and that is not the case with heterosexuals, they can have flexible spending accounts for their medical costs that are not taxed and we can not. Social Security provides benefits for death of a spouse, but not for homosexuals. Biden does want it to be fair, and I frankly don't care what they call it, but why call an orange an apple if it looks like an orange, tastes like an orange, must be an orange.

Anyway, prop 8 doesn't really matter, whether it passed or not, because as domestic partners we get all of the state level benefits a heterosexual gets, but at the federal level, we are completely unequal, and that is not fair. We pay more in taxes then our heterosexual counterparts, and for me, that is all of the medical benefits which I use and am being taxed on. One thing that was funny though is if McCain won, he would tax all medical benefits in the same way that spouses in a gay marriage would have to pay.

We don't want anyone to redefine the religious interpretation of marriage, but since the government is the one who issues marriage licenses and not the church, it is a civil matter and it is not fair to have to make us pay more taxes. The best thought I heard is that if you are not for gay marriage, then you must be for gay promiscuity. All couples together can contribute a lot to society, and it is not always in the form of offspring or mortal baggage as I like to call it.

It is not our fault the courts used the religious definition of marriage to start with, we want to be a legal family unit in society and contribute. All of the Mormons are huge hypocrites because if they really did care about the children, they would invest in schools, which are in a bad way right now, other then spending millions of dollars to make sure that gays can not get married, and they should outlaw divorce if they care about marriage sanctity.

We were given the right to get married when the Supreme Court of California said in July that they cannot find a legal reason not to have marriage for gays, and that because it is so special, that calling us something other than married denotes that we are second class citizens, and we are being taxed without representation and churches should be made to pay taxes. Especially the mormons, as they are required by a signed contract to tithe a percentage of their earnings or face expulsion from the church. You can't really compete with that amount of money and the prop 8 campaign was weak but still unecessary since we already have domestic partnership which grants us the same rights at the state level as married heterosexuals.

The only right thing to do would be to allow it at the federal level and the states should follow suit so that it will be equal, and so that we are protected from hate groups and religious freaks imposing their beliefs on us, as we too have religious freedom and my God says being gay is not wrong, but a natural occurence that happens across all socio-economic backgrounds, all ages, all races, all species, and all over the world, regardless of culture and any historical time period.

Here is some of the decision that was handed dowm from the Supreme Court saying that there is no civil or legal basis to restrict marriage to a one man and one woman:

http://www.weddingwire.com/nicolesuzette

Excerpts from the California Supreme Court Decision:

"This state’s current policies and conduct regarding homosexuality recognize that gay individuals are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity afforded all other individuals and are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation, and, more specifically, recognize that gay individuals are fully capable of entering into the kind of loving and enduring committed relationships that may serve as the foundation of a family and of responsibly caring for and raising children."

"First, because of the long and celebrated history of the term "marriage" and the widespread understanding that this term describes a union unreservedly approved and favored by the community, there clearly is a considerable and undeniable symbolic importance to this designation. Thus, it is apparent that affording access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples, while providing same-sex couples access to only a novel alternative designation, realistically must be viewed as constituting significantly unequal treatment to same-sex couples."

"Although defendants maintain that this court has an obligation to defer to the statutory definition of marriage contained in section 308.5 because that statute represents the expression of the "people’s will," this argument fails to take into account the very basic point that the provisions of the California Constitution itself constitute the ultimate expression of the people’s will. As the United States Supreme Court explained in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

"We conclude that the state interest in limiting the designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples, and in excluding same-sex couples from access to that designation, cannot properly be considered a compelling state interest for equal protection purposes. Extending access to the designation of marriage to same-sex couples will not deprive any opposite-sex couple or their children of any of the rights and benefits conferred by the marriage statutes, but simply will make the benefit of the marriage designation available to same-sex couples and their children.

"We conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these statutes are unconstitutional. Accordingly, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union "between a man and a woman" is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

Why I Voted for Obama

2008-12-16T09:08:00.000-08:00

All videos are from http://www.365gay.com/blog/video-barack-obama-rewind/

More video from VisibleVote08

Jesus Called, he wants his religion back

2008-12-13T14:52:00.000-08:00

From: http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653

COVER STORY: GAY MARRIAGE
"Our Mutual Joy" by Lisa Miller
Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.

The battle over gay marriage has been waged for more than a decade, but within the last six months—since California legalized gay marriage and then, with a ballot initiative in November, amended its Constitution to prohibit it—the debate has grown into a full-scale war, with religious-rhetoric slinging to match. Not since 1860, when the country's pulpits were full of preachers pronouncing on slavery, pro and con, has one of our basic social (and economic) institutions been so subject to biblical scrutiny. But whereas in the Civil War the traditionalists had their James Henley Thornwell—and the advocates for change, their Henry Ward Beecher—this time the sides are unevenly matched. All the religious rhetoric, it seems, has been on the side of the gay-marriage opponents, who use Scripture as the foundation for their objections.

The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition."

To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.

In the Old Testament, the concept of family is fundamental, but examples of what social conservatives would call "the traditional family" are scarcely to be found. Marriage was critical to the passing along of tradition and history, as well as to maintaining the Jews' precious and fragile monotheism. But as the Barnard University Bible scholar Alan Segal puts it, the arrangement was between "one man and as many women as he could pay for." Social conservatives point to Adam and Eve as evidence for their one man, one woman argument—in particular, this verse from Genesis: "Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." But as Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world. (The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn't God say, "Be fruitful and multiply"? But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology—and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.)

Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere in the New Testament either. The biblical Jesus was—in spite of recent efforts of novelists to paint him otherwise—emphatically unmarried. He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. Leave your families and follow me, Jesus says in the gospels. There will be no marriage in heaven, he says in Matthew. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, but he roundly condemns divorce (leaving a loophole in some cases for the husbands of unfaithful women).

The apostle Paul echoed the Christian Lord's lack of interest in matters of the flesh. For him, celibacy was the Christian ideal, but family stability was the best alternative. Marry if you must, he told his audiences, but do not get divorced. "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): a wife must not separate from her husband." It probably goes without saying that the phrase "gay marriage" does not appear in the Bible at all.

If the bible doesn't give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course—specifically sex between men. Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on "Homosexual Practices," the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, "possibly because it did not result in true physical 'union' (by male entry)." The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?

Paul was tough on homosexuality, though recently progressive scholars have argued that his condemnation of men who "were inflamed with lust for one another" (which he calls "a perversion") is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery. In his book "The Arrogance of Nations," the scholar Neil Elliott argues that Paul is referring in this famous passage to the depravity of the Roman emperors, the craven habits of Nero and Caligula, a reference his audience would have grasped instantly. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," Elliott says. "He's talking about a certain group of people who have done everything in this list. We're not dealing with anything like gay love or gay marriage. We're talking about really, really violent people who meet their end and are judged by God." In any case, one might add, Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching.

Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument). Common prayers and rituals reflect our common practice: the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer describes the participants in a marriage as "the man and the woman." But common practice changes—and for the better, as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." The Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric. It recommends the death penalty for adulterers (and in Leviticus, for men who have sex with men, for that matter). It provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites. A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.

Marriage, specifically, has evolved so as to be unrecognizable to the wives of Abraham and Jacob. Monogamy became the norm in the Christian world in the sixth century; husbands' frequent enjoyment of mistresses and prostitutes became taboo by the beginning of the 20th. (In the NEWSWEEK POLL, 55 percent of respondents said that married heterosexuals who have sex with someone other than their spouses are more morally objectionable than a gay couple in a committed sexual relationship.) By the mid-19th century, U.S. courts were siding with wives who were the victims of domestic violence, and by the 1970s most states had gotten rid of their "head and master" laws, which gave husbands the right to decide where a family would live and whether a wife would be able to take a job. Today's vision of marriage as a union of equal partners, joined in a relationship both romantic and pragmatic, is, by very recent standards, radical, says Stephanie Coontz, author of "Marriage, a History."

Religious wedding ceremonies have already changed to reflect new conceptions of marriage. Remember when we used to say "man and wife" instead of "husband and wife"? Remember when we stopped using the word "obey"? Even Miss Manners, the voice of tradition and reason, approved in 1997 of that change. "It seems," she wrote, "that dropping 'obey' was a sensible editing of a service that made assumptions about marriage that the society no longer holds."

We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future. The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs. Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was "one spirit" and whom he "loved as he loved himself." Conservatives say this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent. David rends his clothes at Jonathan's death and, in grieving, writes a song:

I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
You were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
More wonderful than that of women.

Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.

In addition to its praise of friendship and its condemnation of divorce, the Bible gives many examples of marriages that defy convention yet benefit the greater community. The Torah discouraged the ancient Hebrews from marrying outside the tribe, yet Moses himself is married to a foreigner, Zipporah. Queen Esther is married to a non-Jew and, according to legend, saves the Jewish people. Rabbi Arthur Waskow, of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia, believes that Judaism thrives through diversity and inclusion. "I don't think Judaism should or ought to want to leave any portion of the human population outside the religious process," he says. "We should not want to leave [homosexuals] outside the sacred tent." The marriage of Joseph and Mary is also unorthodox (to say the least), a case of an unconventional arrangement accepted by society for the common good. The boy needed two human parents, after all.

In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified. Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace. The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author, cites the story of Jesus revealing himself to the woman at the well— no matter that she had five former husbands and a current boyfriend—as evidence of Christ's all-encompassing love. The great Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor at Columbia Theological Seminary, quotes the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical support of gay marriage: "There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ." The religious argument for gay marriage, he adds, "is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness."

The practice of inclusion, even in defiance of social convention, the reaching out to outcasts, the emphasis on togetherness and community over and against chaos, depravity, indifference—all these biblical values argue for gay marriage. If one is for racial equality and the common nature of humanity, then the values of stability, monogamy and family necessarily follow. Terry Davis is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Hartford, Conn., and has been presiding over "holy unions" since 1992. "I'm against promiscuity—love ought to be expressed in committed relationships, not through casual sex, and I think the church should recognize the validity of committed same-sex relationships," he says.

Still, very few Jewish or Christian denominations do officially endorse gay marriage, even in the states where it is legal. The practice varies by region, by church or synagogue, even by cleric. More progressive denominations—the United Church of Christ, for example—have agreed to support gay marriage. Other denominations and dioceses will do "holy union" or "blessing" ceremonies, but shy away from the word "marriage" because it is politically explosive. So the frustrating, semantic question remains: should gay people be married in the same, sacramental sense that straight people are? I would argue that they should. If we are all God's children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color—and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that. People get married "for their mutual joy," explains the Rev. Chloe Breyer, executive director of the Interfaith Center in New York, quoting the Episcopal marriage ceremony. That's what religious people do: care for each other in spite of difficulty, she adds. In marriage, couples grow closer to God: "Being with one another in community is how you love God. That's what marriage is about."

More basic than theology, though, is human need. We want, as Abraham did, to grow old surrounded by friends and family and to be buried at last peacefully among them. We want, as Jesus taught, to love one another for our own good—and, not to be too grandiose about it, for the good of the world. We want our children to grow up in stable homes. What happens in the bedroom, really, has nothing to do with any of this. My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is Psalm 139, a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God's knowledge of our most secret selves: "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for "Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad." Let the priest's prayer be our own.

Prop 8 The Musical by FOD

2008-12-04T08:30:00.000-08:00

It would have stimulated the economy, especially in California where we really needed it. Bunch of Dumb Ass voters!

From:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Urgent: Urge your representative to act today to defeat prop 8!

2008-12-03T07:20:00.000-08:00

The fight against Prop 8 Continues!

The California State Legislature is considering 2 bills in support of invalidating Prop 8! It is urgent that you contact your representatives and let them know YOU support EQUAL RIGHTS! (The other side will definitely not be silent!)

http://www.eqca.org/actioncenter

The Supreme Court's decision will be based largely on public reaction- we need to continue to put pressure on our elected officials to stand up for equal rights!

http://www.eqca.org/actioncenter

In Solidarity,

Andy

----------

The proponents of Prop 8 usurped the role of the Legislature by putting the right for same-sex couples to marry directly on the ballot.

Two Equality California-sponsored resolutions introduced today will make it official state policy, when they are approved by the Legislature, that Prop 8 should be overturned.

:: Write your legislators now to urge them to support the invalidation of Prop 8 and vote for Senate Resolution 7 (Leno) and Ammiano's Assembly Resolution (number to be assigned).
http://www.eqca.org/actioncenter

Prop 8 eliminates the fundamental right to marry and allows a slim majority to take away the equal protections of a minority, which violates one of the founding principles of our Constitution. The resolutions state the measure should have been approved by a two-thirds vote in the Legislature before going to voters.

Urge your representatives to support these resolutions.If you are registered with EQCA's Action Center, reply to this email. Or register today at www.eqca.org/actioncenter.

On December 19, proponents of Prop 8 will file their briefs with the California Supreme Court. So, ask everyone you know to write their representative by going to www.eqca.org/actioncenter by December 19.

EQCA will do its part to make sure we have broad support for these resolutions.

But we need you to do yours. Email your representatives now at www.eqca.org/actioncenter and ask your friends and family join you.

www.eqca.org/actioncenter

California lawmakers need to hear from you—their constituents—that our state should be a state of hope, prosperity and equality for all.

In solidarity,

Geoff Kors
Executive Director
Equality California

Prop 8: DEVASTATING internal memo from the LDS Church

2008-11-27T22:41:00.000-08:00

From: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/3/15369/3779/711/651188

I had some mormons actually knock on my door even with my "No Bible Thumpers" sticker on the door and a huge No on Prop 8 sign. They were nice enough, but I just said, "Oh! I don't like you!" And they asked why, and I just pointed to the sticker and the sign and smiled and said, "OK, bye now!" Now I am paranoid I am in their database with my address! Then I was thinking, what if they were gonna try and do what they did in this video:

FPPC To Investigate Mormon Church Involvement in Prop 8

2008-11-26T01:45:00.000-08:00

From: http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/fppc-to-investigate-mormon-church.html

Monday, November 24, 2008
FPPC To Investigate Mormon Church Involvement in Prop 8

NEWS RELEASE November, 24, 2008

California Fair Political Practices Commission to
Investigate Mormon Church Involvement in Prop 8

LOS ANGELES, CA – Fred Karger, Founder of Californians Against Hate received a letter today from the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) regarding the sworn complaint that he filed on November 13, 2008. The complaint requested the FPPC investigate the alleged lack of reporting of numerous non monetary contributions to ProtectMarriage.com / Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal I.D. #1302592 by the Mormon Church. The letter from FPPC Executive Director, Roman Porter, dated November 21, 2008 was received by fax. Below is the text of the letter from Mr. Porter.

Fair Political Practices Commission
428 J Street, Suite 629, Sacramento, CA 95814-2329
(916)322-5660 Fax (916)322-0886

November 21, 2008

Fred Karger
1278 Glenneyre, #20
Laguna Beach, CA 92651

Re; FPPC File No. 08/735; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints aka the Mormon Church of Salt Lake City, Utah

Dear Mr. Karger:

This letter is to notify you that the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission (the FPPC) will investigate the allegation(s), under the jurisdiction of the FPPC, of the sworn complaint you submitted in the above-referenced matter. You will next receive notification from us upon final disposition of the case. However, please be advised that at this time we have not made any determination about the validity of the allegation(s) you made or about the culpability, if any, of the person(s) you identify in your complaint.

Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Roman G. Porter
Executive Director

cc: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints aka the Mormon Church of Salt Lake City, Utah

“We are very pleased that the FPPC has agreed to launch an investigation based on our complaint,” said Fred Karger. “My 4 page letter to Chairman Ross Johnson and California and Utah Attorneys General Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and Mark Shurtleff with all of the alleged unreported activities is available on our blog at: http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/ We’re hopeful the Mormon Church will fully cooperate with the investigation, and that we will find out the full extent of their involvement in the Yes on 8 campaign.”

-- end --

Florida Same-Sex Adoption Ban Struck Down

2008-11-25T15:28:00.000-08:00

From: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/25/Florida_same-sex_adoption_ban_struck_down/UPI-57331227635600/

MIAMI, Nov. 25 (UPI) -- A Miami child welfare judge ruled Tuesday that a Florida law banning adoption by same-sex couples is unconstitutional, observers said.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman said the law had "no rational basis," WFOR-TV, Miami, reported. Her decision supported efforts by Frank Gill, 47, and his unidentified partner to adopt two young boys they have been raising as foster children since 2004.

The ruling is expected to set off a protracted legal battle pitting state child welfare officials against civil libertarians. Analysts told The Miami Herald that Lederman's decision is likely to be appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.

Witnesses for the Florida Department of Children and Families testified that children raised by same-sex parents are at significantly higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse than those raised by heterosexual couples. Such children, they say, also face social stigmas from a disapproving culture, the Herald reported.

But social scientists testifying for Gill said such children have no disadvantages compared with their peers.

NY Times Editorials: Mormons and the Gay Marriage Ban

2008-11-21T21:25:00.000-08:00

A good list of Editorials from the New York Times today.

Obama's Plan For Civil Rights

2008-11-20T08:05:00.000-08:00

From: http://change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda/

"The teenagers and college students who left their homes to march in the streets of Birmingham and Montgomery; the mothers who walked instead of taking the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry and cleaning somebody else's kitchen -- they didn't brave fire hoses and Billy clubs so that their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren would still wonder at the beginning of the 21st century whether their vote would be counted; whether their civil rights would be protected by their government; whether justice would be equal and opportunity would be theirs.... We have more work to do."

-- Barack Obama, Speech at Howard University, September 28, 2007

The Obama-Biden Plan

Barack Obama has spent much of his career fighting to strengthen civil rights as a civil rights attorney, community organizer, Illinois State Senator and U.S. Senator. Whether promoting economic opportunity, working to improve our nation's education and health system, or protecting the right to vote, Obama has been a powerful advocate for our civil rights.

Combat Employment Discrimination: Obama and Biden will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination. They will also pass the Fair Pay Act, to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: Obama and Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.
End Deceptive Voting Practices: Obama will sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote.

End Racial Profiling: Obama and Biden will ban racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies and provide federal incentives to state and local police departments to prohibit the practice.

Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Support: Obama and Biden will provide job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling to ex-offenders, so that they are successfully re-integrated into society. Obama and Biden will also create a prison-to-work incentive program to improve ex-offender employment and job retention rates.

Eliminate Sentencing Disparities: Obama and Biden believe the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.

Expand Use of Drug Courts: Obama and Biden will give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior.

Support for the LGBT Community

"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."

-- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007

The Obama-Biden Plan

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. Barack Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.

Fight Workplace Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. Obama also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.

Expand Adoption Rights: Barack Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.

Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, Barack Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. Obama will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. Obama also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. He will continue to speak out on this issue as president.

Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. Barack Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.

Calif. Supreme Court To Take Up Gay Marriage Ban

2008-11-20T07:57:00.000-08:00

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer –

From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081120/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_lawsuits

SAN FRANCISCO – California's highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legal challenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.

The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court's decision in May that legalized gay marriage.

All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

As is its custom when it takes up cases, the court elaborated little. However, the justices did say they want to address what effect, if any, a ruling upholding the amendment would have on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that were sanctioned in California before Election Day.

Gay rights groups and local governments petitioning to overturn the ban were joined by the measure's sponsors and Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the Supreme Court to consider whether Proposition 8 passes legal muster.

The initiative's opponents had also asked the court to grant a stay of the measure, which would have allowed gay marriages to begin again while the justices considered the cases. The court denied that request.

The justices directed Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign to submit arguments by Dec. 19 on why the ballot initiative should not be nullified. It said lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include same-sex couples who did not wed before the election, must respond before Jan. 5.

Oral arguments could be scheduled as early as March, according to court spokeswoman Lynn Holton.

"This is welcome news. The matter of Proposition 8 should be resolved thoughtfully and without delay," Brown said in a statement.

Both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 expressed confidence Wednesday that their arguments would prevail. But they also agreed that the cases present the court's seven justices — six of whom voted to review the challenges — with complex questions that have few precedents in state case law.

Although more than two dozen states have similar amendments, some of which have survived similar lawsuits, none were approved by voters in a place where gay marriage already was legal.

Neither were any approved in a state where the high court had put sexual orientation in the same protected legal class as race and religion, which the California Supreme Court did when it rendered its 4-3 decision that made same-sex marriage legal in May.

Opponents of the ban argue that voters improperly abrogated the judiciary's authority by stripping same-sex couples of the right to wed after the high court earlier ruled it was discriminatory to prohibit gay men and lesbians from marrying.

"If given effect, Proposition 8 would work a dramatic, substantive change to our Constitution's 'underlying principles' of individual equality on a scale and scope never previously condoned by this court," lawyers for the same-sex couples stated in their petition.

The measure represents such a sweeping change that it constitutes a constitutional revision as opposed to an amendment, the documents say. The distinction would have required the ban's backers to obtain approval from two-thirds of both houses of the California Legislature before submitting it to voters.

Over the past century, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging legislative acts or ballot initiatives as improper revisions. The court eventually invalidated three of the measures, according to the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

Andrew Pugno, legal counsel for the Yes on 8 campaign, said he doubts the court will buy the revision argument in the case of the gay marriage ban because the plaintiffs would have to prove the measure alters the state's basic governmental framework.

Joel Franklin, a constitutional law professor at Monterey College of Law, said that even though the court rejected similar procedural arguments when it upheld amendments reinstating the death penalty and limiting property taxes, those cases do not represent as much of a fundamental change as Proposition 8.

"Those amendments applied universally to all Californians," Franklin said. "This is a situation where you are removing rights from a particular group of citizens, a class of individuals the court has said is entitled to constitutional protection. That is a structural change."

The trio of cases the court accepted were filed by six same-sex couples who have not yet wed, a Los Angeles lesbian couple who were among the first to tie the knot on June 16 and 11 cities and counties, led by the city of San Francisco.

Repeal Prop 8 Bumper Stickers

2008-11-18T11:18:00.000-08:00

http://www.cafepress.com/repeal_prop8#link-productCategory-113

50% of the proceeds go to benefit Lambda Legal so they can help repeal prop 8, it's unconstitutional and all people deserve the same rights!

Governor Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders under attack for wanting to overturn Prop 8

2008-11-16T08:50:00.000-08:00

ACTION ALERT!

Governor Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders
under attack for wanting to overturn Prop 8

Dear Friends;

Our community and our supporters continue to be the victim of outrageous, relentless attacks by proponents of Prop 8.

Now they are claiming that Governor Schwarzenegger supports anarchy—anarchy—for saying that he hopes Prop 8 is overturned in court and for encouraging us to "never give up."

In a recent email urging supporters to attack the Governor for his comments, Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council had this to say:

"Since Election Day, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has made statements supporting demonstrations against Proposition 8, and urging California 's Supreme Court to block the amendment's enforcement…Condoning street protests and supporting judicial activist scams to overturn a popularly approved state constitutional amendment approaches advocacy of anarchy. Gov. Schwarzenegger is playing a dangerous game, and it needs to stop. Now."

What needs to STOP NOW is the hateful rhetoric and continued assaults from the leadership of the Yes on 8 campaign who used lies and deceit to write discrimination into our constitution and eliminate our equality.

Email Governor Schwarzenegger, and the 44 members of the California Legislature who signed a friend of the court brief to overturn Prop 8. Encourage them to stand strong in the face of these outrageous attacks.

>> http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp?a=hlLUL9MXLqK2LpI&s=juI4JfNSLjLVKdOXJvF&m=jiJVLaPILfL4E

If you are registered with EQCA’s Action Center, reply to this email. Or register today at www.eqca.org/ActionCenter. Taking action is simple and free.

>> http://www.eqca.org/ActionCenter

Prop 8 must be overturned and we need to let the leaders who are standing with us know how much we appreciate their support.

The other side is flooding them with critical emails. It is up to each of us to make sure they get more emails from those who support equality than from those who continue to attack us.

Please, email our elected leaders who are standing with us today. And urge everyone you know to do so as well.

>> http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp?a=dhKMIXOHLmIWKfJ&s=juI4JfNSLjLVKdOXJvF&m=jiJVLaPILfL4E

In solidarity,

Geoff Kors
Executive Director
Equality California

-----

Under Attack!

Proponents of Prop 8 are flooding leaders who stand with us with critical emails, urging them to oppose equality.

It is up to each of us to make sure they get more emails from those who support equality than from those who continue to attack us.

Send the Governor and our legislative leaders a message that out of state right wing special interest groups have no place in California and thank them for standing on the right side of history.

1. Register with EQCA’s Action Center today at:
>> http://www.eqca.org/ActionCenter

2. Ask your family and friends to email the Governor and our legislative leaders.

3. Help us get marriage back. Make a donation today.

Wonderful Quote By George Clooney

2008-11-13T16:34:00.000-08:00

From: http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/the_awful_truth/b68336_george_clooney_weighs_in_on_prop_8.html

"At some point in our lifetime, gay marriage won't be an issue, and everyone who stood against this civil right will look as outdated as George Wallace standing on the school steps keeping James Hood from entering the University of Alabama because he was black."

AntiGay Blacklist of Donors

2008-11-13T11:42:00.000-08:00

from: AntiGayBlacklist.com

The following individuals or organizations (according to ElectionTrack.com) have donated money to the California Proposition 8 campaign which seeks to ban same sex marriages. Please do not patronize them. 8 = HATE. Thanks!

John Griffiths / Dentist, John C. Griffiths, Dds, Mds, Pc /Las Vegas, NV / $1,000
Anne-Marie Anderson /Consultant, Cps Human Resource Svc. / Rocklin, CA /$3,900
Darren Hulstine / Sales, Patterson Dental / Santa Maria, CA / $1,500
Dale Olsen / Contractor, The Floor Show Of California / Lemon Grove, CA / $1,000
John Sawyer / President, Penhall Company / Laguna Hills, CA / $2,500
John Sawyer / President, Penhall Company / Laguna Hills, CA / $1,000
Samuel Coates / Attorney / Palo Alto, CA / $2,500
Fieldstead And Co. / Irvine, CA / $95,000
Margaret Friedrich / Farmer, Friedrich Enterprises / Paterson, CA /$1,000
Frank Winger / Insurance, Aim / Santa Ana, CA /$2,500
Andre Carli / Professor, Cal. State Univ. Sacramento / Elk Grove, CA / $1,000
Container Supply Co., Inc. / Garden Grove, CA / $250,000
Wesley C. Hilton / V.p. Ins. Sales, Dominion Insurance / Lafayette, CA / $1,250
Kemp Burnham / Software Developer, Xact Ware Inc. / Lehi, UT / $1,000
Koreen Martone / Budget Analyst, State Of Ca. / West Sacramento, CA / $1,000
Gary Mcarthur / Dc, Ppc / Paradise, CA / $1,000
Gary Melman / Investment Manager, Horus / Los Angeles, CA / $1,000
Barnabas Chen / Manager, World Trend, Inc. / Pomona, CA / $1,000
Gayle Wells / Seminar Business, Empty Spools Seminars / Moraga, CA / $1,000
Lambeth Consulting / Greenwood, CA / $1,000
Stephen Elgorriaga / Sheep Rancher, Stephen Elgorriaga Livestock / Madera, CA / $1,000
Country View Farms / Pierce, NE / $2,500
Roy Menchavez / Equip. Eng., Venzon Engineering / Mountain View, CA / $1,000
Frank Velasquez / Coo, Cornerstone Technologies / San Jose, CA / $1,000
Tyler Albrechtsen / Healthcare Administrator, Victoria Care Center / Oxnard, CA / $1,000
Bruce Andrus / Hotel Owner/operator, Huntington Hotels / Park City, UT / $20,000
Daniel Brinton / Physician, East Bay Retina Consultants / Lafayette, CA / $2,000
Stan Lee / Pharmacist, Nelsons Drug Store / Upland, CA / $5,000
Jeffrey Puryear / Lab Research Assoc., Texas Agrilife Research Station / Bryan, TX / $1,000
Matthew Wade / Medical Resident, Uc Irvine / Salt Lake City, UT / $2,000
Focus On The Family / Colorado Springs, CO / $2,909
Robert Gray / Consultant, Rg-construction Consultants / Plumas Lake, CA / $2,000
Robert Mendenhall / Pres., Western Governors University / Salt Lake City, CA / $1,000
John Mcgaffey / Manager, Polara Engineering / Fullerton, CA / $2,000
Garth Pickett / Accounting, Ladera Integrators / Mountain View, CA / $2,000
Tracy Pickett / Executive Support, Ladera Integrators / Mountain View, CA / $1,999
Lisa Myler / Wedding Planner, Myler Weddings / American Fork, UT / $10,000
Jerner Construction, Inc. / Turlock, CA / $1,000
Paula Barnes / Scheduler, Disneyland / Mission Viejo, CA / $3,000
Michael Brown / Attorney, Michael R. Brown, A Law Corp. / Lake Forest, CA / $1,200
Earl Goodman / President, Goodman, Gene, Dtl, Inc. / Chandler, AZ / $9,999
James Mclaughlin / Investment Management, Lincolnshire Management, Inc. / New Canaan, CT / $1,000
Donald Nanney / Attorney, Gilchrist & Rutter, Pc / Pasadena, CA / $1,000
Coalition For The Protection Of / Las Vegas, NV / $5,000
William Allen / Orthodontist, North County Orthodontist / Carlsbad, CA / $1,000
Morgan Lynch / Management, Lago Di Como / Cedar Hills, UT / $2,500
Scott Haskins / President, Facl, Inc. / Santa Barbara, CA / $5,000
Jessica Wooden / Rn, Sutter Roseville Medical Center / Rescue, CA / $1,500
Yvonne Tsai / Consultant, Kingdom Design / Irvine, CA / $1,000
Caleb Nelson / Self Employed, Unishippers Of Oakland/oregon / Albany, OR / $1,000
Jan Pinney / Insurance Broker, Pinney Insurance Center, Inc. / Granite Bay, CA / $10,000
Ken Campbell / Personnel Officer, City Of Long Beach / Mission Viejo, CA / $1,000
Price Funeral Chapel, Inc. / Citrus Heights, CA / $1,000
Kevin Neubert & Associates Inc. / Lake Arrowhead, CA / $1,000
Scott Borgia / Tax Director, Armanino Mckenna / Morgan Hill, CA / $1,000
Leading Edge Duplication, Inc / Moorpark, CA / $1,700
Joseph Ray / Civil Engineer, P G & E / Rodeo, CA / $1,000
Kimberly Sneddon / Teacher, Chino Usd / Brea, CA / $1,000
Tisha Harty / Office Manager, Law Office Of Douglas Harty / Castaic, CA /$1,000
Steven Udvar / Manager, Pacific Life Insurance Co. / Dana Point, CA / $1,000
Lorin Rocks / Engineer, Tandberg Television / San Jose, CA / $1,000
Melenaite Piutau / Contractor, New Epoch Construction / Ontario, CA / $2,000
Heath Fields / Shipping/receiving, Terico / San Jose, CA / $1,000
Container Supply Co., Inc. / Garden Grove, CA / $1,520
Blake Wettengel / Attorney, Snell & Wilmer / Laguna Niguel, CA / $1,000
Cheryl Aday / Real Estate, Provident Realty / Upland, CA / $1,000
Ray Zinn / Ceo, Micrel Inc. / Atherton, CA / $1,500
Gregory Tuttle / Dentist, Gregory K Tuttle Dds / El Dorado Hills, CA / $5,000
Katherine Foster / Manager, Cisco / Mountain View, CA / $2,000
David Boyce / Cpa, Brown, Fink, Boyce & Astle / Folsom, CA / $4,000
Michael Lee / Researcher, Natl Inst. For Materials Science / Elk Ridge, UT / $1,500
Joel Gibson / Consultant, Permanente Medical Group / Albany, CA / $1,000
Courtney Sirard / Medical Provider, Woodland Hospital / Woodland, CA /$1,000
Alex Spjute / Attorney, Hughes Hubbard & Reed / Redondo Beach, CA / $1,000
Wei Li / Engineer, Sensage / Daly City, CA / $1,000
Sherri Steenburgen / Real Estate, First Team Real Estate / Anaheim, CA /$2,341
John Lewis / Doctor, Tpmg / Cupertino, CA / $1,000
Kevin Schick / Programmer, Synteract Inc. / Carlsbad, CA / $1,000
Anne Jones / Calligrapher, Self - Anne Jones / North Hollywood, CA / $1,000
Sherry Jagard / Program Manager / Simi Valley, CA / $1,000
Walter Gubler / Professor, Uc Davis / Davis, CA / $1,000
Montgomery Painting / Cerritos, CA / $1,000
Jeff Lemmon / Businessman, New Star / Pacific Grove, CA / $1,000
Brandon Ballard / Investment Advisor, Investools Inc. / Los Angeles, CA / $1,000
Matthew Thueson / Office Manager, Roll Services / Tucson, AZ / $1,000
Lawrence R. Taylor / Cpa, Gallina, Llp / Antelope, CA / $1,000
Carl Trubschenck / Dentist, Carl Trubschenck Dds Inc. / Citrus Heights, CA / $1,000
Christopher Porter / Vp Sales, Pearson / Folsom, CA / $1,000
Ryan S. Beck / Physical Therapist, Western Physical Therapy / Orland, CA / $1,000
David Bjarnason / Analyst, Western Investment / Salt Lake City, CA / $1,000
Ralph E. Carr / Social Worker, Dept. Of Children & Family Serv. / Downey, CA / $1,000
Kirk Phillips / Civil Engineer, City Of Claremont California / Upland, CA / $1,000
Tca Partners, Llp / Fresno, CA / $1,000
Thomas Carmack / Attorney, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosa / Mountain View, CA / $1,000
Mike Power / Engineer, Intuit / San Jose, CA / $1,000
Rhonda Killion / Secretary, Church On The Rock / Woodland, CA / $1,000
Brian Avery / Property Manager, Acco Mgt. / Mountain View, CA / $1,000
Blaine Ray Workshops / Consultant / Pismo Beach, CA / $1,000
Scott English / Programmer, Tmmg / Yorba Linda, CA / $2,000
Special Funds / Santa Clarita, CA / $2,675
Bolt Motorcycle Hardware / Atascadero, CA / $1,000
Ridgway Pope / Accountant, County Of Ventura / Ventura, CA / $1,000
Daniel Trueba / Doctor, U.s. Navy / Stonington, CT / $1,000
Alta Home Care Inc. / Riverside, CA / $2,500
Mark Riem / Audio Visual, Self Employed-mark Riem / Los Angeles, CA / $1,000
Chris Barlow / Finance, Lombard Street Partners, Llc / San Ramon, CA / $1,000
Tulikininifo Penieli / Intl. Export., Dhl Express / Lawndale, CA / $1,000
Metal Related Services, Inc / Chatsworth, CA / $2,000
Kawika Tupou / Engineer, Alg Corp. / Camarillo, CA / $1,000
Brian Everett / Architect, Nmr Architects / Orangevale, CA / $1,250
Cory Reid / Loss Mitigation, Consumer Protection Institute / Moraga, CA / $1,000
Kendell Ricks / Dentist, Village Dental / Bonsall, CA / $1,000
Alekisanita Vimahi / Merchandiser, Retail Marketing / Millbrae, CA / $1,500
Cooley Family Investment Llc / Higley, AZ / $10,000
Andrew Hunt / Civil Engineer, City Of Sacramento / Folsom, CA / $1,000
Craig Yeates / Auditor, Us Department Federal Government / Camarillo, CA / $1,000
Robert Ludlow / Dentist, Self Employed - Robert Ludlow / Modesto, CA / $5,000
Katherine Laret / Teacher, San Juan Unified School District / Orangevale, CA / $1,000
Sandra Ball / Manager, Treehouse Almonds / Lemoore, CA / $1,000
Bruce Stephenson / Cpa, Gallina Llp / Granite Bay, CA / $1,000
Mann Construction / Santa Barbara, CA / $1,000
Golding Publications / Canyon Lake, CA / $1,000
M By 6 Inc / Stockton, CA / $1,000
Richard Reep / Hrm, Home Depot / Shingle Springs, CA / $2,000
David Hilburn / Nursing Home Administrator, Sherwood Healthcare Center / Granite Bay, CA / $5,000
Danielle Peterson / Gis Analyst, Granite Construction / Sacramento, CA / $1,000
Ken Sanofsky / Ceo, Path Solutions / Angoura Hills, CA / $1,000
Scott Kuhnen / Paper Stock Dealer, Recycling Industries / Yuba City, CA / $28,750
John Larcabal / Optometrist, Brea Optomatry / Brea, CA / $1,000
Wailana Kamauu / Agent, Wailana Kamauu Ins. Agency / Sonoma, CA / $1,000
Lori Hooke / Civil Engineer, Ventura County / Ventura, CA / $1,200
Gordon Jones / Chemical Salesman, Cardinal Industry / Thousand Oaks, CA / $2,000
Calvary Chapel Corona /Corona, CA / $2,533
Trentman Corporation / Auburn, CA / $1,000
Bart Walker / Owner, Barts Electric / Pleasant Valley, MO / $1,000
Huesser Neweight Llc / Concord, CA / $1,000
Nathan Jensen / Attorney, Morrison & Foerster / San Diego, CA / $10,000
Randall Hatcher / Human Resources, MAU, Inc. / Augusta, GA / $5,000
Margaret Mccauley / Landscaper, Pml Landscape / Clovis, CA / $1,000
Brian Hayes / Restaurateur, Aunt Fannys Hot Pretzel / Auburn, CA / 1,000
Craig Huey / Advertising, Creative Direct Marketing Group / Torrance, CA / $1,000
Elizabeth Thomas / Teacher, Burbank Usd / Burbank, CA / $1,000
Shelburne Ponsford / Pres., Systems Information Tech. / Santa Rosa, CA / $1,000
Rodney Hewitt / Chief Risk Officer, Centrue Bank / Manlius, IL / $2,500
Kelley Drake / Supply Chain Mgt, Lsi Corp / San Jose, CA / $1,000
Thomas Larson / Engineer, Cal Trans / San Diego, CA / $9,900
Jason Swart / Owner, Specialized Dairy Svc. / Ontario, CA / $1,000
Steven Turner / Attorney, Jones Turner, Llp / Irvine, CA / $1,000
Focus On The Family / Colorado Springs, CO / $328
Focus On The Family / Colorado Springs, CO / $981
Focus On The Family / Colorado Springs, CO / $46
Focus On The Family / Colorado Springs, CO / $83
Lauri Janssen / Accountant, Intermountan Health Care / West Jordan, UT / $1,000
Lee Monson / Air Attack Capt., Dyncorp International / Atascadero, CA / $1,000
Byron Johnson / President, Eml Associates Inc. / Manteca, CA / $1,000
April Bullard / Business Owner, Scv / Whittier, CA / $1,000
Debra Cabeza / Programmer, City Of Los Angeles / Montebello, CA / $1,000
Michael Manning / Cpa, Qlogic Corporation / San Juan Capistrano, CA / $20,000
Dan Northcutt / Property Management/real Estate, Northcutt Properties Inc. / San Diego, CA / $1,000
Brian Thulin / Teacher, Lausd / Simi Valley, CA / $1,000
Lance Dane / Small Business Owner, Self Employed - Lance Dane / Lafayette, CA / $2,500
Karen Rohm / Professor, California State University / San Bernardino, CA / $1,000
Karen Merrill / Finance Director, Bcbg / Pasadena, CA / $1,000
Nancy Hales / Self Employed, Hales Engineering / Camarillo, CA / $5,000
Lupeni Tuaone / Construction, L.t. Concrete / Chino, CA / $1,614
Ryan Hall / Real Estate, Keller Williams / San Clemente, CA / $1,000
Brent Webb / President, Rpm / Granite Bay, CA / $5,000
David Bills / Teacher, Sbcusd / Corona, CA / $1,000
Michael Wach / Self Employed, Self - Michael Wach / Pomona, CA / $1,000
Theron Brown / Nuclear Radiologist, Va / Torrance, CA / $1,200
Robyn Evans / M.d., Self - Robyn Evans / Redlands, CA / $2,500
John Lewis / Physician, Tpmg / Cupertino, CA / $2,000
Craig Ferguson / Accountant, Craig W Ferguson / Laguna Niguel, CA / $1,000
Marsha Saylors / Secretary, Tire Man / Santa Rosa Valley, CA / $2,500
Barnabas Chen / Manager, World Trend, Inc. / Pomona, CA / $1,000
Reybro, Inc. / Vista, CA / $5,000
Quality Recycling / Lakeside, CA / $2,000
Linda Reynolds / Bookkeeper, Quality Recylcing / Escondido, CA / $2,000
Calvary Chapel Of Costa Mesa, Inc / Santa Ana, CA / $9,000
Mont Flora / Manager, Liberty Heating & Air / Laguna Hills, CA / $5,000
Robert Eakin / Tutor, Mobile Math Tutoring / Carmichael, CA / $3,000
Chuck Musselwhite / Pastor, The Village Chapel / Lompoc, CA / $1,000
Nicole Whitman / Administrator, Greystar / Thousand Oaks, CA / $1,200
Brian Sprague / Analyst, Dept. Of Energy / Fair Oaks, CA / $1,000
Phillip Fletcher / Dentist, Phillip Fletcher, Dds / Redwood City, CA / $1,000
Lin Whatcott/ Accountant, Davita Inc. / Maple Valley, WA / $10,005
Adam Smith /Cpa, Pwc / Santa Ana, CA /$4,000
Marty Walker / Pastor, The Sanctuary / Santa Clarita, CA / $2,500
Michael Lee / Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher / Sierra Madre, CA / $1,000
Donovan Sanchez / Food Services, Mtc Dining Services / Fairfield, CA / $1,000
David Watts / Engineer, Aeris Communications / Morgan Hill, CA / $2,000
Daniel Jensen / Owner, Jensen Fasteners / Sacramento, CA / $1,000
Dan Darchuck / Investment Advisor, Ubs / Clovis, CA / $1,000
Karen Floyd / Trainer, First American Title / Newcastle, CA / $2,500
Calvary Chapel Montebello / Montebello, CA / $1,000
Scott Anderson / Executive, Zenith Specialty Bag / Chino Hills, CA / $1,000
Steven Clark / Manager, R.l. Co. / Orangevale, CA / $1,000
Janet Mahoney / Nursing, Scripps Health / San Diego, CA / $1,000
Matthew Major / Engineer, Lockheed Martin / Sunnyvale, CA / $1,000
Paul Eumurian / Engineer, Boeing / Anaheim, CA / $1,000
David Warner / Periodontist, David A. Warner Dds / Whittier, CA / $1,000
Integrated Dental Implant Services / Las Vegas, NV / $1,000
John Ludwig / Dentist, John B. Ludwig Dds Dental Corp. / Santa Clara, CA / $1,000
Craig Paullin / Partner, 14000 Avalon, Llc / Los Angeles, CA / $2,500
Richard Snelson / Accountant, Ernst & Young Llp / Newhall, CA / $5,585
Brent Griffiths / Self Employed, Brents Carpet One / Newhall, CA / $1,000
Gordon Maughan / Medical Doctor, Self Employed / Palos Verdes Estates, CA / $1,000
Scott L. Larson / Mngr., Scandia Rec., Inc. / Ontario, CA / $1,000
Richard Teerlink / Real Estate Consultant, Richard M. Teerlink Consulting / Gold River, CA / $2,500
Mark Warden / Executive, The Bergman Corp. / San Jose, CA / $1,000
James Elison / Geologist, Paso Creek Reources / Bakersfield, CA / $1,000
Mark E. Abel, Dds / Auburn, CA / $1,000
Douglas Myers / Cpa, Douglas S. Myers, Cpa / Mission Viejo, CA / $1,000
Dallin Large / Pool Cover Repairman, Cover Care / Los Angeles, CA / $1,000
Patrick Foley / Ceo, Rirock Technologies, Inc. / Redlands, CA / $5,000
Mark Walton / Accountant, Reading Intenational, Inc. / South Pasadena, CA / $1,000
Wikitoria Lovett / School Teacher, San Bernardino City Usd / Redlands, CA / $1,580
Lois Lafrance / Cinematic Artist, Activision / Thousand Oaks, CA / $1,000
Scott Wallace / Engineer, Carlsbad Manufacturing Corp / Chula Vista, CA / $1,000
Steve Keithly / Vice President, Whittier Mailing Products / La Mirada, CA / $3,000
Paul Kepes / Risk Manager, Ctc, Llc / Chicago, IL / $9,900
Monica Kepes / None, N/a / Chicago, IL / $9,900
Salvatore Cordileone / Clergy, Catholic Diocese Of San Diego / San Diego, CA / $2,000
Lance Paddock / Teacher, Alvord Usd / Fullerton, CA / $1,000
New Covenant Church / Martinez, CA / $3,050
Nathan Birchall / Cfo, Ranch Capital / Encinitas, CA / $1,000
Ken Swanson / Engineer, Sun Microsystems / San Jose, CA / $3,000
Patrick Svedin / Sales, Sanofi Pasteur / Salt Lake City, UT / $1,000
Jay Mortensen / Consultant, South West Dealer Services / Laguna Hills, CA / $2,500
Edward Weaver / Teacher, Tehachapi Usd / Tehachapi, CA / $1,000
Jay Clark / Produce Dealer, A & Z Produce / Centerville, UT / $25,000
Scott Eckern / Artistic Director, California Musical Theatre / Citrus Heights, CA / $1,000
Rodney Remington / Physician, Self - Remington / Clovis, CA / $1,000
Harold Stevens / Building Contractor, Stevens Construction / Lancaster, CA / $1,200
David Payne / Self Empoyed, Muzicraft / Santa Barbara, CA / $9,550
Behrouz Younessian / Cfo, The Brass Ring Inc. / Oceanside, CA / $2,000
Robyn Evans / M.d., Self - Robyn Evans / Redlands, CA / $1,000
Todd Johnson / Dentist, Todd L Johnson Dds / Citrus Heights, CA / $1,000
Todd Johnson / Dentist, Todd L Johnson Dds / Citrus Heights, CA / $1,000
Benjamin Whitesides / Principal, Orange County Logistics / Huntington Beach, CA / $1,000
Michael Freeland / Optometrist, Family Optometry Of Camarillo / Camarillo, CA / $1,000
Stuart Watt / Attorney, Amgen / Camarillo, CA / $2,500
Stuart Watt / Attorney, Amgen / Camarillo, CA / $2,500
Drew Dellenbach / Sales, Bms / Corona, CA / $1,500
K. Melton Higgins / Ceo, Ca Bapist Foundation / Fresno, CA / $1,000
Arthur Birtcher / Real Estate, Birtcher Anderson / San Juan Capistrano, CA / $1,000
Barry Magaoay / Advisor, Lee Financial Group / Kapolei, HI / $1,000
Shelley Mitchell / Owner, Strategy Micro / Laguna Hills, CA / $1,000
Brian Mendenhall / Manager, Pendum / Lake Forest, CA / $1,000
Drew Dellenbach / Sales, Bms / Corona, CA / $1,500
K. Melton Higgins / Ceo, Ca Bapist Foundation / Fresno, CA / $1,000
Arthur Birtcher / Real Estate, Birtcher Anderson / San Juan Capistrano, CA / $1,000
Don Francis / Manager, Cbs / San Ramon, CA / $2,500
Jeff Hendrickson / Manager, Legacy Professional Services / San Clemente, CA / $3,500
John Mcgaffey / Manager, Polara Engineering / Murrieta, CA / $1,000
Mike Denning / Consultant, Ernst & Young / San Clemente, CA / $3,000
Jeff Grover / Manager, Solecon / Modesto, CA / $1,000
Lu Little / Admin Asst, Rw Little Ins Agency / Los Angeles, CA / $8,500
Robert Little / Ins Agent, Rw Little Ins Agency / La, CA / $9,500
Richard Zamboni / Manufacturer, Zamboni, Co / Paramount, CA / $1,000
Donovan Cyndi / Secretary, Gaelic Electric / Santa Barbara, CA / $1,000
Calvary Bible Church / Bakersfield, CA / $2,255
Donn Crummer / Real Estate Mgmt, Crummer Realty Mgmt Group / Santa Ynez, CA / $1,000
Ronald Smith / Professor, Biola University / San Bernardino, CA / $1,000
Helen Boltz / Chemical Plant Manager, Tressidewl-kirley / Mesa, AZ / $5,000
Myron Randall / Computer Programmer, Firemans Fund / Penngrove, CA / $1,000
Dave Barlow / Real Estate Broker, Barlow Williams Realty / Camarillo, CA / $1,000
Bohl, Nixon & Schoneman / Ventura, CA / $2,000
Jon Van Woerkom / Attorney, Aig / Roseville, CA / $1,001
Orion Wood / Consultant, Orion Wood Consulting / Newark, CA / $2,500
Frank Johnson / Engineer, Naval Facilities Eng Service Center / Oxnard, CA / $1,000
Robert Frost / Project Manager, Ace Hardware / Clayton, CA / $1,000
Patrick Fitzgerald / Cpa, Pricewaterhouse Coopers Llp / Mission Viejo, CA / $2,000
Jon Hickman / Investment Analyst, Mdb Capital / Pleasant Hills, CA / $1,000
Scott Letellier / Sports Exec Big League Dreams Usa, / Palos Verdes Estate, CA / $1,500
Sally Lee / Vp Media, Guthy-renker Corp. / Los Angeles, CA / $1,000
John Warren / Cpa, John Warren Cpa / Uniah, CA / $1,000
Dan Lang / Attorney, J.d. Lang & Associates / Westlake Village, CA / $1,000
Kelley Ivancovich / Farmer, Ivancovich Farms / Porterville, CA / $1,500
Alan Colledge / M.d ., Central Utah Clinic / Lindon, UT / $1,000
John Griffiths / Orthodontist, John C. Griffiths, Dds, Mds, Pc / Las Vegas, NV / $1,000
Darren Wight / Finance, Insight Health Corp / Laguna Niguel, CA / $1,500
Dana Del Francia / Ceo, Bullet Freight Systems / Anaheim, CA / $1,000
America Francis / Apartment Manager, Spieker Companies / San Ramon, CA / $2,000
Bruce Higginson / President, Awc / Garden Grove, CA / $2,001
Brian Gibson / Operations Manager, Hewlett-packard / Antelop, CA / $1,000
Jennifer Johnson / Manager, Coraticum Asset Mgt. / Holladay, UT / $2,500
Mark Lindgren / Pilot, Fedex / San Luis Obispo, CA / $5,000
Thomas Brasher / Insurance, Brashers Insurance Svc. / Newcastle, CA / $2,500
Jeff Nelson / Tech Support, Shields, Harper & Co. / Vacaville, CA / $1,800
David Knowles / Insurance, David Knowles Insurance / Sacramento, CA /$1,000
Jon Iverson / Cpa, Jon Iverson, Cpa / San Jose, CA / $5,000
Michael Schield / Manager, Orpor, Inc. / Laguna Woods, CA / $2,500
Eric Schwarz / Consultant, Omni Management / Thousand Oaks, CA / $2,000
Roman Catholic Bishop / Sacramento, CA / $1,000
Schmoekel Insurance Agency, Inc / Sacramento, CA / $1,000
Eugene Van Zee / Pastor, Faith Community Church / San Jacinto, CA / $1,064
Travis Clawson / Potato Processor, Joy Foods / Laguna Beach, CA / $1,000
Aldric Porter / Co-producer, Columbia Pictures / Santa Rosa Valley, CA / $5,000
Richard Jordan / Prof, Natural Success International / Laguna Niguel, CA / $25,000
Anne Weaver / Rn, Kaiser Sand Teresa Hospital / San Jose, CA / $1,000
Janet Smith / Interior Design, Labelle Maisor / Altadena, CA / $1,000
Kevin Riches / Business Owner, Self - Riches Group / Portola Valley, CA /$1,000
Stephen Taylor / Financial Advisor, Bank Of The West / Sacramento, CA /$1,000
Robert Pratt / Attorney, State Of Ca. / Woodland, CA / $1,000
Susan B. Jones / Psychotherapist, Susan B. Jones, L.c.s.w. / Yuba City, CA / $5,000
Gregory Clark / Consultant, Cirrus Financial / Dublin, CA / $21,500
William Orlando / Manager, Aes Ins. / Concord, CA / $1,000
Ross Biesinger / Financial Advisor, Morgan Stanley / Palm Desert, CA / $1,000
Lise Dimartino / Teacher, Lammersvill School District / Tracy, CA / $1,000
Friends Of Ron Packard / Carlsbad, CA / $5,000
Pam Peterson / Executive, Folsom Lake Ford / Granite Bay, CA / $1,000
Iris Marshall / Designer, Hyundai Kia / Laguna Hills, CA / $1,000
Carole Waite / Teacher, Los Angeles Usd / Huntington Park, CA / $10,000
Karen Cooper / Tech, C.h.w. / Riverside, CA / $1,000
Meghann Pricer / Project Director, Century Group / Los Angeles, CA / $1,000
Kristine Kiser / Accountant, Kristine M. Kiser, Cpa / Mission Viejo, CA / $1,500
Eric Chen / Research, Ucla / Los Angeles, CA / $1,000
Thomas Butler / Real Estate, Fortress Investments / American Fork, UT / $1,000
Fang Lu / Engineer, Broadcom / Rowland Heights, CA / $5,000
Cay Pooley / Accountant, Mosaic / San Luis Obispo, CA / $1,350
David Paxman / Teacher, Byu / Provo, UT / $1,000
Tracy Pickett / Executive Support, Ladera Integrators / Mountain View, CA / $3,000
Garth Pickett / Accounting, Ladera Integrators / Mountain View, CA / $3,000
Richard Marshall / Vet, Sutter Inst For Med. Resrch / El Dorado Hills, CA / 1,000
Angela Li / Software Engineer, Yahoo!, Inc. / San Mateo, CA / $1,300
Bruce Jensen / Engineer, Raytheon Co. / Goleta, CA / $1,250
Linda Reeve / Landscape Design, Self- Linda Reeve / Alamo, CA / $9,500
Ca State Council Knights/columbus / Fontana, CA / $8,889
Lasco Enterprises / Spring Valley, CA / $1,000
David Pace / President, High Valley Construction / Villa Park, CA / $1,000
Calvary Chapel Mission Fund / El Centro, CA / $2,000
High Valley Construction Co, Inc / Anaheim, CA / $1,000
Central Christian Church / Lancaster, CA / $2,490
Larry La Monica / Property Manager, La Monica Properties / Carson City, CA / $1,000
James Lee / Pharmacist, Yorba Linda Pharmacy / Anaheim, CA / $1,000
William Albert / Developer, Sares-regis Group / Irvine, CA / $1,000
William Wilson / Dentist, William G Wilson Dds / Modesto, CA / $1,000
Lisa Call / Teacher, Los Altos School District / Los Gatos, CA / $1,000
Brad Zimmerman / Grading Contractor, Quest Engineering / Tustin, CA / $2,500
Sharleen Peterson / Research Clerk, Bank Of America / Alhambra, CA / $1,000
Paul Manwaring / Ces Coordinator, Ces Seminars/institutes / Twin Falls, ID / $1,800
Linda Williams /Cpa, Ristau & Co Inc Cpas / Turlock, CA / $1,000
Keith Rowbotham / Tradebinder, Allied Binding Co / Corona, CA / $1,000
Robyn Robinson / Insurance Broker, Robyn Robinson / San Juan Capistrano, CA / 1,000
Kenneth Woolley / Ceo, Extra Space Inc. / Salt Lake City, CA / $5,000
Angie Crosby / Teacher, Anaheim City School District / Newport Beach, CA / $1,000
Melanie Jensen / Insurance Broker, Sheppard & Assoc. / Orangevale, CA / $1,000
Tevita Piutau / Contractor, Self - Tevita Piutau / Ontario, CA / $3,300
Ralph Ogden / Attorney, Law Offices Of Ralph C. Ogden / Modesto, CA /$1,000
Sarah Pack / Therapist, Emq Children And Family Services / San Jose, CA / $2,000
Neal Proctor / Appraiser, Appraisal Net / Folsom, CA / $3,000
William Obryant / Director, Unitedhealthcare / Mission Viejo, CA / $1,000
Hierbert Gillespie / Attorney, Gillespie Law Office / Roosevelt, UT / $1,000
Steven Olsen / Psi Network, Inc, President / Laguna Niguel, CA / $24,999
David M. Fenn / Contractor, Fenn-robbins Homes / Lake Arrowhead, CA / $1,000
Daniel F. Johnson Forensic Services / Canyon Country, CA / $1,000
Ashcraft Design / El Segundo, CA / $1,000
Keven D. Oreilly / Physician, Dr. Kevin Oreilly / Redlands, CA / $1,000
Eric Fors / Comm. Loan Underwriter, Bank Of America / S. Pasadena, CA /$1,000
Jeremie D. Mckee / Mngr., Npc / Corona, CA / $1,000
Robert C. Van Sweden / Finance, Gfi Energy Ventures / Santa Monica, CA / $1,000
Bradley E. Haag / R.e. Appraiser, Appraisal Solutions / Lehi, UT / $2,000
Daniel E. Burgoyne / Mngr., Ca Dgs / Folsom, CA / $1,000
Matthew Perona / Acct., Price Waterhouse Coopers / Concord, CA / $1,500

Democratic legislators ask state Supreme Court to void Prop. 8

2008-11-11T09:30:00.000-08:00

Opponents contend that a ban on gay marriage can only be done by a revision of the state Constitution involving the Legislature. The Prop. 8 campaign leader calls the effort 'a Hail Mary.'

By Dan Morain November 11, 2008

from: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marriage11-2008nov11,0,2507607.story

Reporting from Sacramento -- Forty-three Democratic legislators, including leaders of the California Senate and Assembly, filed a brief Monday urging the California Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and incoming President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg signed the friend of the court brief, filed with the state Supreme Court.

No Republican legislator signed the petition, though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, denounced the anti-gay marriage measure over the weekend.

With almost 11 million ballots tallied, Proposition 8 had 52.3% of the vote to 47.7%. Although many ballots remain to be counted, the 500,000-vote spread is viewed as insurmountable.

"The citizens of California rely on the Legislature and the courts to safeguard against unlawful discrimination by temporary, and often short-lived, majorities," the legislators said in the document, written by attorneys at the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

"This is a Hail Mary, no question about it," said Frank Schubert, manager of the Proposition 8 campaign.

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown's office would be obligated to defend the initiative. But Schubert said that if the high court agrees to hear the case, backers of the initiative would seek to intervene to defend it.

In their brief, lawmakers described the 500,000-vote margin as a "bare majority," and said it was "compromising the enduring constitutional promise of equal protection under the law."

"Proposition 8 seeks to effect a monumental revision of this foundational principle and constitutional structure by allowing a bare majority of voters to eliminate a fundamental right of a constitutionally protected minority group," the brief says.

"If Proposition 8 takes effect, this court will no longer be the final arbiter of the rights of minorities," it continues.

The action contends that the ban, created by the initiative that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, cannot be done by a mere constitutional amendment. Rather, it must be done by a revision of the entire Constitution and the Legislature would have to be involved.

As advocates of same-sex marriage turn to courts, protests, and perhaps a future ballot measure in an attempt to overturn Proposition 8, Schubert declared that the vote is "as over as Barack Obama's election."

The chief strategist for Proposition 8 said the best way to overturn the measure would be to place an initiative on the ballot that would repeal it. But he doubts that will happen.

"Politically, this was the best chance they could have possibly had," Schubert said of the measure's opponents.

The all-important ballot title written by Brown cast the measure as one that would revoke a right, a move that had been viewed as particularly helpful to opponents.

Also, Schubert noted, there was a huge Democratic turnout -- although many Democrats, particularly African Americans and Latinos, don't support same-sex marriage and voted for Proposition 8. Exit polls showed blacks supported the measure 70% to 30%.

One of the closing ads featured Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Popular though she is, Schubert said, it was odd that Proposition 8 foes would select Feinstein to lecture voters, including minorities, about discrimination.

"It had the feel of a lily white, liberal campaign," Schubert said.

Morain is a Times staff writer. dan.morain@latimes.com

(thanks Dan, for the article! :)

PFLAG Statement on California’s Proposition 8 Vote

2008-11-11T09:24:00.000-08:00

PFLAG Statement on California’s Proposition 8 Vote
“Families Are Defined by a Love, and Commitment, That Is Beyond the Barriers of a Ballot”

Washington, DC – Jody M. Huckaby, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), released the following statement today, following news that California voters have approved Proposition 8, a measure to roll back marriage equality in the nation’s most populous state:

“While our families have encountered a heartbreaking obstacle on the road to full equality in California, the broad coalition of Americans who support fundamental rights for everyone will continue to work towards a day when the dignity of every American is respected. Families are defined by a love, and a commitment, that is beyond the barriers of a ballot. No struggle for equality is won easily, and great strides do not come without great strife. They also, however, require the great strength necessary to push forward in the wake of disappointment and persevere in the face of pain.

“On Tuesday, millions of Californians stood with our families and valiantly tried to beat back a mean-spirited, un-American attack on LGBT people. While we fell short of the majority we needed to prevail, each time the public has addressed this issue, those who stand with us grow in number. A decade ago, it would have been unthinkable that so many people would have endorsed marriage equality at the ballot box. If we continue the critical work we began this year, it will be unthinkable, a decade from now, that anyone would not.

“All of us at PFLAG remain committed to securing the rights our families and loved ones deserve. With a new Administration and new Congress in Washington, there are many reasons to believe that we will soon prevail. As Dr. King to eloquently reminded us, ‘[T]he arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.’ On Tuesday, millions of Californians tilted that arc a little bit closer to liberty, and we must now commit ourselves to finding the strength we need to finish the work they have begun.”

# # #

PFLAG promotes the health and well-being of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons, their families and friends through: support, to cope with an adverse society; education, to enlighten an ill-informed public; and advocacy, to end discrimination and to secure equal civil rights. Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays provides opportunity for dialogue about sexual orientation and gender identity, and acts to create a society that is healthy and respectful of human diversity.

San Francisco Protest Highlights

2008-11-11T09:20:00.001-08:00

Video recap of the "No on Prop 8" Protest March in San Francisco on the evening of Friday, November 7, 2008, from the United Nations Plaza down Market Street through the Castro Neighborhood. No matter how you believe about marriage, our constitutions should never discriminate. My sister went, she is straight but not narrow! Yay for gay-straight alliances!

Connecticut Legal Brief Allowing Same-Sex Marriage

2008-11-11T09:17:00.000-08:00

Connecticut now allows same sex marriage... here is the full legal brief. - Thanks to my beautiful sister Michelle for this!

Drew Barrymore Marches With Prop 8 Protesters

2008-11-11T09:12:00.000-08:00

Video: Drew Barrymore marches with Prop. 8 protesters: "I will fight with you!"
By Greg Hernandez on November 10, 2008 11:41 AM
from http://www.insidesocal.com/outinhollywood/2008/11/video-drew-barrymore-marches-w.html

It's great to have one of "Charlie's Angels" on your side. At Saturday night's massive rally in Silverlake, Drew Barrymore joined in. Reports new Queerty.com editor Japhy Grant: Throughout the night, groups would join the protest as it made its way through Hollywood and environs. While passing through the Sunset Strip, the rally picked up everyone's favorite angel, Drew Barrymore-and paparazzi- who marched with the approximately 3000 swing shift protesters. As the exhausted but defiant crowd occupied the intersection of San Vicente and Santa Monica, Drew took to the microphone, tearfully telling the assembled crowd, "I will fight with you!"

Drew was not the only celeb in the crowd: also spotted was James Franco of "Milk," T.R. Knight, Wanda Sykes, Ricki Lake,Darryl Stephens, Peter Paige, and Wilson Cruz, among others.

Legal petition filed to Stay Prop 8 until the courts are able to analyze its validity

2008-11-11T08:52:00.000-08:00

Warning: Online Petitions are NOT valid for Government

2008-11-11T08:50:00.000-08:00

I want to warn people that online petitions are NOT legally valid for submitting protests to the government. I know there will be a lot of them going around about Prop 8 but the Government doesn't accept them because anyone can make up a bunch of names and sign a website. Plus they are all privately sponsored and often the websites reserve the right to refuse submissions arbitrarily. So the government doesn't even look at them. (You've probably come across the official petitions at protests or with people outside grocery stores looking for signatures - they require your full printed name, full home address, and legal signature.) So far there is no legally acceptable way to do online petitioning for the Govt. Maybe one day when they figure out how to do electronic voting...I just don't want people thinking that by signing those types of petitions that they are "having their say" and getting the word to the right politicians, because they are NOT and need to take the extra steps of signing legal petitions, getting one going themselves, or writing to their representatives to actually do so. - from my fabulous sister Michelle

Freedom of Religion Includes Freedom From Religion

2008-11-10T14:58:00.000-08:00

I am sick of my so-called friends saying that the Mormons and Christians did nothing wrong. They used their religion on their followers to influence their agenda in politics and that is wrong and that is what terrorists do to get people on their side. Cult leaders also do this and they use scare tactics and they reach out to people in their lowest points, ie today's economy. There is no lie or way that is beneath them to get their way, including telling out-right lies, blackmailing, vandalism, and hate. Why anyone would want to donate, contribute or agree with anything that would write actual discrimination into the constitution for any reason is beyond me, unless they are trying to rule the world and they want everyone to be the same.

As Americans, we have to rise above this religious influence, or else we might as well just suicide bomb everyone we don't like in the name of the Lord (and find a made-up book of stories to back us up) and we will all go to heaven for it. There has to be separation of church and state, because not everyone can agree on a religion, but we can agree on that the law is to treat people the same regardless of your religion, your race, your gender, your sexual orientation, your disability, your age. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, and while everyone does have freedom of speech, you no more have the right to scream fire in a crowded theater than you do to tell your followers to donate or go to hell to a cause that treats people differently based on who they are, which is completely hypocritical and anti-christian anyway.

I do believe in God and I do believe in Christ, but I also believe in Buddha, reincarnation, the universe, and in the rights and freedoms that America is supposed to offer everyone without bias. So when you insult me and take away my freedom to marry becasue of who I am and make that law, of course I am going to be ANGRY, PISSED, HURT, EMOTIONAL, and BETRAYED. I will not stay quiet and take it, I will scream out and everyone will know. Anyone who is not with me is against me, and no stand is a stand for the opposition. These rights not only affect the gays, but they affect everyone! Now the public can vote against any minority as they seem fit and take away their rights, it can only turn into a witch hunt, civil wars, holocaust or genocide from here. America is supposed to protect the rights of all minorities, and voting for these rights is not an option, and this was mentioned by the Supreme Court when the decision to let gays marry was handed down.

I know that gay rights will be equal one day soon, and I will not be patient and wait for stuff to happen. I stand for making stuff happen and I will not behave properly and suffer quietly! This civil rights fight will make history, and I want to be able to say that I helped and I was there helping to make it happen, if only so that the children of tomorrow don't have to grow up in a hate filled world ruled by the religion of a few of the people.

Response to a YES supporter who actually believe the YES campaigns lies

2008-11-09T16:46:00.000-08:00

What HE said(remember this topic was originally titled Prop 8 & Mormons):

very well said (topic initiators name removed)

During the yes on 8 rallies, you wouldn't believe the crap a small group of people yelled at us. From "cocksuckers" to "bigots" and plenty of F-bombs to go along with it. I was surprised of the venom directed at normal clean-cut well dressed people, sometimes with younger kids, who smiled and waved no matter what was said to them.

I have been involved with plenty of sidewalk protests in my life. 99% of these people had never done anything like this. They are moms and dads with normal jobs and lives who fear the radical homosexual agenda and what could happen if gay marriage was allowed to continue.
I looked into what happened to the public schools when gay marriage was legalized in Mass. Teachers could read gay children's books in class without notifying the parents (these kids were 5 and 6 yrs. old) When a father confronted the principle about the garbage his kid came home with, he was hauled away by the police. (probably for hate crimes)

They want you to think it's about equal rights, blah, blah, blah but the truth is they already have every right that married people have with civil unions. They aren't denied anything. Legalized gay marriage is the trojan horse they are using to not only get to young children but also the means of suing churches who refuse to marry them. You can find a lot of evidence if you look into some of the court battles that have taken place. From adoption agencies getting shut down for refusing to let gay couples adopt to a wedding photographer who was sued for not shooting a gay wedding.

Who wants to deal with this in CA? Look at a gay person the wrong way at work and get fired or get sued for whatever reason so they can use the "gay card!" They wonder why people are sick and tired of this?

To Mormons, marriage is a lot more than a legal contract between party A and party B.

What I said:

Gay people don't have equal rights. Calling their relationships by another name but giving them the same rights still isn't equal. That is like likening it to the separate water fountains for African Americans and White people and telling the African Americans that they should be happy because they are still drinking the same water because it comes from the same pipe. Separate is not equal, so YES, they are fighting for equal rights and having their life validated under the same name that everyone else gets to have. And, their is NO radical gay agenda, that is such a homophobic thing to say. During NO on 8 rallies, I was proselytized to, given the finger, called vulgar names, assaulted and more...it wasn't just happening to your side and it is ignorant to imply such. And comparing us to Mass. is ridiculous, we have stricter laws here than their education laws. Never mind the fact that the actual law in CA indicates that if they are going to teach marriage that they have to teach "respect for marriage and COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS...last time I checked that would already include domestic partnerships that we have had for years, so teaching wouldn't change just because it was under a different word. Also, there have been tolerance programs in schools for YEARS and they include tolerating homosexuals. Prop 8 didn't save children from anything, if anything, all the press behind it made people have to teach their children now anyway because they were seeing the same propaganda In fact, the YES campaign can be credited for advancing that education that they so feared...congrats on that one, good move! And that father in Mass. who was hauled off to jail was because he got violent because they said there was no specific homosexual education to opt out of, their was no specific homosexual curriculum, and then he got violent because they couldn't comply with something that didn't even exist. Churches have been able to refuse to marry anyone they want to since the creation of churches, that right was not going to change, many churches refuse to marry people who are not members anyway. What makes you think that gay people are going to want to get married somewhere they are not accepted? Once again, I commend you for buying into the Yes campaigns lies. Adoptions are governed by the government and adoption agencies have to follow governments law, so if they have a religious affiliation they can't use that to deny adoptions. It is against the law to do that and thus the reason why the Catholic adoption agency in Mass. shut its doors because they didn't want to comply with law and allow gay people to adopt, they have no right to go against law and they had to make that decision because what they were doing was breaking the law. Mormon Doctrine specifically calls out that marriage is a civil contract from the government and that it isn't just to mingle religious influence with civil government (previously posted by my beautiful wife, Suzette)...so they were violating their own religions practices.

However, I do congratulate you on making a stance, even though you were influenced by the Yes campaigns lies. I am glad you have an opinion and it is your right to have one, however misguided, ill informed and discriminatory that it may be. Don't worry, gay people will always fight for civil rights, not just for themselves but for everyone. We and all people should believe in equality for all and not relegate a part of our society to second class citizen status. Because of this election, I am PROUD to be an American but ASHAMED to be a Californian!

Another response to a YES supporter who actually believe the YES campaigns lies

2008-11-09T16:16:00.000-08:00

What he said (remember this topic was originally titled Prop 8 & Mormons):

Get off the Mormons already. 2% of CA are Mormon. 5% of the yes votes were Mormon. You guys can't blame prop 8 passing entirely on them. 70% of African Americans voted on it, too (I'd love to see the gay lobby try to take them on) I've heard that many black people are offended by gays trying to compare their movement to the civil rights movement in the 50's.
The majority of hispanics also voted yes (they must be homophobes as well) I was a volunteer for the Yes on 8 campaign so I have access to tons of real info.

The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious
organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals,
Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Mormons – all supported Yes on 8. It is
estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in
California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population
represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.

When will you guys realize you aren't going to strong-arm the majority of America? The ACLU pisses most Americans off. The courts have become corrupt with activist judges in SF and that is the only reason we are even talking about this. Prop 22 passed by 61%- again, the majority of the voters MUST be homophobes.

The "gay mafia" as I like to call them is out to attack religion anywhere they can. Their #2 target is the public school system. They succeeded in removing gender from public school recently and it went unreported by the press. A friend of mine has already pulled her daughter from 4th grade because the "boys" and "girls" signs were removed from the restrooms. A part of their genderless plan. I don't buy any of it. Kids do not need to be told that boys are allowed to wear dresses (if they FEEL like it) and kids do not need to be educated that Columbus was really gay.

As long as organized religion remains the majority in America, the gay bandits will not be forcing ceremonies in my church any time soon.

What I said:

We aren't blaming Mormons, we are pointing out the fact that they went against their own doctrine. But, it is an irrefutable argument that they donated about 70% of ALL of Yes campaigns funding. That is a fact! Yes a lot of African Americans voted on it too but it was closer to 60%, not the 70% you quoted and a number of them received fraudulent mailers and phone calls saying that Obama was against Prop 8, which was not the fact, as he cam out saying it was "discriminatory" and "divisive". It is ashame that so many minorities came out to oppress an even smaller minority, as we would never have done the same to them. You were a volunteer for the Yes campaign...so you have access to a lot of LIES, not real info. And ALL those religions didn't support Yes, a big number didn't and most Jewish organizations were NO supporters...so, more lies you got there. Christians as a whole imposed their definition of religion on society, people are just pointing out the Mormons because of the significant impact that they played but they aren't all to blame, just all the Christians who voted Yes and their campaign with anti-Christian tactics and any other religion involved.

When are you going to realize that you aren't going to strong arm gay people? Equal rights really isn't a big deal and people who try to hinder it are shameful and go against what America was founded on. The ACLU is an amazing organizations, tons of organizations piss off people. Activist judges...laughable...spoken like a true Yes person who is anti-government and anti-equality. Prop 22 was illegal under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution enforced by the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution, get over it already because Prop 8 will be found the same eventually. It is a dark time in history that bigots still exist and are attempting to oppress individuals.

The gay mafia? Now you just sound like an idiot, when before you sounded actually that you might be a bit educated. We have freedom of religion and with that we have freedom FROM religion and their is no organized attacks on religion, that is just your paranoia speaking. And, their is no organized attack on public schools....wow, your IQ seems to drop as you type. You have some very off the wall and far fetched opinions and beliefs. How can you remove gender from a school system? Last time I checked, the school system isn't an animal or plant, an organism or a plant, so it has no gender. You aren't making any sense. Boys and girls signs removed from bathrooms? Never heard that one before, and I guess it is possible that that is happening, but I won't take your word for it because all you have been repeating are Yes on Prop 8 campaign lies. Gay bandits...wow, you really are homophobic...you like calling groups derogatory names...your excessive use of such leads me to believe that you are ashamed because you are actually gay yourself. Why would someone be so up and arms against gay people? They haven't done anything to you and I doubt they would even give you a second look because discrimination and your obvious bigotry are an extreme turn-off.

Finding Hope Admidst The Darkness

2008-11-07T18:55:00.001-08:00

I never expected Californians to turn our back on our legacy of expanding civil rights and protecting the rights of one another with the passage of Proposition 8. Tuesday night was a night of mixed emotion, as in one moment, we elected Barack Obama, America's first black President, yet in that same moment realized the passage of Proposition 8 seemed all but certain.

These past few days have found me trying to find direction, understanding and insight into what has happened, and how to move forward.

I attended a candlelight vigil on the steps of City Hall in San Francisco Wednesday night, where members of the community had gathered together, to stand up, once more, for equality. As I listened to the speakers analyze the current situation, I felt disheartened that such a thing ever could have happened, let alone, could be happening as I stood there, in silence. I felt powerless, as though I was speaking but could not find my voice. I was handed a candle, and the roundness of the flame seemed small in comparison to the struggle. Over the murmur of the crowd, someone began singing "we shall not be moved", at first a single voice, then another, and then a group. As flame passed from candle to candle, from stranger to neighbor, someone raised their candle above their head, others joined in, and 2,000 tiny lights lifted up for a common purpose. In that moment, I found my voice again, within the community; we all found our voices once more.

And, as we marched through the streets of San Francisco, being joined by others as we went, our voices growing louder, as we moved together in solidarity, I could not help but think how far we have come- how far forward we have moved as a state. In 2000, Proposition 22 passed with nearly 62 percent support, and in 2008, Proposition 8 received 52 percent of the vote. Within just eight years support for banning same-sex marriage has fallen nearly 10 percent in California. In fact, more Californians have already voted against Proposition 8 than ever voted for Proposition 22. So as I marched forward, holding a single flame for civil rights, I was not alone. The 2,000 of us marching for equality, we were not alone. Our 2,000 tiny flames were not the only light shining in the darkness—there with us were the nearly 4.9 million Californians who had stood up to protect our constitution, and the rights of fellow Californians.

The march finished in a rally where we gathered together in the street, chanting and holding our candles, lifting our voices together. We began to chant "Yes We Can, Yes We Can." For though I had never so fully understood the reality of the struggle, I had never been so filled with hope.

As Anne Lamott writes, "Hope begins in the dark, the stubborn hope that if you just show up and try to do the right thing, the dawn will come. You wait and watch and work: you don't give up." And as I thought of the hope offered by our new President, and his promise of change, never before had those three simple words resonated so deeply within my heart. We had the audacity to hope once, and if Barack Obama could be elected president of the United States, I will dare for an audacious hope once more.

In Solidarity,

Andy

Op-Ed from Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese on Approval of Proposition 8

2008-11-07T10:25:00.000-08:00

Dear Suzette,

On Tuesday night, our community felt the emotions of electing a pro-equality President and expanding our numbers in Congress and state houses across the country, but the next morning our hearts were broken as the dust settled and it was clear we lost the marriage ballot measures in California, Florida and Arizona. I will certainly provide you with further insight in the coming days to how we effectively organized and motivated LGBT voters in elections throughout the country, but today, as we find ourselves in this agonizing intersection of victory and defeat, I felt it was important to try and give some perspective about our losses.

I've drafted the following op-ed that I wanted to share with you. I know that mere words aren't enough to provide the salve for our wounds that we desperately need but perhaps they will begin to shape a path for how we move forward. And for those of you who gave your time and resources, your sacrifices were not in vain. You've helped lay the foundation for the victory that will one day be ours. And I thank you.

You can't take this away from me: Proposition 8 broke our hearts, but it did not end our fight.

Like many in our movement, I found myself in Southern California last weekend. There, I had the opportunity to speak with a man who said that Proposition 8 completely changed the way he saw his own neighborhood. Every "Yes on 8" sign was a slap. For this man, for me, for the 18,000 couples who married in California, to LGBT people and the people who love us, its passage was worse than a slap in the face. It was nothing short of heartbreaking.

But it is not the end. Fifty-two percent of the voters of California voted to deny us our equality on Tuesday, but they did not vote our families or the power of our love out of existence; they did not vote us away.

As free and equal human beings, we were born with the right to equal families. The courts did not give us this right—they simply recognized it. And although California has ceased to grant us marriage licenses, our rights are not subject to anyone's approval. We will keep fighting for them. They are as real and as enduring as the love that moves us to form families in the first place. There are many roads to marriage equality, and no single roadblock will prevent us from ultimately getting there.

And yet there is no denying, as we pick ourselves up after losing this most recent, hard-fought battle, that we've been injured, many of us by neighbors who claim to respect us.

By the same token, we know that we are moving in the right direction. In 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 by a margin of 61.4% to 38.6%. On Tuesday, fully 48% of Californians rejected Proposition 8. It wasn't enough, but it was a massive shift. Nationally, although two other anti-marriage ballot measures won, Connecticut defeated an effort to hold a constitutional convention ending marriage, New York's state legislature gained the seats necessary to consider a marriage law, and FMA architect Marilyn Musgrave lost her seat in Congress. We also elected a president who supports protecting the entire community from discrimination and who opposes discriminatory amendments.

Yet on Proposition 8 we lost at the ballot box, and I think that says something about this middle place where we find ourselves at this moment. In 2003, twelve states still had sodomy laws on the books, and only one state had civil unions. Four years ago, marriage was used to rile up a right-wing base, and we were branded as a bigger threat than terrorism. In 2008, most people know that we are not a threat. Proposition 8 did not result from a popular groundswell of opposition to our rights, but was the work of a small core of people who fought to get it on the ballot. The anti-LGBT message didn't rally people to the polls, but unfortunately when people got to the polls, too many of them had no problem with hurting us. Faced with an economy in turmoil and two wars, most Californians didn't choose the culture war. But faced with the question—brought to them by a small cadre of anti-LGBT hardliners – of whether our families should be treated differently from theirs, too many said yes.

But even before we do the hard work of deconstructing this campaign and readying for the future, it's clear to me that our continuing mandate is to show our neighbors who we are.

Justice Lewis Powell was the swing vote in Bowers, the case that upheld Georgia's sodomy law and that was reversed by Lawrence v. Texas five years ago. When Bowers was pending, Powell told one of his clerks "I don't believe I've ever met a homosexual." Ironically, that clerk was gay, and had never come out to the Justice. A decade later, Powell admitted his vote to uphold Georgia's sodomy law was a mistake.

Everything we've learned points to one simple fact: people who know us are more likely to support our equality.

In recent years, I've been delivering this positive message: tell your story. Share who you are. And in fact, as our families become more familiar, support for us increases. But make no mistake: I do not think we have to audition for equality. Rather, I believe that each and every one of us who has been hurt by this hateful ballot measure, and each and every one of us who is still fighting to be equal, has to confront the neighbors who hurt us. We have to say to the man with the Yes on 8 sign—you disrespected my humanity, and I am not giving you a pass. I am not giving you a pass for explaining that you tolerate me, while at the same time denying that my family has a right to exist. I do not give you permission to say you have me as a "gay friend" when you cast a vote against my family, and my rights.

Wherever you are, tell a neighbor what the California Supreme Court so wisely affirmed: that you are equal, you are human, and that being denied equality harms you materially. Although I, like our whole community, am shaken by Prop 8's passage, I am not yet ready to believe that anyone who knows us as human beings and understands what is at stake would consciously vote to harm us.

This is not over. In California, our legal rights have been lost, but our human rights endure, and we will continue to fight for them.

Warmly,

Joe Solmonese
President, Human Rights Campaign

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

OC Register Searchable Database for Prop 8 Contributors

2008-11-06T21:29:00.001-08:00

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/prop-gay-marriage-2149199-ban-election

How to File an IRS 501(c)(3) Complaint

2008-11-06T20:40:00.000-08:00

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the “Mormon” or LDS Church) has gone too far in promoting the 2008 California Proposition 8, which would claims to amend the California state constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman in order to supersede a state supreme court opinion issued earlier this year. [Whether the proposition was a lawful amendment or a revision that cannot legally be made by a voter initiative remains an open question.]

Section 501(c)(3) of US Code Title 26, which governs tax-exempt organizations, reads (emphasis added):

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
(The “otherwise provided” clause does not apply, as the LDS Church, being a church, is a disqualified entity as described in subsection (h).)

The LDS church, through inciting its members to donate time and means to support Proposition 8 (resulting in millions of dollars of cash contributions from its members and countless volunteer hours), and in-kind campaign contributions to a group that supports Proposition 8, has now made a substantial part of its activities attempting to influence legislation.

You can help! Send the IRS an official complaint about the LDS Church’s activities, either by email, fax or US Mail.

Prepare a copy of the Official LDS Prop. 8 Letter read in all LDS churches in California on 29 June 2008.
Prepare one or more other articles of your choice (you can use these links, or do your own research) showing the LDS Church’s substantial activities attempting to influence this legislation.
Prepare this Pre-Filled IRS Form 13909 and add your personal information, or fill out a Blank IRS Form 13909 from scratch with the information in the pre-filled form (copied below in RESOURCES.)
Don’t forget to date your referral at the top and include your submitter information. If you are a member of the Church, you may wish to check the box marked “I am concerned that I might face retaliation or retribution if my identity is disclosed.”
Send it to the IRS, either by:
* Email: Prepare your documents as PDF’s or web links, and send your complaint form with supporting documentation to eoclass@irs.gov.
* Fax: fax your documents to (214) 413-5415
* Mail: mail your documents to
IRS EO Classification
Mail Code 4910DAL
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas TX 75242-1198

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESOURCES:
Official IRS Complaint Process for Tax-Exempt Organizations
US Code Title 26, Section 501
Official LDS Prop. 8 Letter
List of LDS Entities (Source of Tax ID Number)

Information required for IRS Form 13909:
Name of Referred Organization: The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Street Address: 50 E. North Temple St., Salt Lake City UT 84150
Organization’s EIN: 23-7300405
For Section 4, see the Pre-Filled IRS Form 13909, or write your concerns in your own words.

Petition To Remove Mormon Tax Exempt Status

2008-11-06T20:26:00.000-08:00

On May 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court affirmed that the state constitution, AS IT WAS WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDERS OF THIS STATE MORE THAN 150 YEARS PRIOR, provided official government recognition of all marriages between all couples, regardless of gender.

On November 4, 2008, Proposition 8 amended this constitution to explicitly deny this right to same-sex couples. Nowhere else in either California's constitution or the Federal Constitution are a specific class of rights restricted, to any minority group, for any reason.

Why did this proposition pass? Was it because Californians genuinely believed that granting rights to a minority group undermine the fabric of society? No.

Was it because Californians failed to recognize the similarity of Proposition 8 with the bans on interracial marriage last century, once considered "controversial" but now universally recognized as evil? No.

Was it because Californians no longer saw their constitution as a foundational document that is amended carefully, but a document as pliable as putty and subject to the whims of a narrow majority? No.

How, then, did Proposition 8 become law?

THE MORMON CHURCH.
For the past six months, Mormons misled Californians about the effects of the Supreme Court ruling.

They told us we would lose the right to participate in our children's education. Lies.

They told us the California state public school curriculum would be modified to teach sex education to kindergartners. Lies.

They told us churches would lose the right to free speech. Lies.

If this is the way Mormons treat gays and lesbians of California, let us ask:

How has America treated Mormons?
The Mormon church began in 1830 in New York. The first Mormons were persecuted by the American majority, and were compelled to emigrate to Utah where they could live unmolested, much like gays and lesbians who lived in the urban ghettos last century. Mormons had alternative views of what family meant, and were excluded and marginalized from the political process. In their arguments against the majority, Mormon Prophet Brigham Young wrote:

Marriage is a civil contract. You might as well make a law to say how many children a man shall have, as to make a law to say how many wives he shall have. (Journal of Discourses, 11:268-9)
Much has improved for the Mormon people since then. Today, Mormons have powerful representation in the Senate, and ran a nationally viable candidate for the United States Presidency in 2008.

The Mormon story is possible because our country is a tolerant and forgiving place. America believes in the rights of its citizens to determine their own fates, and grants rights to individual communities to determine their own norms and values. The Mormon people have been able to flourish because of this country's generous spirit.

But now, history has reversed, and it is the Mormons who have become the oppressor.

The Mormons began with the Boy Scouts of America, originally a children's club meant to introduce boys and girls to the natural beauty of America. Mormons took financial control of the Boy Scouts by donating more than 28% of their global operating budget per year. Gays and lesbians are barred from participating in this group not just in Mormon troops, but nationwide, thereby turning our children into a political football.

Some Mormons send their own gay teenage children to "conversion camps," where these children are forced to endure shock therapy and given psychotropic drugs. The emotional stress of such experience drives many to contemplate suicide. The Mormon Church has yet to repudiate these activities.

Now the Mormon Church has set its target on gay and lesbian adults of California. They have started by amending our constitution to deny equal protection to gays and lesbians.

Ask the Jews about how freedoms are lost. The concentration camps were not built in a national referendum. They were the product of a systemic reduction of freedoms, year after year, one at a time.

We as citizens of California, Americans, and persons of various beliefs and faiths will not allow this to happen.

Are all Mormons against rights for gays?
Absolutely not. So far, 300 Mormons and 1 Mormon celebrity have stood up against their church to support gay rights. We respect the challenge of standing up to a majority, especially when those 301 stand in the face of more than 13.1M Mormons worldwide.

To the rest of those silent Mormon protesters, one can offer the words of Elie Wiesel:

"I swore to never be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides, Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim, silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

How can we stop this agenda?
To restore the right stolen from us, we must correct the amendment to California's constitution. To do this requires another statewide proposition. Yet how will we avoid another election season of deception, when the Mormon Church can pour limitless, tax-free money into advancing their platform?

Strip the Mormon church of its status as a religious organization.
According to IRS law,

Section 501(c)(3) describes corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literacy, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in section (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

From IRS Publication 1828 Page 5,

Substantial Lobbying Activity
In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

In this country, you can be a church. You can be a political action committee. You cannot be both. The Mormon Church stands in direct defiance of the spirit of our laws by actively campaigning to change California law.

We must clarify our tax law to prohibit this behavior.

The United Kingdom has already moved to strip the church of its tax-exempt status.

Through Prop 8, the Mormon Church has shown its true colors as a political group with specific social ends. Political speech is fair and legal here; such speech under the guise of religion is not. The playing field must be leveled. Though many religious groups were involved in Prop 8, the Mormon Church made this a far more substantial part of its activities than any other.

Californians will vote on future propositions to correct this flawed amendment next year, and every year, until we achieve our rights under the state constitution. We must be assured that our advocacy organizations are on an equal legal and financial playing field as those of our opponents.

What can I do now?
Sign this petition to support the legal effort to amend our tax laws such that the Mormon Church would lose its tax-exempt status if they continue lobbying in this way. We intend to share this list with the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and other official legal organizations that will be pressing forward with this effort. Anyone can sign this petition.

http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/

Take your hate to some other state, you bigots!

2008-11-06T18:32:00.000-08:00

Ok, I have been in numerous discussions today with Prop 8 supporters and opponents and there is one thing that astounds me about the supporters...they actually thought that the loser of Prop 8 wouldn't take it to court. Seriously, if Yes would have lost there would have been court battles on their side as well. You would have to be completely ignorant to have not realized that this was going to happen...no matter who lost.

So, what has happened to me today? Well, Jerry Brown confirmed that those who were married between June and November 4th, WILL keep their marriage status and that he will fight it in court if anyone tries to take that away. The writers of Prop 8 were stupid, they didn't write it as being retroactive but are now saying that was their intent. Come on morons, this isn't the first time you haven't done things the right way legally. How hard would it have been to say, this would take affect retroactively? Incompetence...and trying to claim that was your intent but not saying it in the Prop means jack shit. My marriage is LEGAL and your stupid religious definiton isn't going to affect me.

Last night and today, there were demonstrations all across the state. Most notably, the demonstration last night in West Hollywood where nearly 2500 people turned out. And, today where the demonstration went to the Mormon Temple in Westwood and the Federal building. Unfortunately, some idiot jumped out of his pick-up truck and decked a gay NO on Prop 8 demonstrator. What a moron...didn't he realize that he just committed a hate crime? Hate crimes have stricter laws agaisnt them than just a normal assault & battery, so that freak is going to be in BIG trouble...I hope it was worth it.

So, I am confident that Prop 8 will be found unconstitutional. Yet, I keep hearing THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE argument. Unfortunately, for them, the purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from discrimination imposed by a majority and that is exactly what happened with Prop 8. Gay marriage is here and here to stay, we just have to wait for the licenses to be issued again under court instruction and that shouldn't take long.

However, as I said before in one of my previous posts, I have lost my faith in Christians and for the 52.5% of Californians who voted Yes. I will TOLERATE them, eventhough they didn't give gay people the same respect. I wish we had the laws in place like Florida where a Prop of this magnitude requires a minimum of a 60% vote. I understand where that makes sense because for the most part the population is pretty much equally split and they want to make sure a majority is more than a few percentage points.

The other thing I love is that we have both a domestic partnership and a marriage. It is completely legal to have both and there aren't many people who have them. We weren't required to dissolve the domestic partnership because as long as you were getting married to the same person, both are valid. Yes, we made history and no matter what, I will have those two pieces of paper to prove that I am EQUAL to anyone who wants to tell me otherwise. Eventhough, I was told that I should use my marriage certificate as toilet paper, I just responded that you might as well use the California Constitution because you already proved that it is worthless by your unconstitutional Proposition. How rude to tell someone to use their marriage license as toilet paper...sorry, I got married when it was legal and you can't take it away because your stupid Proposition writers don't know how to write the word RETROACTIVE. :P

Ok, in all seriousness and deviating from my selfish rant, we as a people should feel ashamed that our fellow citizens have legalized discrimination. In no time in history has a group of people been given rights to then have them taken away by amending a constitution to legalize discrimination. Although I do not believe in violence or retaliation, I do urge you to do what you want to make your voice be heard that this just isn't right. Protest, file a court case, report the LDS church (or any church you are aware of that performed Yes on Prop 8 activities) for violating the mandate of seperation of church and state to then revoke their tax exempt status, write/email your friends, talk to your neighbors, put signs in your windows, stickers on your car, wear Prop 8 clothing or blog about it. What has been done in this vote is unlike any other, all of the churches that specifically called out Prop 8 in any of their rallies for traditional marriage are in violation of the seperation of church and state mandate and the IRS will remove their tax exempt status. All these fears that the churches had about losing their tax exempts status because they didn't want to perform gay marriages was ridiculous but everything they did for Prop 8 put that very status in jeopardy. They really don't seem to think and will now achieve everything they feared and gay marriage had nothing to do with it. Completely laughable.

Also, something I never understood during the campaign, this fear that people have of children learning about gay marriage. Here is your lesson plan...marriage is a commitment made by two adults to love and care for each other, to commit to each other for the rest of their lives. WOW...that is scary isn't it? What is completely laughable is that the specific law specifies that if a school adopts the voluntary health/sex education they are "required to teach respect for marriage and COMMITTED relationships." So guess what, you aren't protecting your children from anything because domestic partnerships for gay people have been around for years. Don't you think domestic partnerships are COMMITTED relationships? Fine, right now it isn't called marriage, but even calling it domestic partnerships will result in the same education as it would if it were called marriage.

Prop 8 supporters have, temporarily, legalized discrimination and discrimination by any other name is HATE. I don't care what the supporters say, they are PRO HATE. Their claims that they aren't are just insulting, as the only excuse for passing this Proposition is to exert that hate. The only reason to make a group of society second class citizens is because you hate them and maybe for some, fear them because they are closeted themselves. Don't worry, your hate has been heard loud and clear. Congratulations for making HATE your Family Value...what an amazing accomplishment for you, you should be so proud and honored to be with those elites, like Hitler, Pol Pot, the KKK, Saddam Hussein, etc. Wow, aren't you lucky...those are some pretty powerful people to be in standing with. Luckily for me, I have some pretty elite people that I stand with, Harvey Milk, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Nelson Mandela, Malcolm X, Cesar Chavez, Che Guevarra, Susan B. Anthony, etc. NOW..I am honored!

Take your hate to some other state, you bigots!

We will not give up

2008-11-06T18:31:00.001-08:00

We had hoped never to have to write this email.

Sadly, fueled by misinformation, distortions and lies, millions of voters went to the polls yesterday and said YES to bigotry, YES to discrimination, YES to second-class status for same-sex couples.

And while the election was close, and millions of votes still remain uncounted, it has become apparent that we lost.

There is no question this defeat is hard.

Thousands of people have poured their talents, their time, their resources and their hearts into this struggle for freedom and this fight to have their relationships treated equally. Much has been sacrificed in this struggle.

While we knew the odds for success were not with us, we believed Californians could be the first in the nation to defeat the injustice of discriminatory measures like Proposition 8.

And while victory is not ours this day, we know that because of the work done here, freedom, fairness and equality will be ours someday. Just look at how far we have come in a few decades.

Up until 1974 same-sex intimacy was a crime in California. There wasn't a single law recognizing the relationships of same-sex couples until 1984 -- passed by the Berkeley School District. San Francisco did not pass domestic-partner protections until 1990; the state of California followed in 2005. And in 2000, Proposition 22 passed with a 23% majority.

Today, we fought to retain our right to marry and millions of Californians stood with us. Over the course of this campaign everyday Californians and their friends, neighbors and families built a civil rights campaign unequalled in California history.

You raised more money than anyone believed possible for an LGBT civil rights campaign.

You reached out to family and friends in record numbers -- helping hundreds of thousands of Californians understand what the LGBT civil rights struggle is really about.

You built the largest grassroots and volunteer network that has ever been built -- a coalition that will continue to fight until all people are equal.

And you made the case to the people of California and to the rest of the world that discrimination -- in any form -- is unfair and wrong.

We are humbled by the courage, dignity and commitment displayed by all who fought this historic battle.

Victory was not ours today. But the struggle for equality is not over.

Because of the struggle fought here in California -- fought so incredibly well by the people in this state who love freedom and justice -- our fight for full civil rights will continue.

Activist and writer Anne Lamott writes, "Hope begins in the dark, the stubborn hope that if you just show up and try to do the right thing, the dawn will come. You wait and watch and work: you don't give up."

We stand together, knowing... our dawn will come.

Dr. Delores A. Jacobs
CEO
Center Advocacy Project

Lorri L. Jean
CEO
L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center

Kate Kendell
Executive Director
National Center for Lesbian Rights

Geoff Kors
Executive Director
Equality California

Prop 8 Fight Back- Report LDS Church to IRS for Tax Evasion, Here's How!

2008-11-06T12:24:00.000-08:00

We have been getting a lot of letters from friends and family saying how they can't understand how Prop 8 passed. We will not stop fighting and what the Mormon and many other churches did was wrong and completely against the law. Please forward to all of your friends that care about America's freedom and you don't have to live in California! There is also a petition to the governor which you can sign here: http://www.petitiononline.com/seg5130/petition.html Thank you everyone for your prayers and support! God Bless! Suzette & Nicole

If it upsets you that a church can meddle with another state's political statutes, here's something simple you can do. To report the LDS Church to the IRS, simply take 5 minutes to print
these articles out and any others you can find:

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10839546
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051

Then print, sign, and send the attached form (already completed, after the jump) or download a blank and fill it out yourself at
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3949a.pdf.

List the taxpayer as:

Thomas S. Monson, et al
50 East North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

List his occupation as President and the business as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Check the boxes for False Exemption and Public/Political Corruption.

Then in the Comments section demand that the LDS Church be fined and their tax-exempt status revoked for repeated and blatant violations of the IRS's separate of church and state rules, and for conspiring to interfere with a state's political process.

Check Yes under "Are books/records available?" and write in "campaign finance records."

You don't have to provide any of your own personal info. Mail the form and the printed articles to:

Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA 93888

CA election, chickens, Prop 8, Jesus, anti-Christianity...why?

2008-11-05T21:00:00.000-08:00

"You know, California, where chickens now have more rights than gay people ... the anguish that our community feels nationally is overwhelming, and we're not going to take this lightly and we're not going away," Robin Tyler (represented by Gloria Allred, along with her partner Diane Olson, in a pending lawsuit against Prop 8). California gives rights to chickens and takes rights away from gay people? It is true...whether you like it or not. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it is like comparing apples to oranges and it isn't like gay people are kept in cages and can't turn around but I just don't understand how we can value chickens (yes, it also covered pregnant pigs and calfs for veal, but the farms for that in California are few and far between...so it is inconsequential) rights over those of people. As many of you know, I had a problem with Prop 2, not because I don't believe in animal rights, but because I don't think it did enough. Prop 2 doesn't address that it will cause increases in prices of California animal products because of the new requirements, which will now create an increased dependence on out of state and Mexico animal products because they will cost less but will come with the heavy price of less strict laws than California already has to keep animals healthy for food consumption. Thus, there are chances of increased disease and infection being passed on through animal products to Californians. Prop 2 really should have addressed those issues to insure that our reliance on out of state or Mexico animal products wouldn't happen. That is why I voted against Prop 2, not because I don't want animal rights, but because I want better animal rights that aren't at an expense to our health. But, this isn't about Prop 2, it is about Prop 8.

Although I was prepared for Prop 8 to pass, it doesn't make the sting any less. I am just in shock and awe that we were having to vote for civil rights in the first place but even more disappointed that there were actually that many people who would be for legalizing discrimination. Yes, I have argued with Prop 8 supporters about the fact that it is discrimination and all of them I talked to don't believe that it is discrimination. How can you say specifically excluding a part of a population from a right isn't discrimination? I would rather they just come out and say they support discrimination, rather than lie to me and themselves that it isn't. The other thing, with nearly 80% of the funding coming from Mormons who were pressured by their Church to donate money to the Yes campaign, I have lost my faith in Christians. Nevermind the fact that the Old Testament eludes to homosexuality being wrong, the Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible and Christians repurposed it for themselves. However, Jesus didn't agree with the Old Testament and it was HIS religion's book (remember...he was Jewish). So, why would anyone follow it or use it as a reference to oppress a part of society today? Ok, well let's focus on REAL Christian values, actually likely values that all religions share, love thy neighbor, treat those the way you want to be treated and do not judge. The Bible also says, (Matthew 25:40) ..."Whenever you did these things to the lowliest of my brothers, you were doing it to me" or (Matthew 25:45) "...whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'"..."these" or "the lowliest of my brother" are the lesser people in society, which is clearly what gay people are considered with this discriminatory initiative. Jesus is asking the privileged to move out of their comfort zone and associate with people of lesser position in life, help these ones to improve their position. Wouldn't gay people be improving their position in life if they had the right to marry? Jesus' particular emphasis is that God's People should not treat others according to their class or social status (although this may get you ahead by worldly standards) but that we are to treat all people equally as God would . . . . and if you do this you are closer to God, or, as Jesus says in Mark's version of the Good Samaritan Story, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." (Mark 12:34b). You see, Prop 8 is anti-Christian, though supported by a majority of Christians. God wants people to be treated equally and for us to accept and respect each other. Prop 8 is the antithesis, the complete opposition of what God, Jesus or the Bible even dictates. So, with Prop 8 being OBVIOUSLY anti-Christian, why did they support it? They supported it because of the definition of marriage in the Bible, but what they failed to realize is that is a moral definition and what we are talking about is civil law, which should be an ethical definition. Morals do not dictate law and is solely exclusive to religion (although some laws against incest and polygamy can be argued as moral based laws)...that is what religion is all about...morality. There is no such thing as "Christian Politics" because if it is politics, it can't be Christian. Jesus brought no political message or program in his teachings. So why are they trying to impose their religion on politics, on law? Jesus wouldn't be Republican or Democrat, as he avoided those who would trap him into taking sides for or against the Roman occupation of Judea. He paid his taxes to the occupying power but said only, "Let Caesar have what belongs to him, and God have what belongs to him" (Matthew 22:21). He was the original proponent of a separation of church and state. The Romans did not believe Jesus when he said he had no political ambitions. That is why the soldiers mocked him as a failed king, giving him a robe and scepter and bowing in fake obedience (John 19:1-3). Those who today say that they are creating or following a "Christian Politics" continue the work of those soldiers, disregarding the words of Jesus that his reign is not of this order. Some people want to display and honor the Ten Commandments as a political commitment enjoined by the religion of Jesus. That very act is a violation of the First and Second Commandments. By erecting a false religion — imposing a reign of Jesus in this order — they are worshiping a false god. They commit idolatry. They also take the Lord's name in vain. Some may think that removing Jesus from politics would mean removing morality from politics. They think we would all be better off if we took up the slogan "What would Jesus do?" The Jesus of the Gospels is not a great ethical teacher like Socrates, our leading humanitarian. He is an apocalyptic figure who steps outside the boundaries of normal morality to signal that the Father's judgment is breaking into history. His miracles were not acts of charity but eschatological signs — accepting the unclean, promising heavenly rewards, making last things first. He is more a higher Nietzsche, beyond good and evil, than a higher Socrates. No politician is going to tell the lustful that they must pluck out their right eye. We cannot do what Jesus would do because we are not divine. Jesus was the victim of every institutional authority in his life and death. He said: "Do not be called Rabbi, since you have only one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, the one in heaven. And do not be called leaders, since you have only one leader, the Messiah" (Matthew 23:8-10). If Christians want to fight for the support of an institutional Jesus, they will have to give up the person who said those words...Jesus. They will have to turn away from what Flannery O'Connor described as "the bleeding stinking mad shadow of Jesus" and "a wild ragged figure" who flits "from tree to tree in the back" of the mind. He was never that thing that all politics would esteem — respectable. At various times in the Gospels, Jesus is called a devil, the devil's agent, irreligious, unclean, a mocker of Jewish law, a drunkard, a glutton, & a promoter of immorality. So, I implore you, why are they obviously going against Christian values and Jesus himself in impressing their religious definition of marriage politically over law? Why are they bringing religion into government when there is no such thing as Christian politics and Jesus was the original advocate of church and state? The Christian position for Prop 8 is extremely flawed you see because they are doing exactly what Jesus wouldn't want them to do. (You can thank the fact that I was required to take Old & New Testament at Belmont University for this interpretation...I can give you more quotations to support Prop 8 being anti-Christian, but I think that it would be best served for me not to preach religion, especially since I am Agnostic)

Law is about ethics and the separation of church & state. So, again, why were churches imposing their religion's moral definition of marriage on the population? Because they fear anything that is different from them and agree that discrimination should occur to those that are not like them or do not believe like them. Granted this isn't the case with all Christians, as I met a number of Christians at work and at protests that were against Prop 8, whether because of their religious convictions or that they just think discrimination should not be legalized. However, it is the Yes Christians I am focusing on, the ones that actually promoted anti-Christianity in this fight while still attempting to impose their religion's definition of marriage on society...contradicting and confusing, I know. Well, it apparently worked...for now. However, with a writ of petition already filed and two lawsuits against Prop 8's passage also filed...it is likely that it will be found unconstitutional, just like Prop 22.

And here is why...

First off, the obvious answer, there is no difference in what they were trying to do with Prop 22 and what they are doing with Prop 8. Prop 22 was found unconstitutional and thus Prop 8 would be unconstitutional too. Yep, that means $73 million down the drain.

Second, a major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiate such revisions to the constitution. Therefore, a change of this nature is not amending the constitution which can be voted on by the people, it is a complete revision that can only be dictated by our legislature.

Third, it violates gay people's rights for due process and equal protection under the law.

Fourth, In re Marriage Cases, the majority declared gays and lesbians a suspect (protected) class, subjecting potential restrictions of their rights to a strict scrutiny standard and they should be shielded from discrimination. As a protected class, the government is required to protect gay people from laws such as Prop 8 because their main point is to discriminate against them and nothing more.

So, eventually Prop 8 will be struck down and if we are really lucky, the Supreme Court will stop it from being enacted while these cases are tried...although I find that unlikely. One option for the court would be to say, the way to harmonize Prop 8 and the equal protection clause of California's constitution is, if you're going to take away marriage rights for one group, you've got to take it away from everyone...also unlikely. However, the main bone of contention is that they don't want gay marriage to be called marriage, so let's take marriage out of law and allow everyone to have domestic partnerships or civil unions and leave marriage to be recognized by religions and churches. Seriously, this whole Prop 8 argument is asinine, it is over a word...a single word that really shouldn't mean much considering straight people have a 50% divorce rate. Why would you be so quick to protect marriage when there are so many divorces? If you want to protect marriage, make divorces illegal...like they used to be. That will make it so people won't jump into marriages so easily but would increase the amount of couples who have families out of wedlock, which is something that religions are against. It would probably also increase people attempting to murder their spouses so they can get out of their marriage...also something nobody wants to see happen. You see how this comes full circle? Religion exerting their power in politics and law...not right!

Marriage strengthens society...both straight and gay. They validate families and provide a loving, committed environment for children to thrive (if you want children). In fact, I would even bet that allowing gay people to marry would probably decrease the divorce rate because if anything, gay people value marriage just as much, if not more than straight people because it is something they don't get to have, where straight people have raised the divorce rate to the point where it appears that they feel it is disposable. Prop 8 is a terrible initiative. We should never be voting on civil rights, we should never have religious groups attempting to impose their religious definition on law or society and we should never be voting to legalize discrimination, no matter the subject.

Same-Sex Marriage Lawsuit Filed in California

2008-11-05T11:47:00.000-08:00

NEW SAME GENDER MARRIAGE LAWSUIT

Attorney Gloria Allred and her clients, a lesbian couple, who won
right to marry in the California Supreme Court will hold a news
conference to announce a new lawsuit against Prop. 8

Attorney Gloria Allred and her clients, Robin Tyler and Diane Olson,
will hold a news conference today November 5, 2008 at 12:00 noon at 6300
Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500 L.A. to announce a new lawsuit against Prop.
8. Prop. 8 intended to ban same gender marriages in California.

Ms. Allred and her law firm represented the couple in their victory
before the California Supreme Court. Her clients became the first to
marry in Los Angeles County in June.

Ms. Allred will file the new lawsuit today with the California
Supreme Court on behalf of the couple. The new lawsuit will contain a
new and controversial legal argument as to why Prop. 8 is
unconstitutional. Copies of the lawsuit will be provided to the press at
the news conference.

THANK BABY JESUS OBAMA WON!

2008-11-04T20:04:00.000-08:00

It doesn't matter if the yes freaks win because Obama will work it and other gay issues! THANK BABY JESUS OBAMA WON!

The Mormon missionaries and the lesbians

2008-11-04T19:42:00.000-08:00

The Yes on 8 campaign is doing its best to spread its outrage -- outrage!! -- over the latest ad against Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to take away the right of gay and lesbian couples to wed.

The ad, which debuted on YouTube and is going out on television today, is certainly the most attention-getting TV spot to criticize the proposition. Most of the ads against Proposition 8 have been extraordinarily tame, unlike the fear-mongering rumors spread by the Yes side.

Not any more. The new ad -- a skit in which two actors playing Mormon missionaries visit the home of a married lesbian couple -- is clearly intended to signal viewers that the Mormon church has been a major player in the Yes campaign. Its message is that the religious right is claiming the power to strip others of their rights, starting with marriage and heading into any other arenas the movement finds immoral.

Having viewed the ad, I can't see what the big deal is. Skits like this are common fodder for campaign ads. Were opponents of Prop. 8 supposed to never touch the religious aspect of this? Is it supposed to be unfair to play the Mormon card, considering the role Mormonism has played on the Yes side (e.g., pressing its members to donate and work for the campaign)? Surely the Mormon church and its members never expected to leap into a campaign with this much vocal and financial might, funding it in large part and pushing for it relentlessly, without expecting that they would be viewed as a force that is trying to roll back the clock on gay rights in California. And considering that the Yes on 8 campaign has tried to depict gays and lesbians as attempting to take over elementary schools and force themselves on religious weddings, it's not in a great position to claim bigotry and intolerance, let alone misleading advertising, coming from the other side.

The "missionaries" show up at the front door .... but watch and judge for yourself.

Posted by Karin Klein on November 4, 2008 in California

Yes on Prop 8 signs disgust me...especially the newer signs

2008-11-04T18:48:00.000-08:00

So, why am I seeing signs that say Yes on Prop 8 = Religious Freedom, Yes on Prop 8 = Less Government & Yes on Prop 8 = Freedom of Speech?

Prop 8 isn't about any of those things, it is about rewriting the California Constitution to legalize discrimination. You already have your religious freedom, remember the US Constitution specifically gives you the freedom of religion. And, yes on prop 8 does not equal less government. How could something that requires more government interference equal less government? Prop 8 has nothing to do with freedom of speech, that is something again protected by the US Constitution. All of these signs, and commericals, from Yes on Prop 8 are not only misleading, but they are lies and they are wrong.

Prop 8 has nothing to do with churches, religion, schools or children. If anything, the backers of Prop 8 (predominantly Mormon) are trying to make a government sanctioned, civil marriage about religion, requiring government interference and eliminating rights. It is disgusting, we should not be voting on civil rights, we should not be voting to decide if a part of our population is equal. We should all be equal and if you want to quote religion, how come I am not hearing things like love thy neighbor, that we are all created in God's image (God created homosexuals too), that we should not judge one another and we should treat others the way we want to be treated? What the Yes campaign is doing is in conflict with these basic Christian, if not all religions, principles. They are quoting the Old Testament, which isn't even their book, it is The Hebrew Bible and the Christians stole it to make it their own. Jesus was against everything that the Old Testament stood for and it was prophesized that he would rewrite it. So, if Jesus was against what it stood for then and it was HIS religion's book (remember, Jesus was jewish), then why on earth would he want anyone to be for it or practice it today? Religion is never a good argument for making people unequal, for disciminating against your fellow human beings.

No matter your orientation, whether you ever want to get married, Prop 8 is just fundamentally wrong. I am still in shock and awe that the Yes campaign had an official spokesperson compare the fight for gay marriage to that of Hitler and rise of Nazi Germany. They keep saying that this isn't about hate, bigotry or discrimination, but their own official spokesperson made it clear that this is their very agenda.

How will gay people being allowed to marry hurt anyone? If anything it will strenghthen marriage by allowing more people to live successful married lives, free of discimination...heck, it will probably even lower the divorce rate that heterosexuals have raised to 50%. Gay marriage has been legal in Mass. for 4 years and they haven't fallen into the apocalypse and it has been legal in Calif. for 4 months and still nothing has happened. Other countries: Canada, Spain, Holland, Belguim and South Africa have had gay marriage legal for YEARS and nothing has happened.

So, why, tell me why, give me one good reason why gay marriage shouldn't be legal? However, do not base it on religion or any of the lies from the Yes campaign...this is about a government sanctioned marriage, not one accepted by your church or God, but by the government where there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state and where seperate is not equal.

It is never right to treat a part of the population as a second class, it is never right to be forced to vote on fundamental civil rights and it is never right to make discimination law. I implore you, DO THE RIGHT THING, continue to make everyone equal. You don't need to be for gay marriage to be against Prop 8, you can think that gay marriage is as wrong as you want, but you should be against Prop 8 for the basic reason that we should never make discirmination law. The first two words on the ballot read...Eliminate Right...why would anyone want to live in a society that not only believes that is okay but legally establishes it as okay? If this passes, who will be next?

Vote NO on Prop 8...for your family, for your children, for your friends and for society...don't make us live in a discriminatory state.

Despite heavy turnout few voting problems in OC

2008-11-04T17:46:00.000-08:00

By TONY SAAVEDRA, TERI SFORZA, SAM MILLER, JESSICA TURRELL, MARY ANN MILBOURN, and CAMINO PONGA
The Orange County Register

Gay marriage and mechanical breakdowns raised the blood pressure Tuesday at some Orange County polling places in an election marked by hope and frustration.

The debate over Proposition 8 brought police to a few polling places – mainly at schools and churches – where campaigners stretched the law as far as they could.

At Temple Baptist Church in Fullerton, Newport Harbor High in Newport Beach and Don Juan Avila Middle School in Aliso Viejo, the "No on 8" campaigners argued that state law allowed them to campaign as long as they were 100 feet from the entrance to the polling area.

Church and school officials maintained that they had the right to remove all electioneers from their property, even if they were a legal distance away from the voting.

In most cases, the Proposition 8 advocates and protesters left, but not before pressing the issue.

At Westminster's Precinct 003941 on Magnolia Street, the Christian Reform Church of Orange County was wrapped in "Yes on 8{Prime} signs – all the legal distance away from the polling area. The signs formed a veritable fence of traditional families throwing their arms up in elation.

At the end of the phalanx was a plain and sober "VOTE" sign, denoting an official polling place.

Even some pro-8 voters thought the display a bit much but the county Registrar said the signs were legal and the signs were still there at mid-day.

Not so at Sea Coast Grace Church in Cypress, where staffers plucked Yes on Prop. 8 signs like so many weeds Tuesday morning. "We wanted our campus to be a neutral environment for people not to be hassled," said Cody Surratt, a pastor.

Prop. 8, obviously, elicits a great deal of passion. Longtime Republican activist Kenneth Fisher reports that about 10 Yes on 8 signs that sprouted at the corner of Bixby and Brookhurst in Garden Grove were destroyed overnight. Reports of vandalized signs have been furiously reported by both sides.

While massive confusion didn't materialize, many individuals were flustered at the polls

At Westpark and Turtle Rock elementary schools in Irvine, most of the voting machines were out of order, causing long lines and forcing voters to use paper ballots.

When the machines sputtered at the Alipaz Street polling site in San Juan Capistrano, poll workers deftly turned to the paper ballots – except nobody had anything to write with.

Billy Klein has been moving from motel to motel lately, and hasn't had a permanent address. He registered to vote with a post office box in Costa Mesa, and was upset when he arrived at his polling place and was told that post office boxes weren't acceptable addresses. He was offered a provisional ballot instead of a regular ballot. That was upsetting; about one-third of the provisional ballots cast in the last presidential election were never counted, he said.

In the end, Klein cast a provisional ballot.

Registrar of Voters spokesman Brett Rowley said that homeless voters have every right to vote, too. They can even use a post office box as their mailing address - so long as they list a physical address as well. It can be the location of a park, it can be a homeless shelter, it can be an intersection - it just has to be an actual place.

Nation watches as CA votes on Prop. 8

2008-11-04T17:44:00.000-08:00

Tuesday, November 04, 2008 | 2:41 PM

LOS ANGELES -- Public attitudes about sexual orientation and civil rights faced a history-making test Tuesday as California voters weighed whether to outlaw same-sex marriage five months after gay couples won the right to wed in the state.
With polls showing a close contest and high national interest in the outcome, supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 rallied voters to the polls with prayer services, recorded appeals from celebrities and what was said to be an unprecedented door-knocking campaign on both sides. The measure seeks to overturn the California Supreme Court decision in June that legalized same-sex marriage. It would change the state Constitution to limit marriage to a woman and a man. It marks the first time voters have had the chance to ban gay marriage retroactively. Spending for and against the amendment has surpassed $70 million, making it the most expensive social-issues campaign in U.S. history and the most expensive campaign this year outside the race for the White House. The election has pitched a coalition of Roman Catholic, Mormon and evangelical Christians against gay rights activists and their allies. The No on 8 campaign has received key endorsements, including those of California's major newspapers, its two U.S. senators and the League of Women Voters. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also opposes Proposition 8. The Yes side has responded with the organizational might of the state's churches. Proposition 8's sponsors said they planned to have 100,000 people staffing phone banks and working near polling places on Election Day, compared with 10,000 volunteers working to get out the vote for the No side. Both campaigns were making extra efforts to court Hispanic and black voters, who are expected to turn out in large numbers for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. Polls show they are more inclined than whites and Asians to support Proposition 8. The vote comes eight years after California voters passed Proposition 22, which amended state law to limit marriage to a man and a woman. The state Supreme Court overturned that law in June, prompting same-sex opponents to seek a constitutional ban. Thirty years ago, California voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have prohibited gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools. The so-called Briggs Initiative failed 58 percent to 42 percent.

Despite Obama Saying No, Yes on 8 Continues to Use Him

2008-11-04T17:42:00.000-08:00

By Zach Behrens

Friday: African-American voters receive mailers with Barack Obama supposedly supporting Prop 8, the ballot initiative that seeks to eliminate gay marriage.

Saturday: The Obama-Biden campaign clarifies their position on Proposition 8: “The Obama-Biden ticket opposes Proposition 8 and similar discriminatory constitutional amendments that could roll back the civil rights he and Sen. Biden strongly believe should be afforded to all Americans." No on Prop 8 releases new ad featuring Obama, Schwarzenegger and Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Monday: Robocalls are reportedly sent to to phones in Chino (and presumably other communities) with Barack Obama's voice. The phone ad says he's against same-sex marriage and that the public should vote yes on 8, which is a vote against gay marriage.

Today: Supporters of Prop 8 are okay with 2,000 arranged marriages as part today's marriage event--The Moonies--in Washington DC. Today, Rev. Michael Jenkins of the church that organizes the event put "strong support" behind Prop 8. The Family Church of America, was founded by the Reverend Dr. and Mrs. Sun Myung Moon.

No on 8 Volunteers Battle Across California in Final Crucial Hours

2008-11-04T17:40:00.000-08:00

By Ross von Metzke, Advocate.com | Article Date: 11/04/2008 1:20 PM
Polls in California have been open for more than six hours, and in areas of the state with dense LGBT populations, voters are reportedly waiting three hours in line, and their wait is getting longer.

In Los Angeles, No on 8 is handing out flyers to potential voters urging them to vote No on 8 because it’s “unfair” and “wrong” -- and because Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein and Arnold Schwarzenegger all oppose the proposition.

Nowhere on the flyer does it say anything about the gay community. It simply tells voters that it is “wrong to eliminate fundamental rights.”

Volunteers for No on 8 are blanketing the city to get the word out. In more traditionally conservative areas including San Diego and the Central Valley, some are the only volunteers in their area on hand to persuade people to vote against the proposition.

In Los Angeles, LA Gay and Lesbian Center CEO Lorri Jean received word that a school principal was chasing No on 8 volunteers away from poling places and ripping up No on 8 signs. LAPD was called and sent a reminder to poling places that No on 8 is allowed to have volunteers hand out literature so long as they stayed more than 100 feet away from the polls.

In Pico Rivera, no official Yes on 8 people seem to be campaigning near the polls… but a few people are lingering near poling places “damning” gay souls and yelling religious rhetoric at voters. According to reports from the scene, about 20-percent of voters are uninformed on Prop. 8.

Same-sex measure rankles polling places

2008-11-04T17:35:00.000-08:00

November 4th, 2008, 12:39 pm · posted by Tony Saavedra, Register investigative reporter

With voting down to the wire, critics and supporters of Proposition 8 are fighting like, well, an old married couple. So emotional is the debate that several times this morning police were called to polling places to settle problems involving the same-sex marriage measure.

It seems in some instances, Democratic poll watchers were confused with anti-Prop. 8 campaigners — and police asked everybody to leave.

Reporter Sam Miller , who is spending election day with the local Democrats, said “No on 8″ advocates were booted this morning from Don Juan Avila Middle School in Aliso Viejo. Principal Shawn Lowman tells the Watchdog that he asked the folks to leave because they were walking around campus, handing out fliers. Steve Bolinger, an attorney for the Democratic Party, said the group is legally allowed to campaign on campus, as long as they are 100 feet away from the entrance to the polling area and not bothering any classrooms.

“School officials have a tendency to want to panic and kick them off the property,” Bolinger said.

That appears to be the case at Newport Harbor High School in Newport Beach, where police were called to disburse Democratic poll watchers who were accused of campaigning against Prop. 8. Democratic officials said poll watchers merely monitor the voting list and contact party members who have not voted. Poll watchers do not campaign or approach anyone, they said. But Newport Beach police asked them to leave.

At SeaCoast Grace Church in Cypress, junior high pastor Cody Surratt said church officials asked poll watchers to hit the road as well as anti-Prop. 8 folks who were handing out literature. Church staff also took down “Yes on 8″ signs that were planted on church property.

“We wanted our campus to be a neutral environment for people not to be hassled,” Surratt told Miller.

In Fullerton, things got tense at Temple Baptist Church when three people campaigning against

Proposition 8 refused the pastor’s order to leave. The campaigners were well past the 100-foot limit from the polling area, but they were still on church property. Registrar Neal Kelley (far right, with Jeff LeTourneau of ‘No on 8′ on the left and Democratic attorney Steve Bollinger in the middle) pronounced the problem a matter of private property. Police agreed. But the leaflet-bearing trio maintained that, at least for the day, the entire church - not just the polling area - was public.

As of 12:44 p.m., the church was weighing its options.

Nation watches as a divided California prepares to decide on same-sex marriage

2008-11-04T15:07:00.000-08:00

Supporters and opponents have mounted a costly campaign over Proposition 8, which would amend state Constitution to ban gay marriage.
By Jessica Garrison
1:34 PM PST, November 4, 2008

After the most expensive campaign in state history over a social issue, Californians began voting Tuesday on the divisive and deeply emotional issue of same-sex marriage.

Proposition 8, which would amend the California Constitution to ban gay marriage, has been extremely close in recent polling, with the Field Poll last week showing 49% against and 44% in favor of the measure, with 7% undecided.

Proposition 8: Your guide to the gay... Tracking the moneyThat deep divide was reflected at polling places throughout Southern California.

Colleen Cross, 53, principal of Garden Grove High School, said that in addition to voting for the presidential ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin she was eager to vote for Proposition 8.

"I'm conservative, and family values are important to me. I see the country taking a real liberal swing and it scares me to death," said Cross. "The moral center has moved so far left that I can hardly recognize my country anymore," she said.

Mark Lescroart, a neuroscience grad student at USC, went to his Silver Lake polling place this morning to vote for Barack Obama and against Proposition 8, which he called "a basic civil rights issue."

"I am a little bit sad it even got on the ballot in the first place," he said.

Along with the presidential race, the fight over gay marriage is among nation's most closely watched contests. Volunteers from around the country have staffed phone banks, and campaign contributions have come from every state in the nation to the "no" campaign, and every state but Vermont to the "yes" side.

The two sides raised nearly $74 million and blanketed the airwaves for weeks with expensive television and radio commercials.

The battle has also been waged on street corners and front lawns, from the pulpits of churches and synagogues and -- unusual for a fight over a social issue -- in the boardrooms of many of the state's largest corporations.

Most of the state's highest-profile political leaders -- including both U.S. senators and the mayors of San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles -- along with the editorial pages of most major newspapers, have opposed the measure. PG&E, Apple and other companies contributed money to fight the proposition, and the heads of Silicon Valley companies including Google and Yahoo took out a newspaper ad opposing it.

Many argued, as former President Bill Clinton did in a taped call to millions of registered voters in the days before the election, that the measure was discriminatory because it would strip rights from gay couples and treat them differently from heterosexual couples.

"If I know one thing about California, I know that is not what you're about. That is not what America is about. Please vote "no" on 8. It's unfair and it's wrong," Clinton said.

At some polling places Tuesday, Proposition 8 opponents stood by handing out cards to voters. "The polls show there are still about 10% of our voters who are confused about which is yes and which is no," said a volunteer at a polling place near Pico and Fairfax. "That could make a difference."

On the other side have been an array of conservative organizations, including the Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family and the American Family Assn., along with tens of thousands of small donors, including many who responded to urging from Mormon, Catholic and evangelical clergy. An early October filing by the "yes" campaign reported so many contributions that the secretary of state's campaign finance website crashed.

Proponents also organized a massive grass-roots effort. Campaign officials said they distributed more than 1.1 million lawn signs for Proposition 8 -- although an effort to stage a massive, simultaneous lawn-sign planting in late September failed after production problems in China delayed hundreds of thousands of signs.

For weeks before the election, thousands of volunteers also gathered on street corners around the state waving "Yes on 8" banners -- often squaring off against "No on 8" volunteers on opposite corners.

Research and polling showed that many voters were against gay marriage, but afraid that saying so would make them seem "discriminatory" or "not cool," said Jeff Flint, a campaign strategist for Proposition 8, so proponents hoped to show them they were not alone.

Perhaps more powerfully, the Proposition 8 campaign also seized on the issue of education, arguing in a series of advertisements and mailers that children would be subjected to a pro-gay curriculum if the measure was not approved.

"Mom, guess what I learned in school today?" a little girl said in one spot. "I learned how a prince married a prince."

As the girl's mother made a horrified face, a voice-over said: "Think it can't happen? It's already happened. . . . Teaching about gay marriage will happen unless we pass Proposition 8."

The "no" side countered with ads that included state Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell saying the proposition had nothing to do with schools, and that "schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage."

At polling places Tuesday, people on both sides of the issue said they thought about children when deciding how to vote.

First-time voter Mike Johnson, 22, said at his Baldwin Hills precinct that he's voting for Obama but yes on Proposition 8, in part because of "when I have kids," he said. "If it's not right in the Bible, it's not right in society."

In South Pasadena, bankruptcy lawyer Leonard Pena said his voting this year was driven by his 21-month-old daughter. "Her future is really important to me," he said. "Our country deserves something different."

Even though he and his girlfriend haven't gotten married, Pena said, he believes that people should be able to marry whomever they want.

"I really think it's more about love than marriage," he said. "Marriage isn't that important to me, but it may be to some people."

Jessica Garrison is a Times staff writer

jessica.garrison@latimes.com

Times staff writers Mike Anton, Anna Gorman, David Lauter, Joanna Lin and Harriet Ryan contributed to this article.

Statement on Courage Campaign Ad from NO on Prop 8

2008-11-04T14:30:00.000-08:00

Tuesday November 4, 4:54 pm ET

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Nov. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- The ad has been produced by an organization not affiliated with our campaign. Mr. Schubert should direct his questions to the organization behind the ad.

As we have stated previously, the Mormon Church deserves the same respect as any other religion. But it is wrong for the Mormons to push their views about marriage on the rest of California through the ballot box.

We note Mr. Schubert has failed to denounce despicable statements by individuals affiliated with the Prop. 8 campaign.

At an official Prop. 8 rally at the State Capitol in Sacramento last week, a Prop. 8 lawyer compared the fight against gay marriage to the fight against Hitler. That outrageous statement was denounced by the Anti-Defamation League but not by the Prop. 8 campaign. Instead, the campaign Web site described the event as successful and thanked attendees.

At the same Prop 8 rally, another speaker said homosexuals "can't reproduce, so they must recruit our children."

Both videos are posted to our YouTube channel.

Source: NO on Prop 8

Gaywheels.com Gets Flooded By CA Prop 8 Advertisements

2008-11-04T14:29:00.000-08:00

By colin November 4th, 2008

Yesterday, the "Yes on Prop 8" campaign, which aims to eliminate the ability of same sex couples to get married in the state of California, managed to hijack all of Gaywheels.com's ad space. Publisher Joe LaMuraglia quickly issued a statement condemning the action, and acted quickly to block www.protectmarriage.com from posting any further advertisements on his site.

Explained LaMuraglia, "we do our best to remain neutral when it comes to politics." He said that his site's mission is to encourage users to spend money on gay-friendly companies, not to take political sides or preach viewpoints to site visitors: "consumers come to Gaywheels.com to read about cars and trucks, not to be bombarded with ads about politics."

Gaywheels.com apologizes about the brief snafu, especially to visitors from the state of California who might have been offended. LaMuraglia again clarified that the ads "in no way" reflect Gaywheels.com's political leanings, as well as being "diametrically opposed" to the site's value system.

The gay-targeted Web site will be investigating how their ad space was temporarily hijacked, and will take any necessary legal action pending the results of the investigation. LaMuraglia ended his statement with a zinger, musing as to whether the "Yes on Prop 8" campaign's expenditure on a gay-centric Web site was "a sign of stupidity or desperation."--Colin Mathews

Prop. 8 Among History's Costliest Measures

2008-11-04T14:28:00.001-08:00

Prop. 8 draws national attention

2008-11-04T14:26:00.002-08:00

By Greg Mellen, Staff writer
Article Launched: 11/04/2008 11:23:26 AM PST

LONG BEACH - The nation was keeping an eye trained on California as Proposition 8, the state initiative that would ban same-sex marriages, hit the polls.

The run-up to Election Day saw both sides of the issue hammering away at each other on the airwaves with advertising expected to top $70 million.

Across the state Saturday and Sunday, groups on both sides of the issue gathered for rallies, while in religious communities reverends, priests, rabbis and imams stated their cases.

In Long Beach, about 400 Proposition 8 opponents gathered at Bixby Park for a rally concluded by a same-sex marriage ceremony.

Meanwhile, across town at the Traffic Circle, about two dozen supporters of the initiative gathered and waved signs urging motorists to honk their approval.

Proposition 8, which would change the state consitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only, has been an incendiary, divisive and highly politicized measure since its inception.

On Election Day, little had changed.

Although the measure has been on the losing side of most polls, many have showed it surging lately.

The latest nonpartisan Field Poll, showed voters rejecting the proposition 44 percent to 49 percent, but that's a 6 percent switch since September when the measure trailed 38 percent to 55 percent. The remaining 7 percent was undecided.

The Public Policy Institute of California found Proposition 8 losing 52 percent to 44 percent, although that showed a 3 point swing from September when the measure was failing 55 percent to 41 percent.
Meanwhile, the California Majority Report on Oct. 17 said the SurveyUSA poll had Prop 8 ahead 48-45.

The reports had 2 to 4 point margins of error and undecided voters making the measure a toss-up entering the polls.

Long Beach activist and radio personality Karel Bouley, the host of the Karel Show on KGO and known for his incendiary commentary, said he wasn't surprised at the late rally.

"Why would I be surprised with all the money that's going in," Karel, who goes by his first name professionally, said of the pro-Prop 8 surge. "Where money goes in, idiots will follow."

Karel says the issue isn't about marriage at all but about basic constitutional notions of equality.

"They're thinking of removing equal protection under the law from the constitution," Karel says of proponents of the law. "I think our founders would be turning over."

Some proponents of the measure remained stung by the vitriol.

James George, an Alamitos Heights homeowner who had several signs favoring the measure swiped from his yard, said he has been surprised the vehemence of the opposition.

But he remains steadfast.

"I am a Christian, and it is stated in the Bible that marriage is between a man and a woman, period," George says.

He also is persuaded by the argument that same-sex marriage will be taught in schools.

In an earlier interview, George Fessler, executive pastor at Life Center Church in Lakewood, told the Press-Telegram he wants to see California return to a traditional definition of marriage.

"Domestic partnerships have all of the rights and benefits of marriage relationships," he said, "but to call it marriage historically, and from a faith perspective, obviously, it's inappropriate."

Still troubling to many, even at the polls was lingering confusion about what yes and no votes meant.

San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown was reported to err recently when talking about the issue and appealing for the importance of protecting the rights of same-sex couples with a "yes" vote.

Brown intended to urge a "no" vote.

Observers on both sides of Proposition 8 worry voters will be confused by a choice in which a no vote means yes to gay marriage and a yes means no to gay marriage.

Opponents have tried to reframe the issue with, among other strategies, an advertisement in which Senator Dianne Feinstein urges voting no to discrimination.

Karel said he thought the courts and society had moved beyond Proposition 8.

"It worries me that we live in an atmosphere where we still have this debate," he said.

In 2000, more than 60 percent of California voters voted for Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and woman, but it was overturned by the state Supreme Court.

Church and state collide at this polling place

2008-11-04T14:26:00.001-08:00

From our reporters Jessica Turrell and Sam Miller:

Voters in Westminster’s Precinct 003941 perform their civic duty today at the Christian Reform Church of Orange County on Magnolia Street.

Greeting them is a phalanx of “Yes on 8″ signs - a veritable fence, actually - with that gleeful traditional family throwing its arms in the air in elation.

The plain and sober “VOTE” sign, denoting an official polling place, is at the end of said phalanx. (Our reporter, Jessica Terrell, took these photos.)

It struck even some Yes on 8 supporters - who’d like a ban on gay marriage - as odd, “It’s a little excessive. I don’t know what they were trying to prove with all those signs. I don’t think there was a need for them,” said a voter who declined to give her name.

Are those signs OK? We asked the Orange County Registrar of Voters.

Yes, they are, so long as the signs are at least 100 feet from the entrance to the poll site, said Brett Rowley, Registrar spokesman (who sounded a wee bit harried).

The entrance to the polling place was around the back of the church, and the signs were along the street in front of the church, so all appears well.

But at least one other church chose not to wear its heart on its sleeve. At Sea Coast Grace Church in Cypress, staffers removed Prop. 8 signs this morning. “We wanted our campus to be a neutral environment for people not to be hassled,” said Cody Surratt, a pastor.

Prop. 8, obviously, elicits a great deal of passion. Longtime Republican activist Kenneth Fisher reports that about 10 Yes on 8 signs that sprouted at the corner of Bixby and Brookhurst in Garden Grove were destroyed overnight.

Reports of vandalized signs have been furiously reported by both sides. Honestly. Can’t we all just get along?

Why Prop 8 Will Fail

2008-11-04T14:22:00.002-08:00

By David Salter | Article Date: 11/04/2008 12:02 AM
In a few days, America will see the beginning of a new era, and California will see the new era it gloriously began almost five months ago allowed to continue. Barring some unforeseen and tremendous act of external destruction, Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States, and California's Proposition 8 will fail.

This is not cockeyed optimism talking, but rather the result of analysis of prognosticating and historical lessons both clear and unheralded.

Forget everything you've heard about the national polls. This close to the election the only thing that matters is that little map of splotches of red and slathered layers of blue that can be found on sites from realclearpolitics.com to latimes.com and beyond. The former puts 259 electoral votes solidly in Obama's column, not to mention 47 leaning, making a grand total of 306. That's over 35 points above the needed number to win on Tuesday, and it's not even counting 75 toss-up electoral votes.

If Obama carries either of the two major states leaning his way (Virginia or Ohio), he wins. If he gets even one of the toss-up states of Florida, North Carolina, Indiana or Missouri, he wins. If he prevails in Colorado and New Mexico, he wins. John McCain needs to win not just one or two, but every single one of those states to win. McCain's home state of Arizona isn't even solid for the Republicans: its ten electoral votes are merely leaning his way as of seven days before the election.

Obama wins.

Take a look at what this means, Californians: three of the states that would solidify an Obama victory are in the eastern time zone, where polls close at 5pm California time. Three more will close their voting booths at six. And if Virginia or Ohio goes blue early on, that's two to three hours that the news media will have to trumpet Obama's victory before our polls even close. And that's not even taking into account the effect of exit polls, which will begin showing Obama's strong victories possibly before we even hit the snooze button in the morning.

So what on earth does this have to do with California's Proposition 8, which would rewrite the state constitution to eliminate any marriage that is not heterosexual?

USC law professor and long-time political commentator and campaign strategist Susan Estrich likened a blowout election to a USC football game. If someone with a crystal ball told the rabid Trojan fans that the team was going to win against UCLA, would fans still show up?

If you root for the Cardinal and Gold, you betcha. If your colors run closer to baby blue, you may, however, stay home with a good book. Nobody wants to be on the losing team, or worse yet, witness the carnage, especially when you know how it's going to turn out. This isn't a horror movie, although sometimes it doesn't feel too far removed.

Those of us too young to remember the presidential elections of the 1980s are probably not as familiar with the concept of what are known as “down-ticket races,” which are essentially those that occupy every page of the ballot that does not say “President” somewhere on it.

What a lot of people fail to remember is that all those other check boxes add up to mean just as much if not more to one's daily life than the choice between Obama and McCain. The entire U.S. House of Representatives is up for election or re-election, as well as a third of the Senate, not to mention state legislatures and governors who, as we have certainly seen in California, can have a larger impact on their constituents' daily lives than the hoo-has back in the Capitol building 3000 miles away.

And then there are the ballot initiatives. Sure, the local, state and federal legislatures can discuss or pass bill after bill all they want but when was the last time you saw something happen that affected you right then, that moment, without weeks, months or years of appeals, vetoes, filibusters or delayed implementation? No, the way to get something done here and now is to put it on a ballot and have the people decide. And in most cases this is an opportunity to right a legislative wrong, to offer hope to the future in a bond measure, or to otherwise add a bit of hope and, yes, change to the world we live in every day.

Every once in a while, though, someone or some group decides to use the process to reverse the process: in essence, to wrong a right. California's Proposition 8 is the most ominous because while Arizona's and Florida's similar ballot measures attempt to deny rights that have not as yet been found to exist (although they inevitably do) in their respective constitutions, Proposition 8 is a reaction to the recent and long overdue enforcement of that right by basically wiping it out of the constitution once and for all.

But it won't work, and it isn't necessarily because people want gay marriage.

Sure, out-of-state interests, particularly the Utah-based Mormon church, are pouring money in by the millions to pass the proposition. Sure, misleading but effectively frightening ads seem to run constantly on television, radio and YouTube. Sure, Sarah Palin said she'd support a federal ban on gay marriage.

But Sarah Palin doesn't vote in California. The elders of the Mormon church and their countless members from Utah don't vote in California. Joe the Plumber does not vote in California.

Those who so vehemently oppose gay marriage do not have the numbers of those who vehemently support it. If every eligible voter in California went to the polls on Tuesday, Proposition 8 would probably pass, not because people hate gay marriage so much but because most people would just as soon not have to deal with it.

But on Tuesday, as the talking heads begin shouting about Obama's landslide victory (and it will be a landslide, based on every evidence available, unless there is something very sinister and wrong with America that is hiding just beyond the pollsters' radar) with three hours left for Californians to vote, something strange will happen. A good deal of those who would have preferred McCain, or would have preferred a world without gay marriage, will likely go about their lives and skip the lines at the voting booth just as California Democrats did in 1980, 1984, and 1988, even though that meant that solidly Democratic federal Congressional seats went red against all odds. What fun is it to vote for the guy who already lost?

The reverse effect, however, is also a possibility, despite Estrich's analogy. It cannot, and must not happen, by any means. No matter how far ahead Obama is when Californians get off work at five or six in the evening, every single person who cares about equality, about stopping the legislation of hate, about the future of California and, by example, the rest of the country, must go out to mark the bubble for No on Proposition 8.

And then it will truly be the beginning of a glorious new era.

No on 8 Volunteers Not Giving Up in Bakersfield

2008-11-04T14:22:00.001-08:00

It’s about 7:30 a.m. in Bakersfield, Calif., and the skies are clearing after an overnight rain. I’m standing in the parking lot at the Kern County Fairgrounds with Juan Cerda, a 24-year-old volunteer with the No on 8 campaign. A budget analyst for Kern County, the born-and-raised Bakersfield boy has taken the day off to make sure No on 8 has a presence as voters walk into the polling place.

The fairgrounds’ Harvest Hall building, a simple corrugated-metal structure, is the location for 14 voting precincts in east Bakersfield, the predominantly working-class and Democratic leaning-area of the city of over 310,000. Located about two hours northeast of Los Angeles, in California’s agriculturally dominant (and notoriously conservative, culturally) Central Valley, Bakersfield is ground zero for Yes on 8 support.

“It’s my community here,” Cerda says as a steady stream of voters pull in and out of the parking lot. Earlier that morning a polling official came outside and measured out 100 feet from the entrance of Harvest Hall for Cerda and his volunteers. “We’re fine up until the grass,” he explained, pointing out a median splitting the parking lot from a lane of traffic in front of the hall.

Cerda thinks that this is the best place in town to make an impact, since he estimates 3% of the vote on Proposition 8 is still undecided. He and his volunteers have been milling about the parking lot, gently handing out No on 8 flyers and encouraging voters to vote no.

“There are a percentage of supporters who are confused about what a 'no' vote means,” he said. “We want to make sure we are minimizing that wrong voting.”

So far the turnout of volunteers has been good. Besides five or six volunteers in the parking lot, another three or four people stand outside the parking lot, waving a variety of homemade and official No on 8 signs.

“I’m expecting about 15 people today -- some people all day, some for a couple hours,” he said. “But I’d really like to have at least 20.” (Christopher Lisotta, The Advocate)

No on 8 Dispatches 3,200 Volunteers Across California

2008-11-04T14:20:00.000-08:00

Polls in California have been open for more than six hours, and in areas of the state with dense LGBT populations, voters are reportedly waiting three hours in line, and their wait is getting longer.

In Los Angeles, No on 8 is handing out flyers to potential voters urging them to vote No on 8 because it’s “unfair” and “wrong” – and because Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein and Arnold Schwarzenegger all oppose the proposition.

Nowhere on the flyer does it say anything about the gay community. It simply tells voters that it is “wrong to eliminate fundamental rights.”

Volunteers for No on 8 are blanketing the city to get the word out. In more traditionally conservative areas including San Diego and the Central Valley, some are the only volunteers in their area on hand to persuade people to vote against the proposition.

In Los Angeles, LA Gay and Lesbian Center CEO Lorri Jean received word that a school principal was chasing No on 8 volunteers away from poling places and ripping up No on 8 signs. LAPD was called and sent a reminder to poling places that No on 8 is allowed to have volunteers hand out literature so long as they stayed more than 100 feet away from the polls.

In Pico Rivera, no official Yes on 8 people seem to be campaigning near the polls… but a few people are lingering near poling places “damning” gay souls and yelling religious rhetoric at voters (below). According to reports from the scene, about 20-percent of voters are uninformed on Prop. 8.

San Diego, a hotbed of controversy surrounding Proposition 8, continues to be divided over the issue of gay marriage. Qualcomm Stadium was one-third filled over the weekend with people praying that Prop. 8 would pass. Just a mile away, at the same time, some 6,000 people held a candlelight vigil in support of same-sex marriage.

On the outskirts of the city, front lawns are filled with Yes on 8 signs.

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, throughout the city, polling places are reporting that Yes on 8 people have come within 100-feet of poling places.

Stephanie Colter, a teacher from Bay Park, told the Tribune Yes on 8 signs were placed outside her poling place at the First Baptist Church in Bay Park -- right next to the signs directing voters inside.

“They're all over the parking lot,” Colter said. “I'm really upset. They shouldn't be a polling place if they want to do that.”

The look is similar just an hour north in Orange County, which is expected to play host to a Yes on 8 victory party should the proposition pass.

Expectedly, in West Hollywood, where the bulk of the No on 8 efforts have taken place, the scene is encouraging.

At LA’s Gay and Lesbian Center, volunteers are crammed into the “war room.” The campaign is dispatching volunteers all over Southern California and fielding reports of any problems from poling places. According to Center Public Affairs Officer Jim Key, more than 3,200 volunteers are on the ground around the state.

Around the city, Yes on 8 signs are nowhere to be seen and though lines are long, people are waiting.

“If it were just the presidency, I’d probably leave,” one voter told Advocate.com. “But because of Prop. 8, I have to stay – it’s too important. My boss can wait.” (Ross von Metzke, The Advocate)

Henry Rollins Stands Up Against Prop. 8

2008-11-04T14:19:00.000-08:00

Henry Rollins has never been one to shy away from controversy. On the eve of Election Day, the outspoken singer-comedian-activist speaks out against Proposition 8, touts Barack Obama, tells the Pat Robertsons and Sarah Palins of the world to go back to the Stone Age, and urges LGBT people to "never relent."
By Greg Archer
An Advocate.com exclusive posted November 3, 2008

In this high-stakes political season, there’s certainly many a “man” to enrage. Just before Election Day, Rollins, the unabashed author-musician-radio personality and Grammy-winning spoken word artist, fiercely opines about all things political with Advocate.com. He also joins the ranks of high-profile celebs -- including Ellen DeGeneres and Brad Pitt -- who are speaking out against Proposition 8, one of the most highly contested issues on the California ballot, which would ban same-sex unions in the state.

Advocate.com: Why is it important for you to speak out against Prop. 8?

Henry Rollins: I think it’s incumbent on any sane Californian to vote against any kind of hate against any human being. When you get down to it, [Prop. 8] comes from some very hateful, ignorant beliefs. It’s not coming from anything that makes any sense. It’s nasty and un-American, really. Anybody that respects life and people’s freedoms, Democrat, Republican, it should not matter. And it makes me angry that people spent money outside of California to try to bedevil this thing. It’s just appalling. But in this day and age, I am not surprised.

Were you familiar with the Briggs Initiative [California’s Prop. 6], 30 years ago, which basically set out to fire homosexual teachers?

I remember that, and also Anita Bryant being homophobic. I grew up in Washington, D.C., and there was a significant gay population, and in school, by the time we all hit puberty, we saw that we had gay classmates. The way I was raised, I just didn’t care. Whatever you were, you were. Next topic, you know? I never understood homophobia. I always thought it was restricted to idiots -- dumb-ass boys in high school. But when I saw Anita Bryant, I went, "Wow! So much for America, land of the free, home of the courageous."

It’s great to hear you speak out against Prop. 8, but you’ve always been outspoken, no?

It’s all about where I come from; the country I am in. I think when I work I feel like maybe Thomas Jefferson is tapping me on the shoulder and leading me on. But I think for people who'd like to get married, I say, "Best of luck." But for me, I just think all marriage is a completely unreal and unbelievable, really. To say I have to split everything in half if something didn’t work out ... it doesn’t really work for my Ramones collection, you know?

What are you most excited about in 2009?

Well, I would like to see a different kind of administration in the White House. I think if we’ve seen one thing about this election, it’s knowing that Republicans cheat. And I am not that old politically, but I do remember when a Republican and Democrat could make a few talking points and address their differences. But the argument was never about anything you felt like you wanted to punch the guy’s lights out about. And it’s descended into this thing where we see McCain so desperate now. It’s just so fuckin’ sad. The more I learn about McCain, the more there is not to like, as far as I am concerned. But I get the sense from him that maybe he’s thinking, Man, I didn’t want it to go this way. He says one thing and does another. He’s not a maverick -- at all. And so you can see how he is coming across in this campaign and how Obama, who is running against him, has a level of decency. And I want the decency back. I want the polarity in this country between Republicans and Democrats to back off.

It has been one of the most contentious races.

And all this "Watch out for the scary black man!" It’s all bullshit. It’s awful. It’s just playing guilt and bringing hell back into the great American discourse. It’s something that has brought in millions of dollars from the religious right in the last eight years. I want all this to change. I want all the Pat Robertsons to go back the fuck to the cave they came from and take their hostages with them. And I want science to come back to the fore. That’s what I am hoping to have happen in the next four years.

Hundreds of Mormon Moms Rally Against Prop. 8 in Salt Lake City

2008-11-04T14:18:00.000-08:00

More than 600 Mormon moms, their gay sons and daughters, and allies rallied against Proposition 8 in Salt Lake City on Sunday -- a sharp contrast to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' effort to pass the California ballot measure.

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that the candlelight vigil was held in the city's Library Square and was organized by mothers disappointed in the church's muscular support of Prop. 8, which would eliminate the right of gay people to marry. The Mormon church has donated millions of dollars to the Yes on 8 campaign.

"This is what happens when people in California say mean things about our gay kids. Mothers come out of the closet," Millie Watts, one of the organizers, said at the event, according to the Tribune. Watts told the paper that she feels "disappointment and betrayal" at her church's involvement in Prop. 8.

Linda Barney, another mom who spoke at the rally, told the Tribune that her heart "reaches out to young Californians, teens who are not out of the closet who are alone...listening to hateful [rhetoric]," adding, "They need to hear from us. They need to know there are people with loving hearts."

The Salt Lake City event was one of several rallies that occurred on Sunday in support of, or in opposition to, Prop. 8. (The Advocate)

The "Call" at Qualcomm Stadium- Translation Needed!

2008-11-04T14:13:00.000-08:00

Sara Whitman
Posted November 4, 2008 | 12:42 PM (EST)

Can someone please tell me where in the Bible Jesus spoke tongues? Because they are babbling away at Qualcomm Stadium today in his name.

Personally, I don't think Jesus was a freak like the group filing in to protect marriage against the end of times- equal rights to all. Scary stuff, all of us being equal. Next thing you know, there might be fairness.

After hours of fasting, folks filed into Qualcomm Stadium boasting of 70,000 on their way to fight the evils of Equality in the state constitution.

Try 7,100, tops.

When the going gets tough, the tough does great video editing to make it look full. It wasn't. Although there were folks milling into the press box speaking tongues.

I guess that's because they were hungry and the press had pizza.

I wonder where God is on this debate about treating people as different and taking away their rights. I don't believe in God. I wish I could sometimes but I don't.

But for those who do, I have to ask- do you think God would be nasty? Hateful? So many parts of the Bible focus on being kind, helping one another, and justice. I mean, the Jews got kicked all over the desert, and I don't think God liked that.

Jesus, was after all, Jewish.

I wonder about all those people going to church. I walked up to the Grace Cathedral earlier. It's a beautiful building, obviously built with a great deal of passion.

There is a Keith Haring AIDS Chapel altarpiece. It is a welcoming space. Even as an atheist I feel a sense of belonging. Maybe it's because I'm in the heart of San Francisco and everywhere feels welcoming to me. I'm asked my gender preference- sir or miss- respectfully.

I guess those Christians have different rules than other Christians. It's very confusing as an outsider. The Evangelicals think their version is it. The Catholics, theirs, and the Episcopal's are more forgiving but they think they are right.

And we haven't even hit the Protestants.

I wonder how this fits into legal rights because last I looked there is a separation of church and state. If marriage is all about religion then government should not recognize it.

End of discussion.

I walked the labyrinth. I might not be religious but I can be quietly spiritual. As I moved through it I kept thinking, what kind of person hates so deeply? I have been angry with people in my life- furious in fact. But hate, as I tell my kids, is a powerful emotion that only hurts you.

Never the other person.

I'm not sure that's really true. I am hurt by the hate. I see myself as incredibly average. I write part time, I stay home with my kids, and I do all the suburban housewife activities. Nothing out of the ordinary, to be honest.

Yet all those swaying, crying, singing, dancing folks out in San Diego today are preparing to "defeat" me. To save the world against my kind.

I wonder... who will save us against them?

It's ironic because I cannot even imagine taking away their rights to babble on, or to hold a gathering in a stadium, or their right to be recognized as equal citizens. I don't agree with them, they basically scare me, but I still believe they have rights.

Why can't they practice the Golden Rule? Would they want me to organize to take away their rights?

Vote No on Prop. 8 in California this Tuesday and maybe they'll all go have some dinner and settle down. Realize they are a part of a diverse state, with many people of many different religions.

Rights are rights and, as the California Courts ruled, one group cannot be discriminated against simply because another group doesn't like them.

It's the same in every language- even tongues.

Jesus Wouldn't Give $200K to Back Prop 8

2008-11-04T14:10:00.000-08:00

Kip Williams
Posted November 4, 2008 | 12:37 PM (EST)

I was shocked, offended, and confused on Wednesday to learn that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had thrown down $200K to back Prop 8, which would revoke the right of same-sex couples to get married. I love Jesus, and I thought they loved Jesus too.

Wednesday night, while I walked the streets until two in the morning to distribute voter guides and talk with folks about the 37 propositions on the San Francisco ballot this year, no less than 15 people asked me for money to eat. I gave them what I had, but $200K would have gone a lot farther than the 20 bucks I had in my wallet.

I also must have seen at least 20 people sleeping in the streets. It's been raining this weekend, so some of them have hung tarps or plastic bags over their small sections of sidewalk to keep their sleeping bags and few belongings at least semi-dry. I wonder how many people would have a warm and dry place to sleep this weekend if that $200K went instead to build shelters or affordable housing.

I live a few blocks away from SF General Hospital. That's the place where poor people go to the emergency room. If they had insurance, they probably would have gone to the doctor a long time ago, rather than run to the ER for an expensive visit that costs taxpayers significantly more mnoney than it would have cost to insure them in the first place. I'll bet those Catholic Bishops - the ones who threw down $200K to back Prop 8 - I'll bet they all have health insurance.

Where would Jesus put his $200K? If we're going to politicize Jesus, then let's chat about Prop 6 for a minute. Prop 6 would invest billions of dollars that we don't have in California to build more youth prisons, and to put more youth in those prisons. You know what that means? That means that youth get taken away from their families and communities, and undocumented youth whose parents brought them here for a chance at a better life will get sent right back wherever they came from, with nothing in hand. Jesus wouldn't want to send more youth to prison, or to take them away from their families. Jesus would want creative solutions to keep those kids out of prison, and to help them make healthy choices in their lives. And if he had any money in the first place, Jesus would give $200K to defeat Prop 6.

I'm just a young gay Christian man without a lot of money or power. But if they'd have me, I'd like to lead those Catholic Bishops in a Bible study on one of my favorite passages from the New Testament - Matthew 25: 41-45. I'd also like to invite my sisters and brothers from Focus on the Family, who gave a whopping $450K to Prop 8. Oh, and also the American Family Association, who topped them all with $500K! All together, that's more than one million Christian dollars wasted on discrimination and hate, when it could have gone to make people's lives better.

This passage is one of the main reasons I believe that Christianity still has some relevance in the world, and it merits a literal reading here:

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'"

Surreptitious "Yes on Prop 8" Google Ad

2008-11-04T14:05:00.000-08:00

November 4, 2008
Surreptitious "Yes on Prop 8" Google Ad

Friend of SFist Daniel alerted us to this odd occurrence on a couple of websites yesterday, including Pirate Cat Radio and some "geeky, guy gadget" site, of which he couldn't remember the name. Neither site is the type to support such a bigoted proposition, but upon perusing Pirate Cat's site last night, the ad was still showing up at the bottom of their Listen page.

Google's AdSense description promises ads that are "relevant to your audience and your site content—ads so well-matched, in fact, that your readers will actually find them useful." (Sure, "protecting marriage" is a big concern of Pirate Cat listeners.) The ad is no longer showing up on Pirate Cat's site today, so apparently the "error" has been fixed.

Thanks to our commenters for the great info! Here's how to block unwanted ads, info via wchase via Scott Beale. Ggarrett notified us of a great discussion of this very circumstance. Someone within the aforementioned discussion sent a complaint to Google about these ads, and they were taken off the site within thirty minutes.

Looks like there was lots of coverage on this yesterday.

Local gay couple plans Election Day wedding

2008-11-04T14:03:00.000-08:00

By CHRIS CAESAR
The Orange County Register

If they weren't two men, John Petersen and Leonard Niedbalski could be one of the most traditional couples on the block.

The pair met at a gym in Los Angeles 22 years ago, when John was "doing the acting thing" in Hollywood and Leonard, based in Costa Mesa, worked for an aerospace company. Soon, the two fell in love, and within a year had moved to a new home in south Orange County.

Since then, John and Leonard have settled in a comfortable home in a gated, family-friendly Aliso Viejo neighborhood. Two scampish dogs playfully roughhouse on their porch – adorned with American flags and political signs – while neighborhood children ride bikes past their two-car garage.

The couple, it seems, is in it for the long haul. So, while many of their friends decided not to get married after Prop. 22 was overturned by the state Supreme Court earlier this year, the couple jumped at the chance to formalize their arrangement.

"It's a statement that we're in a relationship, and that we should have the same rights as any heterosexual couple," Leonard said. "I don't want to get married in anyone's church – I want to be married as a citizen of California and the United States, under the constitution."

Proponents say that Prop. 8 – which seeks to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman in the state constitution – will correct an undemocratic reversal of thousands of years of tradition and preserve the sanctity of marriage. Opponents counter that solely defining marriage in heterosexual terms is inherently discriminatory.

Initially, the duo planned a romantic wedding on their Feb. 28 anniversary. But, as support for Prop. 8 started to grow, the couple grew concerned that the initiative's chances could dash their marital aspirations.

"Our first thought was that there was no way this could pass," John said. "Then, we started to get a little nervous."

The couple will instead take their vows in an informal Election Day ceremony with two witnesses, hoping that the pre-emptive marriage – even in the event of the proposition's approval – will still be honored in California or other states recognizing gay marriage.

Whether or not their legal strategy will work is not clear – proponents of the measure say that the bill will invalidate all homosexual marriages in the state, but opponents disagree. California Attorney General Jerry Brown said whatever retroactive effects the bill may have will ultimately be decided through litigation.

"Couples are making their plans to come in before Nov. 4 because people are getting a little uneasy," said San Francisco Clerk-Recorder Karen Hong Lee. "It's too close to call, basically, and it's legal right now, so why wait? Why take the chance and say, 'let's get married on Nov. 5?'"

"We believe very strongly that these marriages will remain valid, but some people believe otherwise," Shannon Miner, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said. "I anticipate that anti-gay groups will challenge [these marriages]in court."

For now though, the couple has plans to get married in the late afternoon Tuesday, and spend the evening watching the returns of an election that could ultimately untie their knot.

The couple is holding out for a large celebration on the date of their anniversary, but whether it will be a belated wedding party or a renewal of their vows will be decided Tuesday.

"[Heterosexuals]are allowed to marry, and we just want the same treatment," John said. "We don't want to take away their marriage, just be all-inclusive."

Orange County Register reporter SAM MILLER contributed to this report.
Contact the writer: ccaesar@ocregister.com or 949-454-7309

Outcome in doubt over gay marriage ban. How are you voting?

2008-11-04T14:01:00.000-08:00

By BRIAN JOSEPH
The Orange County Register

SACRAMENTO With election day upon us, the nation will be closely watching California's vote on Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban.

Two other states, Arizona and Florida, have similar proposals on their ballots, but California has become the central battleground in this ferocious culture war.

Supporters of the initiative, which include Republican politicians and numerous faith-based organizations, say they're battling for nothing less than the souls of our children and the stability of our country.

Opponents – gay rights activists, prominent Democrats, Hollywood stars and some religious organizations of their own – have labeled this a classic civil rights struggle marked by bigotry, discrimination and outright lies.

More than $67 million have been raised for and against the initiative, which will likely make it the most money raised for a social issue in California election history.

The initiative always was expected to ignite passions, but the stakes rose precipitously in May, when the state Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was legal.

Gay marriage opponents now view this as an opportunity to overturn an "activist" court's improper ruling, citing a 2000 ballot measure approved by California voters that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

Gay marriage supporters, on the other hand, say it's unthinkable in the 21st Century to eliminate rights already bestowed upon a group. Scores of same-sex couples have been married since the Supreme Court's ruling.

Debate over the issue in recent days has focused on whether school children will be forced to learn about gay marriage if Prop. 8 isn't approved. The initiative and state law say nothing about a requirement to teach marriage of any kind, but Prop. 8 supporters say if gay marriage is allowed to continue in California it will eventually become part of school curriculum.

Recent polling by The Field Poll shows Prop. 8 failing by a narrow margin, with 49 percent voting No, 44 percent yes and 7 percent undecided.

The end result, however, could be much closer as another traditionally conservative measure, Proposition 4, which requires parental notification before a minor child can have an abortion, is narrowly leading in the latest Field Poll, 45 percent to 43 percent.

With numbers this tight, don't be surprised if the outcome remains in doubt past Tuesday. This will be a close one.

Contact the writer: 916-449-6046 or bjoseph@ocregister.com

Should Apple have spent $100,000 opposing a gay marriage ban?

2008-11-04T13:58:00.000-08:00

Lisa Schmeiser Macworld.com

Apple made headlines when it donated $100,000 to defeat a measure appearing on Tuesday's California ballot that would ban gay marriage in the state. But even more noteworthy than the size of Apple’s contribution was the prominence given the decision—Apple posted a statement on its Hot News page outlining its opposition to Proposition 8.

Many Silicon Valley executives have outlined their opposition to the ballot measure, which Californians will vote on Tuesday. Google has announced its opposition to Proposition 8, and both of that company’s founders have donated heavily to anti-Prop-8 efforts.

Still, it’s rare for consumer-oriented companies to weigh in on potentially controversial topics. For Apple to publicly commit to a specific political stance is unusual, both for the company and for corporations on the whole since it runs the risk of alienating the percentage of its customer base that may not share those views. But, some argue those risks may be outweighed by the rewards.

Liz Loden, who heads cause-marketing firm iRainmakers, says that companies typically donate to multiple candidates or special interests. It’s a way of ensuring the corporation keeps its business options open. “They want to promote conversation and dialogue on both sides,” she said.

Taking a specific stance could certainly risk potential lines of revenue. But when a company takes a public stance on any issue, the first and most immediate risk comes not from the outside, but internally.

Take Microsoft, which has long enjoyed a reputation as a progressive employer. The software giant was one of the first major companies to provide domestic partner benefits and to include sexual orientation in its corporate nondiscrimination policy, it’s lobbied against various local anti-gay initiatives and bills, and it has donated sponsorships or equipment to numerous lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender civil-rights and service organizations. But in 2005, the company withdrew its support from a Washington state bill that would have banned discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing, employment, and insurance. The reason, according to an e-mail Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer sent, was the potential for divisiveness in the company.

“I don’t want the company to be in the position of appearing to dismiss the deeply-held beliefs of any employee by picking sides on social policy issues,” Ballmer wrote at the time.

As of press time, there has been no reports of dissent from Apple employees over the company’s donation to No on 8. Apple has described its involvement with the ballot measure as a civil rights issue, not as a social one.

While Apple may see the California proposition as a civil rights issue, some longtime customers do not share that perspective. Former Mac User Group leader and longtime Mac user Allen Hall told Macworld that his commitment to Christianity was a reason why he’d no longer buy Apple products.

Jeff Bell, another long-time Apple customer, plans a similar boycott. “I have no problem with Steve Jobs giving the gay rights movement all of his money but to put Apple Inc. as the donor makes my blood boil,” Bell told Macworld. “I don’t want to have my hard earned money wasted on this cause that I do not believe in.”

However, iRainmakers’ Loden says the likelihood of a company suffering a serious business setback over its stance on one social issue is small. Usually, she says, consumers take a wider view based on a number of different issues. For example, a consumer may not care for a company’s position on gay rights, but applaud its environmental efforts.

In fact, it may be in a company’s best interest to start speaking out on social issues. Loden says that there’s been a shift in consumer sentiment—people like when corporations take positions on social issues because it’s perceived as proof that corporations are concerned with what’s going on in their consumer’s communities.

“More and more consumers are looking for companies that are helping their communities to thrive. Visibility on issues for social good can be beneficial to corporations,” Loden said.

Nov 4 poll is doubly crucial for California's gays

2008-11-04T13:57:00.000-08:00

November 4, 2008

California's fight over the initiative to ban gay marriages (popularly called Prop 8) has intensified.

Proposition 8 on the November 4 ballot in California would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in the state.

A 'No' vote would allow same-sex couples to continue to legally wed.

A 'Yes' vote on Prop 8 would ban same-sex marriage by constitutional amendment, overturning a state supreme court ruling in May that allowed same-sex couples to legally wed.

In a landmark judgment, the California supreme court had struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage on May 16. Chief Justice Ronald M George declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard.

Already the fight over the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in California is the costliest campaign about a social issue in US history. Spending by both sides has topped $50 million. Pro and con ads are flooding state television.

In a poster on 'No on Prop 8', Gurkirpal Kaur Dhillon is seen with her grandchildren. 'My grandkids, Mira and Kabir bring so much joy to my life. Our desi traditions have flourished with my son, Inder and his partner, Ken. But Prop 8 threatens to take away our right to a happy home by banning my son from marrying his life partner. Please help us protect our family and the rights of my grandchildren.'

Mormons Take Gay Marriage Right Away

2008-11-04T13:48:00.000-08:00

Mormon Church on Prop 8: We Oppose Civil Rights (But Don't Tell)

2008-11-04T13:43:00.000-08:00

Rick Jacobs
Posted November 4, 2008 | 03:43 AM (EST)

Harry Truman famously said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

President-Prophet Thomas Monson, the leader of the Mormon Church, clearly does not read history. If he did, he'd know that he and his apostles could not stand behind the stone walls and parapets of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, shoveling cash and lies into California without consequences. The Mormon Church's members have contributed some $22 million into Prop 8, a vicious campaign here in California seeking to strip fundamental marriage rights from same-sex couples, making them permanent second-class citizens.

President-Prophet Monson seems to like "separate but equal," but seems a little touchy when he is called on leading such a campaign. Over the last two weeks, the Courage Campaign Issues Committee has tried to get President-Prophet Monson to stop breaking the Ten Commandments (in this case, number nine, "thou shall not bear false witness") and blackmail. As I wrote last week, the Church has been party to both in countenancing television ads that lie and in allowing a leading Mormon to write letters attempting to blackmail donors to the "No on 8" Campaign.

Joined by Rev. Eric Lee, President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of California and backed by 17,000 signers, we tried to deliver a letter to the President-Prophet last week via one of his temples here in Los Angeles asking him to denounce these tactics. We were denied. So we then worked with friends in Salt Lake City -- former Mormons who were kicked out of President-Prophet Monson's Church for being gay -- to deliver the letter to the Mormon Church's Utah headquarters. As the local NBC affiliate, among others, reported, the letter was received.

In the meantime, Dante and David Atkins, brothers and netroots activists, created an ad that shows the effect the Mormon Church seeks to have on people's lives in California which the Courage Campaign Issues Committee is running on CNN and MSNBC in select markets of California on Election Day. You can watch the ad here:

On Daily Kos yesterday, Dante Atkins also provided a smoking gun memo showing that the Mormon Church has planned for more than a decade to hide behind others in its attempt to suppress civil rights.

Finally, after months of hiding, the Church issued a statement about our ad.

The Church has joined a broad-based coalition in defense of traditional marriage. While we feel this is important to all of society, we have always emphasized that respect be given to those who feel differently on this issue. It is unfortunate that some who oppose this proposition have not given the Church this same courtesy."

Then, late Monday, the Yes on 8 "coalition" -- which is really a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mormon Church with token investors from other right wing outposts -- issued a statement decrying the ad as "bigotry and intolerance." Obviously, President-Prophet Monson got upset that his hands got dirty, so he ordered his minions in California to jump out in front and take a bullet for him. They did and quickly.

The Mormon Church and its very junior partners in California owe all of us an apology. They seek to use the constitution to strip fundamental rights -- in this case of same-sex couples to marry -- away from millions of people. They lie in television ads. They blackmail. And then they invoke their religion to say that they are allowed to lie and hurt people, but not if they are caught.

It's simply too much.

When will President -Prophet Monson and his apostles finally stand for love, diversity and grace rather than hatred, exclusivity and self-righteousness? The Mormon Church, above all others in this nation, should understand the dangers of bigotry. My plea for this Election Day is that the Mormon Church will learn from its errors and lead for equality.

Thirty years ago, the Mormon Church at last decided that it was okay for African Americans to join its priesthood. Maybe, as we see real change in Washington, the Church will understand that it's time now to welcome all people into its vision of America and thereby join America as well.

Prop. 8 opponents gather at Provo vigil

2008-11-04T13:41:00.000-08:00

Sam Scorup | Daily Herald
Utah County residents gathered Monday night to show opposition to California's Proposition 8 and lend support to gay and lesbian friends at a candlelight vigil in Provo's Pioneer Park.

• ABOUT 70 PARTICIPANTS held candles and walked near the edges of the park, including co- organizers David Whitlock and Melissa Poole, and fellow presenter Carole Miller.

Miller, who has a gay son, said she is a supporter of gay rights. She said many gays and lesbians suffer from emotional issues stemming from fear of coming out and subsequent mistreatment.

Poole said the idea for the event was hashed on Saturday when she heard about a similar meeting that took place on Sunday in Salt Lake City.

"My main purpose in doing this, in light of Proposition 8, is that I want our gay and lesbian friends to know there's a base of support for them here in Utah County," Poole said. "Everyone deserves love and tolerance and to be able to make choices that are best for their lives."

Whitlock, Poole's boyfriend, referenced Martin Luther King Jr.'s crusade for civil rights.

"Different cause, same mission," he said.

All members of the community should be treated equally and have the opportunity to pursue a life of happiness, Whitlock said.

Tosh Metzger said all should have the same rights. He believes that high school- and college-aged people have become more accepting of the homosexual community.

"We're here to support people who are against discrimination," he said.

• Sam Scorup can be reached at (801) 344-2561 or sscorup@heraldextra.com

Vote ‘No’ on Prop. 8

2008-11-04T13:38:00.000-08:00

Marriage is about making a real commitment to love and respect between two people. I certainly don’t want to be in the position of denying my fellow citizens rights that I enjoy. Our state Supreme Court has already ruled that this is unconstitutional.

I’m also disgusted by Tom McClintock’s recent comments comparing California’s same-sex couples, many of whom have been together for decades, to dogs. If we vote according to our American belief in equal rights for all citizens, McClintock, and other voices of intolerance behind Prop. 8, will be soundly defeated on Election Day.

State Superintendent Jack O’Connell, State Board of Education President Ted Mitchell, former State Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin and former State Education Board President, Reed Hastings, have joined the growing number of educators to speak out against the deceptive ads supporting Prop. 8.

“The Yes on 8 ads are alarming and irresponsible,” O’Connell said. “Our public schools are not required to teach about marriage. In fact, curriculum involving health issues is chosen by local school governing boards. No matter how you feel about marriage, we can all agree discrimination is wrong. That’s why I’m voting ‘no’ on 8.”

Elyce Judith
Grass Valley

Who Is The Mystery Man Behind Prop 8?

2008-11-04T13:34:00.000-08:00

Max Blumenthal
Posted November 4, 2008 | 02:14 AM (EST)

Who is funding California's Prop 8, the country's most controversial ballot measure? The Mormons' donations are well known, and are a source of outrage among the church's more moderate elements. But little attention has been focused on two of the proposition's biggest individual donors: Elsa Broekhuizen, the mother of Blackwater founder Erik Prince, and Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., the reclusive theocratic millionaire who inherited $300 million from his philanthropist father at age 18.

When I profiled Ahmanson in a 2004 article for Salon.com, I became the first journalist in 20 years to interview him. Yesterday I resurrected my reporting for The Daily Beast, updating it to cover Ahmanson's recent machinations, particularly his role in Prop 8. As I wrote, Ahmanson few Americans have heard of Ahmanson -- and that's the way he likes it. His extreme politics and eccentric personality reveal the draconian underside of a ballot measure billed by its proponents as "pro-family."

During a 1985 interview with the Orange County Register, Ahmanson summarized his political agenda: "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives."

Though Ahmanson's rhetoric has softened over the years, his politics are derived from the radical Christian Reconstructionist theology of R.J. Rushdoony, a far-right theologian who advocated replacing the US Constitution with biblical law. "God's government prevails," Rushdoony wrote, "and His alternatives are clear-cut: either men and nations obey His laws, or God invokes the death penalty against them." Those eligible on Rushdoony's long list for execution included disobedient children, unchaste women, apostates, blasphemers, practitioners of witchcraft, astrologers, adulterers, and, of course, anyone who engaged in "sodomy or homosexuality."

Rushdoony was the father Ahmanson never had, bringing him to radical right-wing Christianity not long after the anxiety-ridden, Tourette's-afflicted scion of wealth checked out of the Menninger Clinic. Ahmanson bankrolled Rushdoony's religious empire; in return, Rushdoony made Ahmanson a board member of his think tank, Chalcedon, which to this day advocates theocratic revolution in the United States. Ahmanson and his wife were at Rushdoony's bedside when he died in 2001.

(Read the full story on Ahmanson here).

My article is accompanied at the Daily Beast by a new video by Michael Wilson, creator of the brilliant documentary, Silhouette City. Wilson also co-produced my video documentary about Sarah Palin's belief in spiritual warfare, "In The Land Of Queen Esther."

On November 2, Wilson went to San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium to cover "The Call," an 80,000-strong Pentecostal rally for Prop 8. The Call organizer, Lou Engle, gathered his troops together for several days of fasting and prayer to stop what he called the "sexual insanity" of Prop 8 opponents. The rally culminated with Engle imploring his fervent crowd to become martyrs, to be willing to lay down their lives for the cause.

The defeat of Prop 8 would be a nightmare for the Christian right. As Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said of the ballot measure, "It's more important than the presidential election... We will not survive [as a nation] if we lose the institution of marriage."

But behind the Christian right's panicked pleas for preserving "traditional marriage" lies a more deep-seated fear. California's rejection of Prop 8 would represent a decisive repudiation of the theocratic fantasy outlined by Rushdoony and mainstreamed by Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Lou Engle and countless evangelical minions. Ahmanson has spent what he could to keep his mentor's dream alive, but the movement's nightmare may arrive nonetheless.

Prop. 8: What If It Passes?

2008-11-04T13:12:00.000-08:00

Reporting
Elyce Kirchner

SACRAMENTO (CBS13) ― California's Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage, is the most talked-about issue in the California election. Support for the measure is trailing by a very narrow margin, so if it passes, will same-sex couples be able to marry on Wednesday?

The answer may depend on how close the election is on Tuesday, and many gay couples are rushing to tie the knot before voters have a chance to prevent it.

Justin Lawson and John Carlos Alonzo said "I do" today after they decided to jump the gun.

"[We] want the legal protection just in case Prop. 8 does pass tomorrow," Lawson said.

Legal expert Leslie Gielow Jacobs says that nobody knows for sure what will happen if Proposition 8 passes, but says the state supreme court will likely recognize the 11,000-plus same-sex weddings leading up to election day.

"It has allowed these marriages to go forward in the interim knowing about this challenge," Jacobs said. "It seems like perhaps the court would not hold the marriages to be invalid."

The Sacramento County Clerk's Office says it's unknown exactly when they would stop issuing same-sex licenses.

"If it's a close election, I've heard of it taking several days," or even longer, said assistant county clerk Wanda Dark. "Once the election is certified and if it does pass, we will stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses."

Gays for McCain

2008-11-03T22:51:00.000-08:00

Nancy Pelosi Against Prop 8

2008-11-03T22:44:00.001-08:00

YES on Prop 8 Official Spokesperson Compares Gay Marriage To HITLER & The Rise of NAZI GERMANY

2008-11-03T22:11:00.000-08:00

I have known about this for days, but have avoided putting it up until now. How can the YES campaign say that what they are doing isn't hate when one of their own official spokesman compares gay marriage to Hitler and the rise of Nazi Germany? Sick and wrong, these people need to be stopped...we don't need discrimination in the California Constitution and we don't need Mormons dictating how we should live our lives (I only am speaking out against the Mormons because they have given over $22 million to the YES campaign, wich makes up almost 80% of their funding...this in no way reflects on the fact that my half-sisters are Mormon and there are a lot of Mormons also agaisnt Prop 8). Discrimination is wrong and in our society we should practice tolerance and celebrate our diversity. Make the right choice, don't legalize discrimination, don't make our children grow-up in a state that approves hating a segment of the population. You know, deep down inside, that Prop 8 is wrong. You don't need to be for gay marriage to be against Prop 8, we should all be against Prop 8 just for the mere fact that it is an attempt to alter California's Constitution to legalize discrimination...our country was founded with the idea that there should be EQUALITY FOR ALL, let's keep it that way! Thank you!!!

Prop Eight Should Be Called Prop Hate

2008-11-03T21:34:00.000-08:00

Jenny Block
Posted November 3, 2008 | 11:22 PM (EST)

I am so angry that I don't know where to begin. I mean, it's not as if I wasn't angry before this. But suddenly, I feel as if I could spit fire. I don't know what the breaking point was...no...wait...I do. I know exactly what it was. It was an email. It's a daily digest I recieve called The Gay and Lesbian Smartbrief. (http://www.glli.org/home) The news stories they share often raise my ire. But this one put me over the edge:

"Openly gay Campbell, California, City Councilman Evan Low reported receiving seven phone calls threatening him with a recall campaign unless he retracts his public opposition to Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to restrict marriage. Low said, 'It is bad enough they want to eliminate rights for people. It is just ugly, plain and simple.'" Bay Area Reporter (San Francisco)

I don't understand. I sincerely don't understand. All I could think of when I saw this email was the wedding pictures from friends in California who I'll call D and E. Beautiful photos of a couple committing their love and their lives to one another. Faces beaming. Hands clasping. Friends cheering. They've been together forever. They are madly in love. They have a beautiful home. D is a writer and E is a doctor. They are homebodies. They are monogamous. They finally tied the knot a few months ago.

They are also both women. As far as I'm concerned, who cares? I mean, really, who does it affect barring the two of them? Not me. Not you. Okay, I take that back, their taxes - which there will now be more of will certainly help the roads we drive on and the hospitals we seek care in. So their marriage actually will help you and I. Besides, now they're coupled off. Two by two. Isn't this what the conservative right wants? They're solid. They're a couple. They love and respect each other. They're the American Dream.

So why are people out there fighting Prop Eight with such vehemence? There are children being abused, homeless citizens starving in the streets, countries struggling for survival. And people are spending their time and money and energy working to make sure that two people in love can't make that bond a legal one? Huh?

That's why I'm so confused and that's why I have such a grand problem with such careless hate. Despite the "God hates the sin, not the sinner" rhetoric. These folks are voting for and donating for hate. H-A-T-E. Hate. They are speaking out and protesting for hate.

They shroud it in religion, of course - though I challenge anyone who speaks and reads Greek to read to me from the original writings of God him or herself where s(he) says that homosexuality is a sin or wrong or dangerous or threatening. Where are these dangerous gays by the way? I also challenge anyone to hand over these predators who are teaching children their "queer" ways and subverting the pristine institution of marriage.

The institution with a 50% failure rate, by the way. The institution which drives anywhere from 10% - 80% (depending on which statistics you opt for) to lie and cheat. The institution that is stacked in favor of men no matter how you look at from life expectancy to housework. The heterosexual community isn't so great at marriage. What on earth makes people think the homosexual community will be any worse?

Studies show that legalizing gay marriage actually stands to improve the dastardly marriage stats - not hurt them. Besides, who gives a hoot? Why do people care who else can get married? How does that affect your marriage? Or, in the immortal words Wanda Sykes, "If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one."

What I'm saying is that there is no institution that needs protecting. There is no group that it needs to be protected from. And there are no cold, hard F-A-C-T-S that anyone can provide concluding that gays and lesbians should not have the same rights as anyone else.

It's like suggesting African Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's like suggesting men and women shouldn't be allowed to use the same water fountains. It's like rounding up people who don't have blonde hair and blue eyes and sending them to death and work camps. It's arbitrary. It's ridiculous. It's based in nothing more than hatred and fear and ignorance. And it's driven by desperate power struggles (church and state, anyone?) and blatant abuse of resources (hello, struggling economy).

If Prop Eight passes, D and E will no longer be married. Their wedding photos will become a farce. And hate will actually be legalized. Legalized hate. Is that really the direction we want to take?

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists,

And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists,

And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews,

And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . .

And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Pastor Martin Niemöller

A Straight Spouse's Perspective on Proposition 8: Why it Should Not Pass

2008-11-03T21:11:00.000-08:00

Amity P. Buxton
Posted November 3, 2008 | 04:08 PM (EST)

Watching the two sides of the debate over Proposition 8 polarize here in California, as I read the papers, watch TV, follow web, and proselytize for its defeat, I'm more and more fearful that Prop 8 might pass and what they might mean for all of us, straight and gay. For that reason, I'm more and more concerned that one particular piece of evidence about a dangerous outcome of its passage has not yet been heard in the debate.

As strong and valid as the cornerstone themes of equality and justice are in speaking against the proposition, there is another compelling argument to vote No that has been conspicuously absent: the lived experience of straight spouses whose gay husbands or lesbian wives adhered to the one-man/one-woman dictum supported by faith communities and society in general and therefore married persons of the opposite gender. As churches and conservative groups bear down in this campaign with their single-minded theme, a look at damage on gay men and lesbians and also on the straight spouses and children of many of them already wrought by the traditional view of marriage as being heterosexual might just tip the balance for undecided voters.

For years, up to two million gay men and lesbians in the United States have followed the traditional belief that marriage is limited to a man and a woman. Wanting a committed relationship and children, they deny or hide their orientation and marry someone of the opposite gender. Once married, neither prayer nor practice changes their sexual orientation. Their struggle escalates, often to severe depression, until many of them come out or act on their same-sex attraction. When they disclose, their straight wives or husbands are typically devastated, their children confused. Most marriages end in divorce, and the children lose a two-parent household.

I write from having lived that experience, watching my gay husband suffer without knowing why. Though traumatized once he came out, I understood how he was torn between who he was and what the church and society said. As I then met and studied straight spouses across the country, I realized that they, like their gay and lesbian mates, were stigmatized, too. They were also overlooked, their issues not understood, as they tried to protect their gay spouses and children from rejection in their faith communities, jobs, schools or communities. Isolated, they coped alone. That's why I founded the Straight Spouse Network in 1991 to provide confidential personal support for all straight men and women who found themselves unexpectedly in this crisis.

Straight spouses have sought SSN by the thousands from every walk of life, race, ethnic group, faith community, occupation, locality, and educational level. I've listened daily for over fifteen years to their stories. Yes, some experiences are amicable and some couples work out a way to stay married. However, most narratives are heartbreaking, from men whose wives came out and left, their children upset and having to go back and forth between the parents' houses; and from women whose husbands became depressed, angry, and distant as they dealt with their internal struggle until they finally disclosed they were really gay and left to be with a partner, the wives now single parents, their children feeling abandoned.

These stories do not demonstrate family values. The outcome of their one-man/one-woman weddings has not strengthened the institution of marriage. A No vote on 8 will ensure that these scenarios will not be perpetuated.

Misplaced Prop 8 ads sparking Google boycott

2008-11-03T21:09:00.000-08:00

1:00 PM on Mon Nov 3 2008
By Owen Thomas

As the election approaches, more bloggers are noticing ads from backers of Proposition 8, the gay-marriage ban appearing on Californians' ballots, courtesy of Google. The search engine's algorithm is mindlessly matching them to phrases like "gay marriage," regardless of whether the blog in question is for or against. Scott Beale, who blogs about Internet culture at Laughing Squid, has blocked the yes-on-8 ads, and, for good measure, taken Google's ads off his site altogether until after the election. He's not alone; one fashion website adminitrator tells Valleywag she's taken similar measures.

I haven't heard of any cases of the opposite happening, but I wouldn't be shocked if some socially conservative bloggers were similarly offended by no-on-8 ads placed on their blog by Google. Which returns me to my original question about these ads: If Google's algorithms are so good at placing ads, why aren't they able to gather whether a blog's audience generally supports or opposes gay marriage, and target ads where they'll do the most good?

(Screenshot by Scott Beale/Laughing Squid)

Proposition 8 is a waste of money

2008-11-03T21:08:00.002-08:00

Updated: Saturday, November 1, 2008 6:37 AM PDT

I am so tired of the rhetoric regarding Proposition 8 I could just spit.

The whole thing is an incredible waste of no less than 50 million dollars. Do we not have better things we could be doing with that kind of money in these times of economic turmoil? Donating it to a school would be, oh, about a million times more sensible.

I have one question for all of those "for" Prop 8: Could any one of you explain to me exactly how allowing two people of the same sex to marry takes away from the quality of your personal lives? This is the United States of America, built on the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness in any way we choose, so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's personal rights. How do these marriages infringe on your rights?

I personally am pretty darn tired of the Religious Right of this country not being content to live their own lives, and insisting on attempting to cram legislation down our collective throats with said legislation dictating that the rest of us conform to their beliefs.

Long live the real America, land of the truly free.

Bruce Riley
Lodi

Sacha Baron Cohen crashes gay marriage rally as 'Bruno' character

2008-11-03T21:08:00.001-08:00

By Associated Press

LOS ANGELES -- Sacha Baron Cohen went undercover as his alter ego Bruno on Sunday by crashing a rally in support of a ballot measure that would ban gay marriage in California.

The British comedian is working on a film based on the fictional character Bruno, a gay Austrian fashion reporter who conducted gag interviews on HBO's "Da Ali G Show."

Cohen, in disguise in a blond wig and preppy outfit, marched with demonstrators who support Proposition 8 while being trailed by cameras in a rally across from City Hall.

When photographers and reporters realized who he was and tried to approach the star, members of his film crew tried to shield him, and he was eventually whisked away in a van.

Cohen, who has made a career out of filming unwitting victims of his fake identities, also played a journalist in the hit movie "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan."

It's Up To Us Now, Protect Marriage Equality

2008-11-03T21:06:00.000-08:00

Gavin Newsom
Posted November 3, 2008 | 03:15 PM (EST)

We have less than 24 hours before voters across California head to the polls to cast their ballots for the most important election in generations. That means we have less than 24 hours to protect the freedom to marry by persuading every single person we know to vote NO on Prop. 8.

Every vote matters in the fight against Prop. 8. All the polls in the past week have shown a statistical tie on Prop. 8 - and we're counting on the millions of Californians who believe in equal rights to be the tiebreaker. The right-wing extremists behind Prop. 8 are filling our airwaves and mailboxes with lies and intolerance.

It's up to each of us to fight back with our own words and from our hearts. Now is the time for you to take action - here's what you can do:

1. GET THE MESSAGE OUT Call, email and text your friends and family. Explain to them, in your own words, why you're against Prop. 8 and ask them to vote NO.

2. VOTE The only way we're going to defeat Prop. 8 is at the ballot box, and every vote will make a difference.

We have less than 24 hours to stop discrimination from being written into our constitution.

It's up to us now.

Tomorrow, please join me, President Clinton, Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Arnold Schwarzenegger and countless other leaders, organizations and voters just like you in doing everything we can to defeat Prop. 8.

To learn more, please visit www.NoOnProp8.com

Obama on gay marriage and Prop. 8

2008-11-03T21:05:00.000-08:00

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Barack Obama has been walking a rhetorical tightrope when it comes to gay marriage and Proposition 8. As a liberal, he can’t support the California constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, but he also can’t make it seem like he’s in favor of gay marriage if he wants to get swing voters of the somewhat-conservative religious persuasion. In words, he wants to have his gay wedding cake and eat it too.

“I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think it’s unnecessary,” Obama told MTV. “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about.”

Google May Hate Prop 8, But That Doesn’t Mean They Won’t Serve Ads Supporting It

2008-11-03T21:03:00.000-08:00

by Michael Arrington on November 3, 2008

Google CEO Eric Schmidt was one of the many Silicon Valley leaders to add his name to the NoOnProp8 advertisement that ran in the San Jose Mercury News a couple of days ago.

But that doesn’t mean the proponents of the embarrassingly discriminatory measure can’t buy a little air time on Google Adsense. California residents who view sites that include Google Adsense ads today are seeing an advertisement that says “Support Marriage Rights - Vote Yes on Prop 8 To Protect Traditional Marriage.”

The ad links to protectmarriage.com (the good domain - yesonprop8.com - redirects to noonprop8.com, which must frustrate the gay-haters to no end).

As far as I’m concerned, we’ll look back on measures like Prop 8 as little different than attempts to stop Women’s Suffrage or the Civil Rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s. Denying a fundamental right to a person - such as marriage - is hateful and backwards. Google doesn’t have any obligation to run ads like these, and I believe they would be correct in banning it.

Update: We’re also seeing these ads on TechCrunch, although we can’t tell if they’re coming from our ad partner Federated Media or Google (FM syndicates filler ads from Google). Trying to take them down.

Update 2: they’re coming through Google, and we’re going to try to filter them out now.

Long Beach rally against Prop. 8 draws crowd

2008-11-03T21:02:00.000-08:00

By Kelly Puente, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 11/02/2008 10:30:19 PM PST

LONG BEACH - With just two days before the election, hundreds gathered in Long Beach's Bixby Park on Sunday for a rally opposing Proposition 8.

Standing on the historic Bixby Park bandshell, community leaders and elected officials urged people to vote "no" on the ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage in California.

Organizers said the rally drew more than 400.

In a passionate speech, Mayor Bob Foster said allowing gays and lesbians to marry is a matter of simple human kindness and understanding.

"I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to that," Foster said. "Everything is tougher in these economic times, and to have a group of people spend time on hate is beyond me."

Councilwomen Bonnie Lowenthal, Suja Lowenthal and Tonia Reyes Uranga, Huntington Beach Mayor Debbie Cook, and local activists, including Justin Rudd, also spoke in support of gay marriage.

Event host Robert Garcia, a Long Beach City College administrator and co-publisher of the Long Beach Post, reminded the crowd that Long Beach, as the fifth-largest city in the state, can make a difference in Tuesday's elections.

"We can't leave this to other cities," said Garcia, who was one of 15 community organizers behind the rally.

Holding signs and banners that said "No on 8," the crowds cheered and applauded as gay marriage was described as a basic civil right.

Long Beach resident Laura Aronne attended the rally with her 2-year-old daughter Isabella. Aronne said she and her husband work on teaching their daughter about equality.

"I don't want my daughter growing up in a society that's intolerant," Aronne said.

Mike Warga, who married his partner of 10 years on June17, attended the event with his 81-year-old mother, Winnie Warga.

"I'm trying to influence others in my generation," Winnie Warga said.

The rally concluded with a quick wedding ceremony between long-time partners Susan Margeson and Kim Dupree.

"I'm still shocked," Margeson said. "I never ever thought we'd be able to do this."

While there were no counter-demonstrators at the rally in Bixby Park, more than two dozen Proposition 8 supporters on Sunday held signs along the Traffic Circle at Pacific Coast Highway and Los Coyotes Diagonal.

Organizers said they weren't aware of the large "No on 8" event in the park and were rallying as part of a series of events throughout the state.

Demonstrator Anna Wong, a Long Beach resident, said she is concerned that children will be taught about gay marriage in school if the measure fails.

"As a parent, I have a right to educate my child on our personal morals and values," said Wong, a born-again Christian.

Miguel Lopez, regional coordinator for the "Yes on 8" campaign in Long Beach, said he doesn't want his children being taught about sex in school.

"I hope we win on Tuesday," said Lopez, a father of five. "Because I'm looking out for my children."

kelly.puente@presstelegram.com, 562-499-1305

Proposition 8 & Gay Marriage: Don't Take Our Marriage Away from Us

2008-11-03T21:01:00.000-08:00

My partner and I just got back from San Francisco, where we were married in a ceremony in front of our closest family. It was a beautiful wedding on a covered patio overlooking the Ferry Building and the Bay Bridge, punctuated by a San Francisco thunderstorm (photo at right by Photographer Nick Lostracco). For two wonderful days, we've be married in the eyes of the state of California.

It's hard to describe the joy that we both feel at this new state of our relationship - after 16 1/2 years together, we're more connected than we've ever been, and are surrounded by the love and support of our families and the sanctioning of our marriage by the state.

If you're married, you know what it feels like - to have those closest to you travel hundreds or thousands of miles just to stand beside you and honor your relationship to one another. To look into your beloved's eyes and promise to love, cherish, honor and support them for the rest of your lives together.

What if all of that could be taken from you by a popular vote? What if an organized religious group could take away your marriage license from you? What if someone who didn't even know you could step into a secret room and decide to split your newly formed union asunder, and there was nothing you could do or say to get it back?

This is what Proposition 8 is really about, plain and simple. If it passes, no other gay and lesbian couples will be allowed to get married in the state of California. And once this discrimination is firmly enshrined in the state Constitution, they'll come after the couples who were married before November 4th.

The Yes on 8 folks will tell you that the religious people of California are the true victims here - that the gay folks are coming after their tax exempt status, their freedom of speech, and their children. But who was it that organized a ballot measure to take away someone else's rights?

You won't find a proposition on the ballot on November 4th to take away the tax exemption for churches. You won't find one to allow people to sue other people for their religious beliefs. And you won't find an amendment to force schools to teach same sex marriage to children. We've never tried to take these things away from them.

What you will find on your ballot is Proposition 8, an amendment to the California State Constitution that's designed solely to eliminate marriage rights for gay and lesbian citizens. The religious right, including the Mormon Church, whose members account for upwards of 70% of Prop 8's funding, have spent millions to put this measure on the ballot, and will spend close to $30 million by election day to try to enforce their own version of morality on the rest of us.

This keeps me up at night - the worry that, by a simple 50% plus one majority, the voters of California will once again relegate us to second-class citizenship - will once again tell me that I'm not as good as everyone else.

My partner Mark and I never asked to be gay - we were born this way, and were lucky enough to find one another in the crazy world we all live in. I grew up thinking that I'd never be able to get married, and my mother, I'm sure, felt the same when I came out to her as a young, gay man.

When Gavin Newsom told the city of San Francisco to start offering marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples four and a half years ago, he gave us an unexpected and fiercely welcomed hope. And when the California Supreme Court ruled in May that we were entitled to the same rights as everyone else, we felt uplifted, honored, and welcomed in a way that we never had before.

On Saturday, Mark and I fulfilled our dream, as we stood before our family and friends and promised our hearts to one another forever.

If Proposition 8 passes on Tuesday, there will be real-world consequences for thousands of gay and lesbian couples in California. For straight couples, not much will have changed, but for each of us who were married since mid-June, our worlds will be torn apart.

So when you you step into the voting booth on California (and Arizona and Florida) on Tuesday, what we ask is simple - vote with your heart, and remember the 16,000 couples who have stood before their families, their communities, and yes, even their churches, and said their sacred wedding vows to one another.

Honor them with your vote against Proposition 8.

--Scott

Ad Watch: Prop 8 ad misleading

2008-11-03T20:59:00.000-08:00

Published: Monday, Nov. 03, 2008 | Page 5B
An ad on Page A18 in The Bee on Sunday offered what it said were "honest answers to questions many Californians are asking about Proposition 8," the measure that would ban gay marriage. Sponsored by the Yes on 8 campaign, it asked voters to approve the measure. An analysis of one of its claims:

Text

"Will gay marriage really be taught in schools unless Prop. 8 is adopted? Yes. The subject of marriage is required to be taught in 96 percent of California public schools."

Analysis

The ad is misleading because state law does not require schools to teach comprehensive sex education. Such decisions are left up to local school boards. If districts choose to offer sex education, they must "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."

Parents have the right to review curricula and remove their children from health classes if the instruction conflicts with their "religious training and beliefs."

– Bee Capitol Bureau

Same Sex Marriages Rise In Past Week

2008-11-03T20:58:00.000-08:00

Prop. 8: What If It Passes?

2008-11-03T20:57:00.000-08:00

What If Prop. 8 Is Too Close To Call?

2008-11-03T20:56:00.000-08:00

Prop. 8 Could Invalidate This ‘Marriage’

2008-11-03T20:55:00.000-08:00

Nguoi-viet.com, Commentary, Thanh Ngo, Posted: Nov 03, 2008

I have been ''married'' three times.

Each time, to the same person.

The first time Andrew and I got ''married,'' we were in a mortgage office where Andrew’s cousin worked. It was March 2003 and we were there to get our domestic partnership notarized and take Andrew’s cousin to lunch. The notary checked our identification and pla-ced a red stamp on a document that both bound and protected our relationship. The paperwork took just a few minutes to complete. We mailed in the document that same afternoon. A few weeks later, another piece of paper arrived notifying us that we were ''registered domestic partners.''

That simple act gave legal significance to our relationship. We didn’t exchan-ge rings. There were no flowers girls or ring bearers. We were in shorts and T-shirts totally casual. His cousin, Julie, was not even in the same room. She was finishing a business call when we filled out the one-page document.

We registered ourselves as domestic partners as a way to protect our rights and give legal recognition to our relationship. Both being attorneys, we were very aware of the lack of protection and recognition of our relationship. Despite being together, then for seven years, I would have been treated as a complete stran-ger in the eyes of the law if anything terrible happened to Andrew. His family could have kicked me out of the house we bought together or even prevented me from visiting him in the hospital. His brother, who called us an insulting term during a family argument, would have had a right to our house. I don’t think my ''in-laws'' would stoop to that level, but it is all very possible within the limits of the law. And, it has happened to too many lesbians and gays in the past.

The second time we got ''married'' was on Valen-tine’s Day 2004. Again, the big Chinese banquet or tea ceremony was lacking. We drove to San Francisco’s City Hall to get married after Mayor Gavin Newsom declared that San Francisco would no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians with regard to marriage rights. We waited for four hours along with other coup-les for the right to have our relationship legally recognized. It was powerful to hear a judge declare us ''spouses.'' Then, several months later, the Supreme Court annulled our marriage, citing that Mayor Newsome exceeded his po-wer to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. So, we settled for the best thing the law afforded us at the time: a separate and unequal domestic partnership. Andrew became my ''domestic partner'' with some limited rights.

More recently, this summer, we got married yet again. And, again, it was a simple event.

There was no ceremony. My parents were not there. My siblings were not pre-sent. My adorable 6-year-old nephew was not able to be the ring bearer.

Like the second time, we drove to San Francisco. We went to the Hall of Justice, which is the criminal court building. As attorneys, we have appeared many times in those courtrooms arguing for justice and fairness for victims. It was only fitting that we came there to find justice for ourselves. My ability and right to legally marry Andrew came a few weeks earlier from the California Supreme Court. It was that court that saw the inequity of denying marriage rights to gays and lesbians. The court, in recognizing the importance of the institution of marriage to society, struck down laws that denied those fundamental rights to gay men and lesbian women. In choo-sing to get married this way, we gave up the chance to have a formal wedding ceremony because we wanted to get married before that right is overturned by Proposition 8. Proposition 8 on Tuesday’s ballot would eli-minate the rights of gays and lesbian to be married in California.

As I stood there before the judge in a black robe, exchanging vows with Andrew, it finally hit me. My dad always told me that they scarified everything so that we can have tự do, or freedom. I always understood that our family had to flee Việt Nam in 1975. We left Việt Nam in order to survive instead of a desire to be in the United States. Given our family involvement in the war, we would have been killed or at the very least been sent to ''re-education'' camp for many years if we did not escape. Coming to the United States had more to do with getting out of Việt Nam alive. Growing up, I never thought about the freedom and liberty protected by the highest law of the land, the Constitution.

My parents wanted to raise their family in a place where we were not limited by our family social status or political affiliation. My parents wanted us to grow up in a country where freedom and justice were not fancy words or abstract ideals. They wanted us all to have the same opportunities and rights to succeed and be happy. They knew it was only possible in the United States.

I finally understood my parent’s sacrifices as I stood before the judge holding Andrew’s hand and pledging my love to him. I finally knew what it meant to be treated equally before the law. I was marrying Andrew to be my spouse, my husband, my partner in life. Finally, we were getting married although we have been together for more than 12 years. We will have the same responsibility, rights and protection before the law as my parents and my sister and her husband. The law would now protect our union, our love as much as my parents’ marriage. If we are lucky, we will still be married 45 years later as they are.

The joy of marrying Andrew was also mixed with deep melancholy of not having my parents there as well as my sister and her husband. Each time I married Andrew, it was more of a way for us to protect each other and our relationship.

Each time we got married, it was not at the most romantic destinations. Andrew and I never had an opportunity to celebrate the love that we share for each other with friends and family. I’ve never had an opportunity to stand before those close and dear to us to declare how perfect Andrew is for me.

As we share the news of our marriage, many friends and family members inquire about the date for the wedding party. They tell me about the importance of commemorating and celebrating our marriage. Yet, any celebration does not seem appropriate yet because in a few weeks, people who don’t even know us may invalidate our marriage. If Proposition 8 passes, Andrew and I will be legal strangers once again. He will no longer be my husband. Any rights and protections we have now as a married couple would be stripped away. I worry that any rights we have under the domestic partnership may also be taken away as well.

Yet, I am hopeful that Proposition 8 will not pass. After being with Andrew for more than a decade †five times longer than many marriages last †I want to honor our marriage in a grand way as befits our commitment to each other, perhaps in an elegant hotel or a fancy Chinese restaurant. Maybe then, I will be able to finally celebrate our love and marriage with all of our friends and families.