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/
Monday, February 9, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
Mormon's Hidden Contributions to Prop 8 Exposed
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 --
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 --
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Federal Judge Denies Request to Keep Prop 8 Donors Private
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 --
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 --
Friday, January 9, 2009
Yes on Prop 8 Hypocrisy Letter from EQCA
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Free No on Prop and Marriage Equality Graphics on Flickr!
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/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bdollproject/sets/72157611848118487/
Monday, December 29, 2008
Free 90 Minute Documentary: "The Times of Harvey Milk"
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!
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!
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Send an email to Obama to Dump Rev. Rick Warren
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
Monday, December 22, 2008
Vanasco: Tammy Baldwin named honorary inaugural co-chair
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
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
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
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."
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
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
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Protests Against Rev. Rick Warren @ Saddleback Church this Sunday: 12/21, "Debate, Don't Hate!"
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.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Prop. 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18K gay marriages
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.
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
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 >>
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 >>
Thursday, December 18, 2008
ACTION ALERT: DECEMBER 20, 2008, Light Up The Night For Equality
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....
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....
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Why We Need Same-Sex Marriage to be Legal at the Federal Level
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.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Jesus Called, he wants his religion back
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.
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.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Prop 8 The Musical by FOD
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
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
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Urgent: Urge your representative to act today to defeat prop 8!
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
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
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Prop 8: DEVASTATING internal memo from the LDS Church
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:
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:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
