THE REAL GAY TRUTH

Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority

2008-11-30T21:18:00.000-08:00

THIS IS A FANTASTIC OP-ED PIECE FROM THE NY TIMES. THE 'NO ON PROP 8' CAMPAIGN LEADERS WOULD BE WISE TO HEED THIS VERY SMART MAN'S VOICE THE NEXT TIME AROUND!!

November 29, 2008

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority

By CHARLES M. BLOW

We now know that blacks probably didn’t tip the balance for Proposition 8. Myth busted. However, the fact remains that a strikingly high percentage of blacks said they voted to ban same-sex marriage in California. Why?

There was one very telling (and virtually ignored) statistic in CNN’s exit poll data that may shed some light: There were far more black women than black men, and a higher percentage of them said that they voted for the measure than the men. How wide was the gap? According to the exit poll, 70 percent of all blacks said that they voted for the proposition. But 75 percent of black women did. There weren’t enough black men in the survey to provide a reliable percentage for them. However, one can mathematically deduce that of the raw number of survey respondents, nearly twice as many black women said that they voted for it than black men.

Why? Here are my theories:

(1) Blacks are much more likely than whites to attend church, according to a Gallup report, and black women are much more likely to attend church than black men. Anyone who has ever been to a black church can attest to the disparity in the pews. And black women’s church attendance may be increasing.

According to a report issued this spring by Child Trends, a nonprofit research center, weekly church attendance among black 12th graders rose 26 percent from 1993 to 2006, while weekly church attendance for white 12th graders remained virtually flat. In 2006, those black teenagers were nearly 50 percent more likely to attend church once a week than their white counterparts. And it is probably safe to assume that many of them were going to church with their mothers since Child Trends reported that around the time that they were born, nearly 70 percent of all black children were born to single mothers.

(2) This high rate of church attendance by blacks informs a very conservative moral view. While blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, an analysis of three years of national data from Gallup polls reveals that their views on moral issues are virtually indistinguishable from those of Republicans. Let’s just call them Afropublicrats.

(3) Marriage can be a sore subject for black women in general. According to 2007 Census Bureau data, black women are the least likely of all women to be married and the most likely to be divorced. Women who can’t find a man to marry might not be thrilled about the idea of men marrying each other.

Proponents of gay marriage would do well to focus on these women if they want to win black votes. A major reason is that black women vote at a higher rate than black men. In the CNN national exit poll, there were 40 percent more black women than black men, and in California there were 50 percent more. But gay marriage advocates need to hone their strategy to reach them.

First, comparing the struggles of legalizing interracial marriage with those to legalize gay marriage is a bad idea. Many black women do not seem to be big fans of interracial marriage either. They’re the least likely of all groups to intermarry, and many don’t look kindly on the black men who intermarry at nearly three times the rate that they do, according to a 2005 study of black intermarriage rates in the Wisconsin Law Review. Wrong reference. Don’t even go there.

Second, don’t debate the Bible. You can’t win. Religious faith is not defined by logic, it defies it. Instead, decouple the legal right from the religious rite, and emphasize the idea of acceptance without endorsement.

Then, make it part of a broader discussion about the perils of rigidly applying yesterday’s sexual morality to today’s sexual mores. Show black women that it backfires. The stigma doesn’t erase the behavior, it pushes it into the shadows where, devoid of information and acceptance, it become more risky.

For instance, most blacks find premarital sex unacceptable, according to the Gallup data. But, according to data from a study by the Guttmacher Institute, blacks are 26 percent more likely than any other race to have had premarital sex by age 18, and the pregnancy rate for black teens is twice that of white teens. They still have premarital sex, but they do so uninformed and unprotected.

That leads to a bigger problem. According to a 2004 report by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, black women have an abortion rate that is three times that of white women.

More specifically, blacks overwhelmingly say that homosexuality isn’t morally acceptable. So many black men hide their sexual orientations and engage in risky behavior. This has resulted in large part in black women’s becoming the fastest-growing group of people with H.I.V. In a 2003 study of H.I.V.-infected people, 34 percent of infected black men said they had sex with both men and women, while only 6 percent of infected black women thought their partners were bisexual. Tragic. (In contrast, only 13 percent of the white men in the study said they had sex with both men and women, while 14 percent of the white women said that they knew their partners were bisexual.)

So pitch it as a health issue. The more open blacks are to the idea of homosexuality, the more likely black men would be to discuss their sexual orientations and sexual histories. The more open they are, the less likely black women would be to put themselves at risk unwittingly. And, the more open blacks are to homosexuality over all, the more open they are likely to be to gay marriage. This way, everyone wins.

E-mail chblow@nytimes.com

FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO

2008-11-24T08:52:00.000-08:00

Click on the title to watch this clip from "For The Bible Tells Me So." Very informative and entertaining - and excellent ammo for answering the questions of ignorant homophobes!

EQUAL RIGHTS

2008-11-21T13:12:00.000-08:00

Click on the title to watch this brief video.

I made this movie for our two year old son, Xavier.

When we woke up on that Wednesday morning, my heart broke trying to imagine a way to explain five million votes against his family, against his parents' marriage. Day turned into night, however, and we were surrounded by a chorus of a thousand voices chanting their solidarity and support. This is the story that I can now proudly tell him.

Watch to the end to see our budding little activist in action...

PS. The song "True Colors" played at our wedding reception, one of the songs from 1986, when we met 22 years ago.

PPS. Watch it in "high quality."

Which side of history do you want to be on?

2008-11-21T13:09:00.000-08:00

Click on the title to watch a brief, video history of discrimination in our country, ending with the heinous Proposition 8.

WHAT HARVEY MILK TELLS US ABOUT PROPOSITION 8

2008-11-21T12:09:00.000-08:00

Thirty years ago on election night Harvey Milk gave an electrifying speech at the "No on Proposition 6" headquarters in the Castro neighborhood of San Francisco. The results were in: Proposition 6 was going down to defeat.

In 1978, Proposition 6 ( "the Briggs Initiative") was the California ballot measure aimed at preventing gay people and supporters from working as teachers in public schools. Harvey Milk was a San Francisco city council member who had been in office for a mere ten months. Through his role in this campaign he proved himself to be more than just an "elected gay official." He was a leader at the height of his powers. When introduced to the crowd that night by Sally Gearhart (another important figure in the fight against Proposition 6), the response to Harvey was thunderous. He proceeded to give one of the greatest speeches of his relatively short political career.

Although there are many parallels to be made between Proposition 6 (1978) and Proposition 8 (2008) there are also many differences. Unlike Proposition 8, Proposition 6 had a name, a face, and a personality as its figurehead in the person of State Senator John Briggs. Briggs came across as a seemingly opportunistic and somewhat ineffectual politician, but regardless of his baboonery, the issue that he and his supporters tapped into -- "gay teachers" -- was volatile enough to find large-scale support among the electorate. Only one month before the election it looked as if it would be a very close vote, with the majority of California voters in favor of its passage.

On the other side, we had Harvey Milk as our figurehead, a "community organizer" who understood the value and importance of a well-coordinated grass-roots campaign. As a coordinated master plan, Harvey debated Briggs in high school gyms and on TV and radio, while an army of well-trained volunteers went about "canvassing" door-to-door, speaking with people on the streets and in the shopping centers about the potential consequences of the "anti-gay" Briggs Initiative. Eventually, enough voters were convinced that the measure was both unnecessary and a possible violation of constitutional rights. Proposition 6 went down by a resounding 59 to 42 percent.   On election night Harvey delivered his galvanizing speech with gale-wind force:

...to the gay community all over this state, my message to you is, so far a lot of people joined us and rejected Proposition 6, and we owe them something. We owe them to continue the education campaign that took place. We must destroy the myths once and for all, shatter them. We must continue to speak out, and most importantly, most importantly, every gay person must come out. As difficult as it is you must tell your immediate family, you must tell your relatives, you must tell your friends, if indeed they are your friends, you must tell your neighbors, you must tell the people you work with, you must tell the people in the stores you shop in (thunderous applause), and once they realize that we are indeed their children, that we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo will be destroyed once and for all. And once you do, you will feel so much better.

In light of the passage of Proposition 8, Harvey's message of thirty years ago remains as vital today as it was then. It is our responsibility to let our loved ones, co-workers, friends, and neighbors know who we are, so that those who vote in favor of discrimination have our names and faces in their minds eye when doing so.

Although Proposition 8 wasn't exactly a re-make of Proposition 6, it's the same disaster movie storyline pitch: any recognition of constitutional rights for gay and lesbian citizens will somehow destroy the natural order and as a result America's institutions -- be they schools or marriage--will crumble.

Harvey pitched a different storyline: an accommodating democratic society based on constitutional principles, including the separation of church and state, and equality for all its citizens will make our country stronger and freer. But Harvey was more than just a good pitchman. He had an innate sense of history, and as a result he made his mark on history. Three weeks after his Proposition 6 victory speech Harvey was killed, and we're still waiting for another leader of his ilk to emerge. While we may not be able to predict from where or when real leaders come, eventually they do. In the meantime, as we celebrate the election of a man whose own parents' interracial marriage would not have been legal in sixteen states prior to 1967, Harvey we're still waiting.

Rob Epstein is the director of the Oscar winning film The Times of Harvey Milk, and is this years' recipient of the International Documentary Association's Pioneer Award.

EXTRALEGAL VIOLENCE

2008-11-14T15:05:00.000-08:00

From wikipedia.org

Extralegal violence

Private citizens have at times taken extralegal action to repress those alleged to be LGBT. In many parts of the world, including much of the EU and some jurisdictions in the United States, these acts may be legally classified as hate crimes, which increases the resulting penalty if convicted. Sometimes, people have been the target of anti-LGBT violence because they were perceived to be LGBT, whether they were or not.

Examples of extralegal violence

Acts of violence alleged or proven to have been inspired by hatred of LGBT victims

The arson of the The Upstairs Lounge in New Orleans, Louisiana on June 24, 1973 killing 32 people.

The stabbing death of Robert Hillsborough in San Francisco, California June 21, 1977 by a man shouting "faggot."

On November 27, 1978, openly gay San Francisco city supervisor Harvey Milk was assassinated by political rival Dan White at San Francisco City Hall, along with Mayor George Moscone. Outrage over Milk's and Moscone's assassinations and the short sentence given to White (7 years) prompted the White Night Riots.[14]

Tennessee Williams was the victim of an assault in January 1979 in Key West, being beaten by five teenage boys. He escaped serious injury. The episode was part of a spate of anti-gay violence inspired by an anti-gay newspaper ad run by a local Baptist minister.[15]

The beating death of Terry Knudsen by three men in Loring Park in Minneapolis, Minnesota on June 5th, 1979.

The beating death of Les Benscoter on June 15, 1979 in his St. Paul, Minnesota apartment with the words, "fags will die" written in toothpaste on his furniture.

The beating of Rick Hunter and John Hanson by Minneapolis police outside the Y'all Come Back Saloon on January 1, 1982. Hennepin County Hospital emergency room staff employees testified in court that the police called the two men queers and sissies while the men were being treated for their injuries.

The beating to death of Declan Flynn in Fairview Park, Dublin in 1983. The murder and subsequent suspended sentences of the perpetrators who pleaded guilty to murder saw the emergence of a more vocal gay community in the aftermath.[16]

The beating death of Charlie Howard in Bangor, Maine in 1984.

On May 13, 1988, Rebecca Wight was killed when she and her partner, Claudia Brenner, were shot by Stephen Roy Carr while hiking and camping along the Appalachian Trail. Carr later claimed that he became enraged by the couple's lesbianism when he saw them having sex. Carr claimed the woman taunted him by having sex in front of him.

The fatal stabbing of James Zappalorti, a gay Vietnam veteran (1945 – 1990)

The death of Julio Rivera in New York City on July 2, 1990 by two men who beat him with a hammer and stabbed him with a knife because he was gay.

The killing of Paul Broussard, a Houston-area banker (1968-1991)

The killing of an unknown homosexual man in Lillehammer, 21st of August, 1992. The police investigations took about a year before Bård Faust, the drummer of the band Emperor, was arrested and convicted of the killing. Apparently the man had suggested gay sex to Faust and after they arrived at a nearby forest, Faust stabbed the man 14 times.

The rape and later murder of Brandon Teena, a transsexual man (1972 – 1993). The events leading to Mr. Teena's death were depicted in the movie Boys Don't Cry.

On March 9, 1995, Scott Amedure was murdered after revealing his homosexual attraction to his friend Jonathan Schmitz on The Jenny Jones Show.

The murders of Roxanne Ellis and Michelle Abdill, a lesbian couple in Medford, Oregon in 1995, by a man who said he thought their "lifestyle" was "sick."

The bombing of the Otherside Lounge, a lesbian nightclub in Atlanta, by Eric Robert Rudolph, the "Olympic Park Bomber," on February 21, 1997; five bar patrons were injured.The death by beating and exposure of Matthew Shepard, a gay student (1976 – 1998)

The fatal beating of supposedly gay teenager Jeff Whittington in Wellington, New Zealand on May 8, 1999.

In May 1999, Admiral Duncan pub, a gay bar in Soho was bombed by David Copeland, killing at least 2 people and wounding 73 people.[17]

The murder of Pfc Barry Winchell on July 6, 1999. He was dating Calpernia Addams, a transgendered author.

John Atherton, Bishop of Waterford and Lismore, was hanged for sodomy under a law that he had helped to institute. His lover was John Childe, his steward and tithe proctor, also hanged. Anonymous pamphlet, 1641.

The July 1, 1999, murders of gay couple Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder by white supremacist brothers Matthew and Tyler Williams. Matthew Williams claimed that by killing the couple he was following "obeying the law of God," because he believed homosexuality violated God's laws. Williams said he hoped his actions would inspire further violence against homosexuals and ethnic minorities.

The murder of Steen Fenrich by his stepfather, in September 1999. His dismembered remains were found in March 2001, with the phrase "gay nigger number one" scrawled on his skull along with his social security number.

In November 1999, Blah Bar, a gay bar in Cape Town, South Africa, was bombed injuring 2 people.[18]

The murder of Arthur "J.R." Warren by three teenage boys on July 3, 2000, who believed Warren spread a rumor that he and one of the boys had a sexual relationship. Warren's killers ran over his body to disguise the murder as a hit-and-run.

One notorious incident of gay-bashing occurred on September 22, 2000. Ronald Gay entered a gay bar in Roanoke, Virginia and opened fire on the patrons, killing Danny Overstreet and injuring six others. Ronald said he was angry over what his name now meant, and deeply upset that three of his sons had changed their surname. He claimed that he had been told by God to find and kill lesbians and gay men, describing himself as a "Christian Soldier working for my Lord".[19]

Aaron Webster, a gay man in Vancouver, British Columbia, was beaten to death in Stanley Park in 2001.

On June 16, 2001, Fred Martinez, a transgender student was attacked and beaten to death by 18-year old Shaun Murphy.

On June 30, 2001, hundreds of soccer hooligans attacked participants of the first Serbian Pride Parade in Belgrade.

The 2002 homicide of Nizah Morris, a transgender in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the mishandling of the case by the Philadelphia Police Department.

The non-fatal stabbing of Bertrand Delanoë, a gay politician, Mayor of Paris, France, in 2002

The killing of Gwen Araujo, a transsexual woman (1985 – 2002). Michael Magidson, Jaron Nabors, and José Merél were charged with the murder as a hate crime, with Jason Cazares charged as an accomplice. Nabors made a deal with prosecution, receiving a manslaughter conviction in exchange for testimony, but his testimony was largely considered unreliable. The jury hung on Cazares, who then pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter to avoid a retrial. Magidson and Merél were convicted of second-degree murder, but the hate crime enhancement was not accepted by the jury.

Sakia Gunn (May 26, 1987-May 11, 2003) was a 15-year old African American lesbian who was murdered in a hate crime in Newark, New Jersey. On the night of May 11, Gunn was returning from a night out in Greenwich Village, Manhattan with her friends. While waiting for the #1 New Jersey Transit bus at the corner of Broad and Market Streets in downtown Newark, Gunn and her friends were propositioned by two men. When the girls rejected their advances, by declaring themselves to be lesbians, the men attacked them. Gunn fought back, and one of the men, Richard McCullough, stabbed her in the chest. Both men immediately fled the scene in their vehicle. After one of Gunn's friends flagged down a passing driver, she was taken to nearby University Hospital, where she died.

On June 17, 2003, Richie Phillips was murdered by Joseph Cottrell. His body was later found in a suitcase, in Rough River Lake. During his trial, Cottrell's relatives testified that he lured Phillips to his death, and killed him because he was gay.

On July 23, 2003, Nireah Johnson and Brandie Coleman were murdered by Paul Moore, when Moore learned after a sexual encounter that Johnson was transgender.

On July 31, 2003, 37-year-old Glenn Kopitske was killed by 17-year-old Gary Hirte. Hirte pleaded insanity, claiming he killed Kopitske in a murderous rage after a consensual sexual encounter with the victim, because he felt a homosexual act was "worse than murder."

On June 5, 2004, Jamaican Gay rights activist Brian Williamson was murdered with a machete, suffering several stab wounds to neck and face.

On September 28, 2004, Sierra Leonean gay and lesbian rights activist FannyAnn Eddy was murdered while she was working late in her office. Her attackers have escaped from prison and have never been recaptured and prosecuted.

On October 2, 2004 two men in Waverly, Ohio beat Daniel Fetty to death with bricks and boards. Prosecuters believe it was because Fetty was gay.

On January 28, 2005, Ronnie Paris, a three-year-old African American child died due to brain injuries resulting from abuse by his father. According to his mother and other relatives, Ronnie Paris, Jr., would slam his son into walls and force him to "slap-box" because he was concerned the child was gay and feared his son would grow up a sissy.

On March 11, 2005, Jason Gage -- an openly gay man -- was murdered in his Waterloo, Iowa apartment by an assailant who claimed Gage had made advances and was killed when he fought with the victim. The district attorney in the case noted neither the victim or the perpetrator, or the apartment bore any signs of struggle. Gage was bludgeoned to death with a bottle, and stabbed in the neck with a shard of glass.

On June 30, 2005, Yishai Shlisel, a Haredi Jew stabbed three marchers in a gay pride parade in Jerusalem, Israel, claiming he acted on behalf of God.[20]

Jody Dobrowski, murdered in 2005 in London, the two murderers were later sentenced to life in prison.

In September 2005, Lauren Harries, a former child antiques expert who had gender realignment surgery to become a woman, her father and brother were attacked by 8 young men in their home in Cardiff. According to court, the youths were shouting and swearing and were heard to shout out the word "tranny" - a term of abuse associated with hate crime.[21]

In December 2005, a Jamaican mob chased an alleged gay man who, fearful of the crowd, jumped into the water and drowned.[22]In February 2006, Gisberta Salce Júnior, a homeless Brazilian transsexual living in extreme social exclusion in the Portuguese city of Oporto, was tortured and anally raped with sticks over a period of three days and then thrown into a pit and left to die in an abandoned construction site. A group of twelve to fourteen adolescent boys between the age of 12 and 16 admitted to committing this crime.[23]

On February 2, 2006, 18 year-old Jacob D. Robida entered a bar in New Bedford, Massachusetts, confirmed that it was a gay bar, and then attacked patrons with a gun and a hatchet, wounding at least three.[24]

In April 2006, students rioted at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica and attacked an alleged gay student.[22]

On April 6, 2006, two American television producers, CBS Evening News senior producer Richard Jefferson and 48 Hours producer-researcher Ryan Smith, were beaten with a tire iron outside the Sunset Beach Bar on the Caribbean island of St. Maarten by a group of four men and two women. The attack left Smith unable to speak properly, having suffered a skull fracture and brain damage.[25]

On June 10, 2006, Kevin Aviance was robbed and beaten by a group of men who yelled anti-gay slurs at him

On July 30, 2006, six men were brutally beaten after leaving the San Diego, California Gay Pride festival. One of the gay men was beaten so badly that he had to undergo extensive facial reconstructive surgery. All but one of the attackers were adults the exception being a 15-year-old. The attackers were charged with hate crimes.[26]

On October 8, 2006, Michael Sandy was attacked by four heterosexual young men who lured him into meeting after chatting with him online, while they were looking for gay men to rob. Sandy was hit by a car while trying to escape his attackers. He died five days later, never having regained consciousness.

On February 14, 2007, three gay men and the gay activist Gareth Williams were stoned by a huge mob in a homophobic attack in Kingston, Jamaica. International human rights organisations have described Jamaica as one of the most homophobic places in the world[27][28]

On April 8, 2007, approximately 100 men gathered outside a church where 150 people were attending the funeral of a gay man in Mandeville, Jamaica. According to mourners, the crowd broke the windows with bottles and shouted, “We want no battyman [gay] funeral here. Leave or else we’re going to kill you. We don’t want no battyman buried here in Mandeville.” [22]

On May 12, 2007, Roberto Duncanson was murdered in Brooklyn, New York. He was stabbed to death by Omar Willock, who claimed Duncanson had flirted with him.

May 16, 2007, Sean William Kennedy, 20, was walking to his car from Brew's Bar in Greenville, SC when Andrew Moller, 18, got out of another car and approached Kennedy. Investigators said that Moller made a comment about Kennedy's sexual orientation, and threw a fatal punch because he didn't like another man's sexual preference.[29]

On May 29, 2007, Michael Marcil, better known as drag queen Dixie Landers was beaten outside of an Ottawa, Ontario gay pub. Andrew Lefebvre and Sheri-Lee Rand have been charged for the attack.[30]

On July 7, 2007, 30 participants at a gay pride event in Croatia were attacked by multiple assailants. The attackers had also prepared Molotov cocktails but were stopped by the police before using them. Many people taking part in Gay Pride marches in Eastern Europe (e.g: Romania, Russia, Serbia) have been beaten after leaving the marches.[31][32]

In September 2007, Osvan Inacio dos Santos, 19, was attacked and murdered in a street near a bar where he had just won the local "Miss Gay" competition in the town of Batingas in northeast Brazil. dos Santos' naked body was found on Sunday morning and forensic examination found his skull had been fractured and indicated sexual assault.[33]

On December 3, 2007, Craig Gee was attacked by four men whilst holding his boyfriend's hand walking down Crown Street in Surry Hills, Sydney, Australia. Part of his skull was reduced to powder and his leg was broken during the attack. [34] This incident prompted a vigil against the rising level of homophobia in the city and alleged apathy from police [35], and despite the attack, Gee and his boyfriend joined the Chief of Parade Margaret Cho to lead the 2008 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade. [36]

In January, 2008, three gay men were attacked in the privacy of their dwelling by an angry mob who had days before threatened them if they did not leave the community in Mandeville, Jamaica. According to reports, two men were hospitalised, one with serious injuries, while another man is still missing and feared dead.[28][22]

In February 2008, Brazilian gay rights activist Alexandre Peixe dos Santos was attacked and beaten at the Sao Paulo's Gay Pride Association offices in Brazil. Activists estimate that more than 2,680 gay people were murdered in Brazil between 1980 and 2006[37]

On February 12, 2008, Lawrence "Larry" King, a 15 year old junior highschool student was shot by a classmate at E.O. Green School in Oxnard, California. He was taken off life support after doctors declared him brain dead on February 15. According to Associated Press reports, "prosecutors have charged a 14-year-old classmate with premeditated murder with hate-crime and firearm-use enhancements".[38][39][40]

In Rochester, New York on March 16, 2008 police say Lance Neve was beaten unconscious because Neve was gay. A man attacked Neve at a bar leaving him with a fractured skull, and a broken nose.[41]

In Baltimore County, Maryland on May 29, 2008 eighteen year old Steven Parrish—a member of the Young Swans subgroup of the Bloods—was murdered by Steven T. Hollis III and Juan L. Flythe after they found "gay messages" on his cell phone. They felt having a gay member would make their gang appear weak and that by killing Parrish they could prevent that perception.[42]

September 7, 2008 - Tony Randolph Hunter, 27, and his partner were attacked and beaten near a gay bar in Washington DC. Hunter later died from his injuries on September 18th. Police are investigating it as a possible hate crime.[1][2]

In February 2008, transsexual Duanna Johnson was beaten by a police officer while she was held in the Shelby County Criminal Justice Center. Johnson said the officers reportedly called her a “faggot” and “he-she,” before and during the incident.[43][44]. In November 2008, she was found dead in the street, reportedly gunned down by three unknown individuals

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND EL COYOTE

2008-11-13T14:14:00.001-08:00

I have been with my partner for 22 years now. We are raising a son, who is now two. It was extremely important and meaningful to us, as well as to our family and friends, that we honor our long term relationship - and our son - by getting married. The night before our wedding, my family and friends all gathered at El Coyote restaurant to celebrate. We had a wonderful time at El Coyote that night and, collectively, spent hundreds of dollars.

Now I've learned that Marjorie Christofferson, the owner of El Coyote was a contributor to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.

I feel violated.

Like I ordered a margarita and a taco, but was instead served the dissolution of my marriage and the loss of my family's civil rights.

Oh wait - that is what happened.

I was horrified to realize I'd funded my own discrimination.

Needless to say, this was a terrible shock. Like buying a hunting rifle for a neighbor, who then turned around and shot me in the ass. I can never step foot in that restaurant again. To me, it's akin to asking a black family to frequent the soul food restaurant owned by a Klansman, or a Jew to dine at the Kosher Deli run by a Nazi war criminal. People who are not gay may construe these comparisons as overheated. Those who are gay, growing up terrified to even hold the hand of the person they love, will not.

Since the gay and lesbian community has been disrespected and marginalized for so many generations now, no one realizes the full scope of the shocking, violent, often murderous discrimination that continues, to this day, to be levied against our people. Even the gay community itself doesn't fully realize it. We've been so busy creating our own little safe havens, protecting ourselves from the hatred and bigotry that we know is out there, that we've neglected to come together as a people - outside of the occasional White Party, of course, or the latest farewell tour from Cher.

But it's serious now, and I think people have suddenly realized it. The bubbles have been burst, the safe havens ransacked. When I woke up on Wednesday morning, I looked into the eyes of my two year old son, just waking up in his crib, and my heart broke. I couldn't imagine how I could possibly explain to him the five million people who just voted against his family, against his Daddy and his Papa, against the wedding where he so admirably carried his parents' rings down the aisle. I could feel the hatred seeping in through the windows of our home, the slime dripping off the walls. I felt victimized. I even considered taking my ring off.

But then the love, support and strength started to trickle in, bubbling up through the phone calls and the emails, and a new determination started to harden in my stomach. The day ended at the intersection of Santa Monica and San Vincente, with my husband by my side and my son in my arms, surrounded by a chorus of thousands, chanting for the restoration of our community's equal rights.

My shattered marriage was pieced back together by that strong, bracing chorus, and a new day was born for our community.

With that new day comes new strength - and new responsibility. Personally, I think the "blacklists" that are being sent around, outing contributors to Prop 8, are a bit much. I think it's time to educate, not attack, and we all know where the education needs to take place. I can't step back into El Coyote for very personal reasons, but I'm not going to picket outside the office of some Mormon orthodontist in Orange County for his $500 contribution. But I do hope Marjorie Christofferson - and that orthodontist, while we're at it - does learn the lesson. She needs to know that we, as a people, are not the monolithic evil her Mormon church has convinced her we are, but rather the individual human beings that have comprised her staff, her friends, her community and customers - those same people that have kept her restaurant in business for years now, bought her house and sent her children to school. Her church asks her to separate the "sin" from the "sinner," because they know this makes it easier to discriminate. She has been convinced that she's supporting the opposition of sin, and not discriminating against her friends and customers. She is wrong, and the Mormon church that brainwashes her into believing this is wrong as well.

More importantly, however, I've come to believe that we need to defend the Mormons' right to be wrong. Yes, you heard me. The Mormons should be able to say and do whatever they want within the four walls of their own church. But that's where it must end. Their specific religious beliefs should have never been allowed to come within shouting distance of the state's constitution.

I was married to my husband in a Lutheran church by a loving, intelligent, devout pastor, who sanctioned our marriage with all his heart and soul. He believes that God was present in that church, at our wedding. And so do I. Nobody - and I mean nobody - should be allowed to mess with that.

That is my church - our church - and everyone else needs to stay out of it. That, my friends, is what's known as religious freedom. Remember that old chestnut? The whole basis of this country's founding? Is this ringing any bells? My Lutheran church does not believe the way Mormons believe, and Mormons don't believe the way Lutherans believe. Or Episcopalians. Or progressive Jews. Mormons don't want gay marriage? Great! Then we won't get married in your temple. You can no longer protest gay marriage on religious grounds. You can only protest gay marriage on your religious grounds. You leave our church alone, and we'll leave yours.

This has all gone dangerously beyond what is already a violation of church/state separation. Now that over 18,000 same-sex couples have been married in the state of California, many of us in churches who welcome and celebrate our love, this has become a matter of religious freedom, pure and simple.

Leave my marriage alone. And, while you're at it, leave my church alone too.

CLARIFYING THE LEGAL QUESTIONS OF PROP 8

2008-11-10T09:15:00.000-08:00

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-liu10-2008nov10,0,3337879.story

THIS IS AN OP-ED PIECE FROM THIS MORNING'S LA TIMES, WRITTEN BY A LAW PROFESSOR FROM UC BERKLEY.

From the Los Angeles Times
Opinion

The law and Prop. 8
California's Supreme Court will have to untangle two important legal questions.
By Goodwin Liu

November 10, 2008

Is Proposition 8 the last word on same-sex marriage in California? A debate that started this year in the state Supreme Court met its latest verdict at the ballot box Tuesday. But in the coming months, the issue will be back in front of the court, which has to sort through two important legal questions.

Proposition 8 adds a provision to the California Constitution that says: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," effectively overruling the court's May 15 decision allowing same-sex couples to wed. After the initiative passed, its opponents filed a legal challenge, claiming Proposition 8 should be invalidated because it was not enacted under the proper procedures for changing the state Constitution.

They have a good argument, but one that faces difficult precedents.

Article 18 of the state Constitution provides that the document can be changed by amendment or by revision. An amendment may be enacted by initiative with a majority vote, whereas a revision must first be passed by two-thirds of the Legislature before being submitted to the voters. (California's Legislature has voted twice in recent years to legalize same-sex marriage, but the governor vetoed it.)

Does Proposition 8 qualify as a revision? Under the case law, it's a revision only if it "substantially alters the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution." Proposition 8 does exactly that, its opponents say, by eliminating a fundamental right for a specific group, and by limiting the judiciary's constitutional role in enforcing equal protection and privacy guarantees.

Historically, however, the court has taken a narrow view of what kind of measure "substantially alters the basic governmental framework." For example, neither Proposition 13, which capped property tax rates, nor Proposition 140, which imposed legislative term limits, were held to be a revision of the Constitution despite their far-reaching transformation of state government. Moreover, a 1972 initiative that reinstated the death penalty after the court had declared it cruel and unusual punishment was also deemed an amendment, not a revision, even though it directly limited the judiciary's power to declare fundamental rights.

Nevertheless, there are good reasons for the California Supreme Court to rethink its jurisprudence in this area. Even if Proposition 8 does not "substantially alter the basic governmental framework," there is no question that it targets a historically vulnerable group and eliminates a very important right. Changing the Constitution -- the state's paramount law -- in such a momentous way arguably calls for deliberative rather than direct democracy. Indeed, as early as the nation's founding, our constitutional tradition has favored representative democracy over simple majority rule when it comes to deciding minority rights.

The second question is whether Proposition 8 means the state must nullify the roughly 18,000 same-sex marriage licenses issued in recent months. Although the answer is not clear-cut, retroactivity is generally not favored in the law because people are entitled to conduct their lives in reliance on the law as it exists today, without having to anticipate how it might change in the future. Same-sex couples who got married may have decided to move in together, to buy property or even to adopt children in reliance on the personal commitment and societal legitimacy that accompany marriage.

Courts have been willing, in some instances, to apply a law retroactively if its retroactivity is clearly stated in the law itself or is clearly intended by the voters. But the text of Proposition 8 contains no clear statement to this effect. The official voter information guide contains a statement that Proposition 8 applies to marriages "regardless of when or where performed," but this language is buried in the fifth paragraph of the proponents' rebuttal to the opponents' argument. That's thin support for a finding of retroactivity.

Why does it matter whether gay couples remain married in a post-Proposition 8 world? One answer has to do with the dignity and stature that marriage confers. Even if marriage provides no greater rights than domestic partnership, a separate-but-equal regime unavoidably signals that same-sex relationships are of lesser worth.

Another answer has to do with the future of gay marriage writ large. Gay marriage is in the cross-hairs of a culture war, and culture wars, both sides know, are won through symbols, examples and personal experiences that shape one's worldview.

Each of the 18,000 same-sex couples and their families in California represents a potential catalyst for broader acceptance of gay marriage. The more familiar we become with gay spouses and their children -- as our friends, neighbors and co-workers -- the more gay marriage will become an unremarkable thread of our social fabric. Proposition 8 may then come to be viewed, in the long run, not as an enduring constitutional principle but as the will of a narrow and ultimately temporary majority.

Goodwin Liu is associate dean and professor of law at UC Berkeley.

Arnold Rocks?

2008-11-09T21:52:00.000-08:00

From the Los Angeles Times

Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up

The governor expresses hope that Proposition 8 would be overturned as protesters continue to march outside churches across California.

By Michael Rothfeld and Victoria Kim

2:26 PM PST, November 9, 2008

Reporting from Sacramento and Pasadena — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage. He also predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have already married would not be affected by the initiative.

"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger said in an interview on CNN this morning. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."

With his favorable comments toward gay marriage, the governor's thinking appears to have evolved on the issue.

In past statements, he has said he personally believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and has rejected legislation authorizing same-sex marriage. Yet he has also said he would not care if same-sex marriage were legal, saying he believed that such an important societal issue should be determined by the voters or the courts.

Following that position, he publicly opposed Proposition 8, which amends the state Constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Today, Schwarzenegger urged backers of gay marriage to follow the lesson he learned as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that were too heavy for him at first. "I learned that you should never ever give up. . . . They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done."

The governor's comments came as protesters took to the streets for a fifth day in a row, sometimes marching to Catholic and Mormon churches that supported passage of the ballot measure with public pronouncements and campaign donations.

Hundreds of protesters gathered down the hills from Saddleback Church, an evangelical mega-church in the Orange County city of Lake Forest, to speak out against Proposition 8. As several thousand congregants attended services inside the church, passing motorists nearby beeped horns in support to demonstrators waving placards that read, "Equal Rights" and "You Cannot Vote Away Civil Rights." The protesters had dispersed by early afternoon.

In Los Angeles, 75 protesters showed up to a demonstration at Lincoln Park on the city's Eastside. They were outnumbered by police, soccer players and children enjoying the park. But organizers called their Lincoln Heights event a triumph, saying the largely Latino community had seen very few protests over Proposition 8.

"My optimistic projection was 25 people," said Robert Olivares of the Latino/Latina LGBT Coalition. "We're hoping that eventually 300 people will show up. For us, that's beyond a success."

In Oakland, a swarm of protesters at the city's Mormon temple prompted the California Highway Patrol to close two nearby highway ramps.

Other demonstrations were planned today outside the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in downtown Los Angeles and at other churches in La Jolla and Palm Desert.

To be sure, not all churches supported Proposition 8.

All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, a well-known liberal church with 4,000 active members, has been blessing the marriages of gay and lesbian couples for the last 16 years.

"The evil of discrimination against our lesbian sisters and gay brothers is still alive in the passage of Proposition 8," the Rev. Ed Bacon told about 1,000 parishioners attending the Sunday morning service. "We will continue to bless same-sex unions here until we can legally celebrate same-sex unions again." His words brought extended applause and a standing ovation from the congregation.

After the service, Bacon and other clergy members held a news conference on the church steps. They were surrounded by gay and lesbian couples, some holding hands, some standing with young children in tow.

"I know these couples. I know their relationships," Bacon told a phalanx of television cameras. "They should be celebrated, rather than disparaged. How dare a religious body say these people are not holy and these relationships are not holy?"

Rothfeld and Kim are Times staff writers.

THIS GAY DAD MAY LOSE HIS TWO BEAUTIFUL SONS

2008-11-09T09:13:00.000-08:00

Sunday, November 9, 2008
Emerging Gay Adoption Fight Shares Battle Lines of Same-Sex Marriage Debate
By Amanda Ruggeri
Posted October 31, 2008

FROM U.S. WORLD AND NEWS REPORT

In less than a month, two little boys in Miami will learn if their foster father can become their adopted dad—or if they'll continue to be wards of the state. Frank Martin Gill has fostered the two since 2004, but his petition to adopt them has turned into an emotional court battle. In a worst-case scenario, they could be removed from his home. The hitch? His homosexuality, which, according to a 1977 state law, prohibits him from adopting children.

While Florida allows gay individuals to become foster parents, it is the only state to explicitly ban them from adopting. Even so, it's hardly alone in attempting to restrict placements to more "traditional" families. Mississippi bars same-sex couples from adopting. Utah prohibits both adoption and fostering by unmarried partners who live together, a de facto ban for gay couples. And in Arkansas, conservatives got the 61,794 signatures needed for a ballot initiative in November on a law like Utah's.

Gay adoption hasn't sparked a full-blown culture war—yet. The private nature of the process and piecemeal adoption laws have allowed it to be overshadowed by its hot-button cousin, same-sex marriage. But across the country, the issue is bubbling up. From courtrooms in Florida to the Arkansas ballot to the Tennessee legislature, gay rights advocates and conservative family values groups are fighting it out.

Stable homes. It's a particularly emotional issue, where both sides say the quality of children's lives is at risk. Advocates of gay adoption, joined by child welfare groups and the American Academy of Pediatrics, argue that it's a moral imperative to provide more of the nation's 500,000 foster care kids with stable homes. No credible evidence shows that having gay parents harms children, they say, and a ban only prevents judges from taking the child's best interests into account. But opponents argue that it's in every child's best interest to have both a mother and a father. Allowing gay couples to adopt is also seen by many conservatives as an unacceptable step closer to allowing same-sex marriage.

If the contours of the debate are straightforward, adoption laws themselves often are not. While three states have laws that effectively ban gay couples from adopting, 12 others allow same-sex couples to adopt. That leaves 35 states where gay couples can't be sure how likely it is that an adoption petition might pass.

Take the example of Michigan. The closest it has come to a statewide ruling on the issue is the attorney general's nonbinding 2004 opinion against unmarried couples adopting. Michigan courts tend to be conservative, which means they are very unlikely to allow adoption by gay couples, says Jay Kaplan, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan who focuses on lesbian and gay issues.

Gay individuals have an easier time adopting because most courts treat the issue differently for singles versus couples. But in 22 states, it's unclear whether the second person in a gay couple can also adopt his or her partner's adopted or biological child. This can leave children without some key legal protections. "Adoption gives the child two legal parents, two people who have to support the child, two people that the child can inherit from. If the parent dies, the child can get security from either," says Jennifer Fairfax, a Maryland-based adoption attorney.

But some advocates fear that trying to increase legal clarity on gay adoption could end up decreasing rights. When Florida state Sen. Nan Rich proposed a bill to overturn the state's ban, she was warned that it could open a Pandora's box of conservative groups seeking to expand the ban to gay foster parents, she says.

Such a movement never materialized, but some advocates say that, in some ways, it might be better for the issue to be decided quietly in the courtroom, where judges grappling with the fates of families might be more understanding. But to groups seeking to ban the option, leaving it up to the courts is not enough. "To purposely create a family that says that either a mom is unnecessary or that a dad is unnecessary goes against all common sense, it goes against all the research, and it goes against 5,000 years of human history," says John Thomas, vice president of the Family Council.

For the Gill household, the equation is more personal. "Whether these kids get to stay in the only home one of them has ever known or get thrown back into the foster care system," says Gill's attorney, Robert Rosenwald, "the stakes couldn't be clearer."

GAY COUPLES BANNED FROM EVEN BEING FOSTER PARENTS IN ARKANSAS!

2008-11-09T08:24:00.000-08:00

AN ARTICLE FROM THIS SUNDAY'S NY TIMES

November 9, 2008
Antipathy Toward Obama Seen as Helping Arkansas Limit Adoption

By ROBBIE BROWN
Strong opposition to the candidacy of Barack Obama in Arkansas may have helped conservatives pass a measure blocking the adoption of children by unmarried couples.

The measure, which voters overwhelmingly approved Tuesday and which prevents unmarried cohabitating couples from adopting or fostering children, won strong support from conservatives, exit polls found. The ban affects all unmarried couples but was written with the intent of preventing gay couples from raising children in Arkansas.

Unlike most states, Arkansas shifted to the right politically in this election. Senator John McCain won the state by 20 points compared with President Bush’s nine-point victory in 2004.

“I think white Arkansas Democrats felt cross-pressured in this race,” said Jay Barth, a political science professor at Hendrix College, in Conway, Ark. “They didn’t want to vote for what they viewed as Bush’s third term, but they also couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Barack Obama.

“One response was just to bow out of voting, and their absence probably helped this proposal succeed.”

Many experts did not expect the measure to pass with Democrats nationwide flooding the polls to support Mr. Obama for president. Prominent politicians, including former President Bill Clinton and Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat, publicly opposed the ban. Critics ran television advertisements of foster children pleading with voters not to make it harder for them to find families.

But conservatives mounted a grass-roots campaign, mainly through church groups, that framed the state’s case-by-case approach to adoption requests as an affront to traditional family values.

“We believe that the best place for a child to grow up is in a stable home with a married mother and father,” said Jerry Cox, president of Family Council Action Committee, which obtained 95,000 signatures to place the proposal on state ballots. “But we also believe in blunting a gay agenda that we see at work in other states with regard to marriage and adoption issues.”

Exit polls found that the ban was primarily supported by conservatives, supporters of Mr. Bush and evangelicals.

After the votes were tallied, adoption groups decried the new policy as contrary to the well-being of children. Arkansas has three times as many children who need homes as people willing to adopt or foster them, said Brett Kincaid, campaign director for Arkansas Families First, a coalition of groups opposing the ban. He said the ban would make adoptions less common.

Arkansas is not the first state with such a policy. Florida prohibits adoption by applicants who identify themselves as gay, Utah prevents unmarried cohabitated couples from adopting and Mississippi specifically bans same-sex couples from adopting.

A survey in October by the University of Arkansas found 55 percent of voters in the state opposed to the ban. But conservatives ratcheted up their lobbying before the election, distributing 350,000 inserts for church bulletins, and the measure passed with nearly 57 percent of the vote.

“I was very surprised that our margin of victory was as wide as it was,” Mr. Cox said. “Our campaign was primarily grass-roots. The opposition was primarily a media campaign. They did everything they should have done to win. But we won.”

The Latest News on the Prop 8 Legal Challenge

2008-11-08T21:36:00.000-08:00

Proposition 8 Challenged
Constitutional Change Would Not Apply to
Existing Marriages

California Attorney General Jerry Brown agrees that the marriages of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples between June 16, 2008 and the possible passage of Proposition 8 are still valid in the state of California and must continue to be honored by the state.

There is nothing in the language of Prop. 8 that suggests the initiative could apply to couples who have already legally married. Lambda Legal is committed to seeing that all couples married in California continue to receive legal protections and have their marriages respected as required under California law.

Lambda Legal, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) have urged the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes. The groups argue that Prop. 8 is invalid because it was improperly attempts to undo the constitution's core commitment to equality and deprives the courts of their essential role of protecting the rights of minorities. According to the California Constitution, such a radical change in the way the courts and state government work cannot be decided by a simple ballot measure. The legal groups filed the writ petition on behalf of Equality California and six same-sex couples.

The California Constitution makes clear that a major change in the roles played by the different branches of government cannot be made by a simple majority vote through the initiative process, but at the very least must first go through the state legislature. Changes to the underlying principles of the constitution must be approved by two-thirds of both houses of the legislature before going to voters. That didn't happen with Proposition 8, and that's why it's invalid.

The groups filed a writ petition in the California Supreme Court before the elections, arguing that the initiative should not have appeared on the ballot. The court dismissed that petition without addressing its merits.

This would not be the first time the court has struck down an improper voter initiative. In 1990, the court struck down an initiative that would have improperly attempted to strip the state's courts of their role as independent interpreters of the constitution.

“If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution,” says Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Jenny Pizer. “Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw. That’s too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters.”

Same-Sex Couples: Denied Basic Rights

2008-11-08T21:19:00.000-08:00

Same-Sex Couples: Denied Basic Rights

OMG!!

Opponents of gay marriage have tried hard to paint things as if gay people are given all kinds of rights, and “moderates” try to say that since many states have civil unions, this should be good enough. Both things are completely untrue.

First of all, gays and lesbians have few even basic legal protections: According to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) which advocates for equal rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people, in 34 states, it is completely legal to fire someone from their job based on sexual orientation; in 44 states, it is legal to fire a transgender person. And with regard to marriage, only one state, Massachusetts, has granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (Since this article was posted, Connecticut has since legalized gay marriage. Yay New Haven and Hartford!) 45 of the 50 states have laws either explicitly defining marriage as between a man and a woman or refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. And, as many gay rights advocates have argued, civil unions are no substitute for the protections that straight couples get when they marry. A report from the federal government’s General Accounting Office lists more than 1,138 legal and financial protections granted to opposite-sex couples but denied to same-sex couples.

If you are a same-sex couple in the U.S., you face, at best, an endlessly confusing patchwork of different laws, rights, and protections, which you constantly have to navigate and which are vulnerable to attack, depending on where you live and where you work. At worst, your relationship is explicitly forbidden basic rights regarding the ability to raise children with your partner or make medical decisions for them.

Take what happens when someone in a same-sex couple gets sick or injured. The HRC reports that the Family Medical Leave Act, a federal law granting 12 weeks of unpaid leave to allow someone to care for a spouse, does not apply to same-sex partners, since they are not recognized according to that law’s definition of “family.” Depending on the state and even the city, hospitals either will or will not let someone visit their same-sex partner when visits are limited to “family” only, or to allow someone to make decisions for their partner’s medical treatment. If someone in a same-sex couple dies, their partner may or may not have a right to inherit their property if there was no will, and might not get bereavement leave from their job. The web site PlanetOut reported that in 2003, Bill Flanigan lost his lawsuit against the hospital that kept him away from the bedside of his partner, Robert Daniel, while Robert was dying. Bill and Robert were registered as domestic partners in San Francisco, and Bill had even obtained a power of attorney to make decisions for his partner, but he was kept away and denied the ability to carry out Robert’s wishes to not have a breathing tube inserted. Lambda Legal’s David Buckel commented on this lawsuit: “When the government won’t let you marry, not even protecting yourself through legal documents will guarantee that the person closest to you will be allowed to be by your side during times of crisis… We are a nation divided by discrimination in marriage—and Bill and Robert paid a terrible price for that discrimination.” (EqualityMaryland.org has a long list of similar cases.)

When it comes to the right to have and raise children, same-sex couples have few, if any guarantees. Four states explicitly forbid lesbians and gay people from adopting children. If you are in a same-sex relationship and you and/or your partner have children from a previous relationship, or if you decide to become parents together, you enter another frightening patchwork of laws and regulations. Four states explicitly forbid the other half of a same-sex couple from adopting the child their partner has fathered or given birth to. And according to the HRC, in 27 states the right to do this is either “depending on the jurisdiction” or there is no clear precedent, which leaves couples in a frightening legal limbo. Even states that allow for gay or lesbian people to adopt their partner’s child have a myriad set of rules and prohibitions that make this very hard. Where these adoptions are not allowed, and one partner dies, children have been removed from what may be the only remaining parent they have ever known, and placed with their closest biological relatives, even if the child has never met these relatives before.

On the federal level, gays and lesbians are not allowed to sponsor their partner, or their partner’s children, for immigration purposes, and since they can’t get married, they have essentially no right to legally live with their partner in this country.

For more resources, visit hrc.org, EqualityMaryland.org, or lambdalegal.org.

OBAMA AND GAY MARRIAGE

2008-11-08T11:10:00.000-08:00

The Huffington Post
NOVEMBER 8, 2008

Pete Cenedella
Posted November 8, 2008 | 10:04 AM (EST)
The Cutting Edge of Civil Rights: Why President Obama Must Lead on Gay Marriage

It was the best of elections, and it was the worst of elections. Like everyone but the Republican base, I've been savoring Obama's stunning and beautiful vistory -- YES WE DID; but there's no denying anymore that the passage of anti-gay propositions is a fat dead fly floating in the middle of the colorful punch bowl.

Now that some of the giddy elation of electing Barack Obama president has begun to settle, a bitter irony is sinking in: the same historic turnout among African-Americans and Latino voters in California that helped Obama shatter the ultimate color line is also largely to blame for the passage of Proposition 8. Blacks voted to strip some of their fellow citizens of civil rights by margins of at least 7-to-3, if exit data is accurate; and a late ad campaign appealing to the religious values of Latinos seems to have hit its electoral mark as well.

Like it or not, we must admit that civil rights were treated as a zero-sum-game here: that in the end, the most startling and joyful civil rights triumph of our history for non-white Americans was in part won at the direct expense of gay Americans. How does this suck? Let us count the ways.

First, it provides a bracing and sudden puncture to the illusion of post-everything politics. In an unfortunate inversion of Obama's most inspiring stump speech rhetoric, we are the United States of America, indeed, but sadly we are also a gay America and a straight America; a black and Latino America and a white America.

Second, Prop 8 didn't merely fail to open up more civil rights; it actively took rights away. This is a dangerous step from a constitutional perspective. A progressive view of U.S. history, in a nutshell, goes like this: The founders and the framers wrote a constitution that in word if not deed enshrined equal rights for all in a secular state, and we keep getting progressively closer to making that equality a reality on the ground. Ending slavery, women winning the right to vote, dismantling Jim Crow court case by court case, and the emergence of civil unions all represent key moments in this progressive extension of rights -- or the progressive realization in reality of the rhetorical rights enshrined in the Constitution. Because the California legislature had already conferred the right to same-sex marriages, Prop 8 represents is the opposite -- a fully regressive view of our constitution, stripping rights after they have been conferred. By actively restricting rights this way, Prop 8 is the very picture of the electoral danger our framers feared -- the tyrrany of the majority against the minority.

Third, it's a trend. Prop 8 was only the most visible of four anti-gay measures passed Tuesday. Arizonans and Floridians also chose to vote their fears over their hopes on this subject. And the sweeping initiative in Arkansas actually denies adoption rights to any couple -- gay or straight -- co-habitating without a marriage license; by the way no gay couple can get a marriage license, so this efectively ends hopes for Arkansan gay couples to create even a shadow family.

There's no explaining the way some people use marriage as an arena for all their fears and their prejudices (well, actually there is; it's called religious intolerance and it should have no place in our country). Not so long ago it was African Americans who were in this scurvy boat. Marriage was the battlefield for white America's fears of miscegenation and the dangers of "racial mixing." Across the south, until the late 1960s, state after state still had laws on the books designed to maintain the myth of racial purity and to protect the institution of holy matrimony from the barbarians at the gates -- namely, the descendants of slaves.

In 1958 a black woman from Virginia named Mildred Jeter and her white boyfriend Richard Loving -- the father of the baby she was now carrying -- decided to get married. They were in love, they were about to start a family -- just like a lot of gay people today. They drove 90 miles north, across the Virginia line to DC, where no anti-miscegenation laws prevented them from being wed. Then they drove home to Caroline County, VA -- where soon, a neighbor disgusted by the sight of an interracial couple called the law.

Picture this scene: at 2:00 a.m. on a July night, the county sheriff banged on their door and arrested them for "unlawful cohabitation." They were informed that the DC marriage certificate was no good in Virginia, and taken to the county jail. They had little recourse but to plead guilty, and Caroline County Circuit Court Judge Leon M. Bazile sentenced them to a year in prison. They were offered the alternative of a suspended sentence if they left the state of Virginia, never to return for 25 years.

These details are important. Because every time a social conservative talks about the good old days of states' rights and a "republic" of different legal systems, this is exactly the type of utopia they're longing for. If you want to get married, just move. Leave your job, your life, your family, your home.

The Lovings moved to DC, where they never grew accustomed to urban life. Six years later they ran afoul of the law while traveling across state lines, and this time they reached out to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. His office referred them to the ACLU, and the Loving v Virginia case proceeded to wend its way to the Supreme Court.

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification," the Court decalred in its unanimous ruling against the anti-miscegenation law. "The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. . . . There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause."

The Loving decision was the death knell for state laws discriminating against interracial marriages. Now we seem to need to learn the lessons all over again. But it's important to remember that without a climate of federal leadership on integration in the 1960s, these laws may never have been exposed for what they were: vestiges of slave time and violations of the Constitution.

Anti-gay marriage laws passed by the states -- whether through legislatures or pernicious ballot initiatives -- are every bit as unconstitutional as anti-miscegenation laws were. But it's in large part the very constituency who benefited from the Court's rulings in cases like Brown v Board of Education and Loving v Virginia -- African Americans -- that has helped provide Prop 8's margin of victory in California. This sounds like a job for someone with tremendous moral suasion and the power of his character and a bully pulpit from which to teach. It is imperative that Barack Obama, as president, begin to reframe the question of gay marriage to African Americans and Catholic Latinos. He must lead on this issue. He needs to help people see this for what it is: the cutting edge of civil rights in America today.

Hawaii had no anti-miscegenation law on its books. But if Barack Obama's parents had met at the University of Virginia in 1961, our history might have gone very differently. That is why President Obama must spend some political capital to make the case for gay marriage clearly and unequivocally to those of his supporters who need help understanding how their rights and their histories re bound up with the stories of the millions of gay men and women who seek equal protection before the law. Casting gay issues simply as civil rights issues, not moral or religious ones, is long overdue.

MORE ON THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CIVIL UNIONS AND MARRIAGE

2008-11-07T15:07:00.001-08:00

HERE'S AN ARTICLE FROM ABOUT.COM, A PART OF THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, FURTHER CLARIFYING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CIVIL UNIONS AND MARRIAGE

The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions
What's the Difference between Civil Unions and and Gay Marriage?
By Kathy Belge, About.com
The Difference between Gay Marriage and Civil Unions
by Kathy Belge

You hear the politicians saying it all the time. “I support Civil Unions, but not gay marriage.” What exactly does this mean? Some even say they support equal rights for gays and lesbians, but not gay marriage. Is this possible? And why do gays and lesbians want marriage so badly when they can have civil unions?
First of all, What is Marriage? When people marry, they tend to do so for reasons of love and commitment. But marriage is also a legal status, which comes with rights and responsibilities. Marriage establishes a legal kinship1 between you and your spouse. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions.
What is a Civil Union? Civil Unions exist in only a handful of places: Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut. California and Oregon have domestic partnership laws that offer many of the same rights as civil unions.

Vermont civil unions were created in 2000 to provide legal protections to gays and lesbians in relationships in that state because gay marriage is not an option. The protections do not extend beyond the border of Vermont and no federal protections are included with a Civil Union. Civil Unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage2, but only on a state level.
What about Domestic partnership? Some states and municipalities have domestic partnership registries, but no domestic partnership law is the same. Some, like the recently passed California domestic partnership law 3 comes with many rights and responsibilities. Others, like the one in Washington4offer very few benefits to the couple.
What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?
Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.
Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:

Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.
Immigration:

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.
Taxes:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.
Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples5. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?

No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney6. There are several problems with this, however.
1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.
2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.
3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.
Defense of Marriage Law
Even with lesbian and gay marriages being performed and recognized in some states, the Federal Defense of Marriage Law prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay and lesbian relationships. This puts gay and lesbian couples who are married in a legal limbo. How do they file their tax returns? Do they have to pay the tax on their partner’s health insurance? How do they fill out legal and other forms, single or married?
Creating Civil Unions creates a separate and unequal status for some of America’s citizens. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court 7 ruled that creating a separate class for gay and lesbian citizens is not permissible and that is why they have voted that only marriage equals marriage. The precedent was set with Brown v. The Board of Education regarding segregation in public education. Ironically, Massachusetts marriage law went into effect on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education.

The United States Constitution guarantees equality for all. As you can see, marriage and civil unions are not the same. Creating equal access to marriage is the only fair way to ensure equality for gay and straight couples alike.

The Billionaire Behind Proposition 8

2008-11-07T14:50:00.000-08:00

The Man Behind Proposition 8
By Max Blumenthal, The Daily Beast
Posted on November 4, 2008, Printed on November 7, 2008

This is ROUSAS JOHN RUSHOONY, a man you're about to learn about. Prepare yourselves...
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://thedailybeast.com/106102/

Among the local ballot measures to be decided on Election Day, California’s Proposition 8 is perhaps the most fiercely contested. Backers of the proposition to ban same-sex marriage in the state cast their campaign in apocalyptic terms. “This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is Armageddon,” born-again Watergate felon and Prison Fellowship Ministries founder Chuck Colson told the New York Times. Tony Perkins, the president of the Christian right’s most powerful Beltway lobbying outfit, Family Research Council, echoed Colson’s language. “It’s more important than the presidential election,” Perkins said of Prop 8. “We will not survive [as a nation] if we lose the institution of marriage.”

The campaign for Prop 8 has reaped massive funding from conservative backers across the country. Much of it comes from prominent donors like the Utah-based Church of Latter Day Saints and the Catholic conservative group, Knights of Columbus. Prop 8 has also received a boost from Elsa Broekhuizen, the widow of Michigan-based Christian backer Edgard Prince and the mother of Erik Prince, founder of the controversial mercenary firm, Blackwater.

While the Church of Latter Day Saints’ public role in Prop 8 has engendered a growing backlash from its more liberal members, and Broekhuizen’s involvement attracted some media attention, the extreme politics of Prop 8’s third largest private donor, Howard F. Ahmanson, reclusive heir to a banking fortune, have passed almost completely below the media’s radar. Ahmanson has donated $900,000 to the passage of Prop 8 so far.

I first met Ahmanson in 2004, when he and his wife, Roberta, agreed to an interview request for an article I was writing for Salon. Their exchanges with me marked the first time since 1984 that Howard had agreed to make contact with a journalist, and the first time since 1992 for Roberta. Howard agreed to answer questions only by email because, according to Roberta, his Tourette’s Syndrome made chatting on the phone with a stranger nearly impossible. He functions “like a slow modem,” she said. Her dual role as her husband’s spokesperson and nurse quickly became apparent.

Few Americans have heard of Ahmanson—and that's the way he likes it. He donates cash either out of his own pocket or through his unincorporated Fieldstead & Co. to avoid having to report the names of his grantees to the IRS. His Tourette's syndrome only adds to his mysterious persona, as his fear of speaking leads him to shun the media. While Ahmanson once resided in a mental institution in Kansas, he now occupies a position among the Christian right’s power pantheon as one of the movement’s most influential donors. During a 1985 interview with the Orange County Register, Ahmanson summarized his political agenda: “My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives.”

The campaign to teach “intelligent design” in public school classrooms, the Republican takeover of the California Assembly, and the rollback of affirmative action in California—Ahmanson has been behind them all. He has also taken a special interest in anti-gay crusades. Ahmanson’s most controversial episode related to his funding of the religious empire of Rousas John Rushdoony, a radical evangelical theologian who advocated placing the United States under the control of a Christian theocracy that would mandate the stoning to death of homosexuals. With Prop 8 organizers claiming in a virtual mantra that their measure will not harm gays or take rights away from heterosexual Californians, Ahmanson has good reason to conceal his involvement in the campaign.

When Howard F. Ahmanson Jr. was born in 1950, his father, then 44 years old, was feting visiting kings and queens and basking in the opulence of his mansion on Harbor Island, an exclusive address in Southern California's Newport Harbor. Howard Junior was tended by an army of servants and ferried to and from school in a limousine. Watching the world glide by through darkened windows, he was gripped with a longing to cast off his wealth and disappear into anonymity. He burned with resentment toward his father, a remote, towering presence, referred to by friends and foes alike as “Emperor Ahmanson.” While Ahmanson Sr. showered local institutions in the Los Angeles area with charitable gifts from the fortune he amassed as the founder of Washington Mutual, his son was starved for attention.

The Emperor’s succession plans began to erode when Ahmanson turned ten and his beloved mother served his father with divorce papers. She died a few years later. When Howard was 18, his father died, too, sinking him into depths of despair. With his $300 million inheritance, he was now California’s—and perhaps America’s—richest teenager. But he was without direction, afraid and utterly alone. The tics, twitches and uncontrollable verbal spasms caused by his Tourette’s syndrome worsened. He could not cope with his emotions and during increasingly stressful episodes he would uncontrollably blurt out shocking statements. Unable to look people in the eye when he spoke to them, he became socially paralyzed. Diagnosed as schizophrenic, he spent two years at the Menninger Clinic, a Topeka, Kansas psychiatric institution. "I resented my family background," he told the Register in 1985. "[My father] could never be a role model, whether by habits or his lifestyle, it was never anything I wanted."

After graduating from Occidental College with poor marks, Ahmanson became drawn to a heavily politicized brand of Christianity that was growing popular in evangelical circles. He discovered the writings of a radical right-wing theologian whose family was massacred in the Armenian genocide, R.J. Rushdoony, Rushdoony’s book, The Politics of Guilt and Pity, in which the theologian mocked wealthy liberals, struck a particular chord with the young Ahmanson. “The guilty rich will indulge in philanthropy, and the guilty white men will show 'love' and 'concern' for Negroes and other such persons who are in actuality repulsive and intolerable to them,” Rushdoony wrote. Ahmanson read avidly as though Rushdoony were describing his own life.

While Ahmanson gave no indication he shared Rushdoony’s crude racism, through the theologian’s scathing critique of “the guilty rich” he began to release himself from the burden of responsibility to carry on his father’s legacy. He promptly sold his stock in his father's company and invested it in lucrative real estate acquisitions, with a goal of earning returns of 20 to 25 percent per year. That assured that his wealth would grow quickly, but it also made him vulnerable to people who manipulated his residual guilt complex to get a cut of his fortune.

Rushdoony’s political ideas provided Ahmanson with a framework for his philanthropic machinations. Describing his philosophy as “Christian Reconstructionism,” Rushdoony painstakingly outlined plans for the church to take over the federal government and “reconstruct” it along biblical lines. He provided detailed plans for how it would provide healthcare, pave roads and reorganize schools, and how it would mete out justice.

Calling for the literal application of all 613 laws described in the Book of Leviticus, Rushdoony paid special attention to punishments. Instead of serving prison sentences, criminals would be sentenced to indentured servitude, whipped, sold into slavery, or executed. “God's government prevails,” Rushdoony wrote, “and His alternatives are clear-cut: either men and nations obey His laws, or God invokes the death penalty against them.” Those eligible on Rushdoony’s long list for execution included disobedient children, unchaste women, apostates, blasphemers, practitioners of witchcraft, astrologers, adulterers, and, of course, anyone who engaged in “sodomy or homosexuality.”

After Ahmanson’s awakening, R.J. Rushdoony reveled in his discovery of a financial angel willing to fund the growth of his think tank, Chalcedon, while expanding the influence of Reconstructionist philosophy. He rewarded Ahmanson’s generosity by giving him a seat on Chalcedon’s board of directors. Ahmanson was profoundly grateful. At last, in Rushdoony he had found the attentive and approving father he yearned for his whole life. "Howard got to know Rushdoony and Rushdoony was very good to him when he was a young man and my husband was very grateful and supported him to his death," Roberta Green Ahmanson told me. The Ahmansons were at Rushdoony’s side when he died in February 2001.

Roberta Ahmanson was not reticent about her and husband’s political views. When I asked her if they favored biblical law as a governing model for the United States, for example, she casually responded, “I'm not suggesting we have an amendment to the Constitution that says we now follow all 613 of the case laws of the Old Testament... But if by biblical law you mean the last seven of the Ten Commandments, you know, yeah.”

The year of Rushdoony’s death, Ahmanson gave $1 million to the Institute for Religion and Democracy, a conservative outfit in Washington focused on weakening the political influence of historically liberal mainline churches. The IRD immediately placed Roberta Ahmanson on its board of directors after receiving her husband’s donation. Ahmanson’s money was budgeted specifically to generate a smear campaign against the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop, Eugene Robinson. The campaign’s spearhead came in the form of a 2004 column by Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes titled “The Gay Bishop’s Links.”

Barnes, who neglected to mention his membership on the IRD’s board of directors in his column, falsely alleged that the Web site of a gay youth group Robinson founded contained links to "a pornographic website,” and claimed without independent sourcing that Robinson "put his hands on" a Vermont man "inappropriately" during a church meeting "several years ago." The IRD circulated the column to various cable news networks, but only Fox News—which also employs Barnes as a regular pundit and host of a talk show—agreed to broadcast it.

Though a panel of bishops investigating the charges discredited Barnes' smear, it helped widen the rift within the Episcopal Church and divide it from its global affiliates. In May 2007, 11 ultra-conservative congregations from Northern Virginia bolted from the Episcopal Church and joined forces with the Anglican Church of Nigeria, led by Archbishop Peter Akinola. Akinola, who once called homosexuals “lower than beasts,” spent much of 2006 lobbying his Nigeria’s legislature to pass a bill meting out five year prison terms to any gay people who dare to gather—or even touch one another—in public.

While the Episcopal global schism represented a towering achievement for Ahmanson, the passage of Prop 8 would be the apotheosis of his long career. He does not seek credit—recognition only damages the causes he funds. Ahmanson derives satisfaction from transforming a nation the same way he transformed himself. “The Christian view of man is that we're not perfect,” Roberta Ahmanson told me. “You don't give to things that base themselves on the optimistic view that human beings are going to be doing it right.”

Max Blumenthal is a Nation Institute Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow whose work regularly appears in the Nation. A winner of the USC Annenberg Online Journalism Award, he is also a Research Fellow at Media Matters for America.

© 2008 The Daily Beast All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://thedailybeast.com/106102/

THE LA TIMES EXPOSES THE LIES

2008-11-07T14:46:00.001-08:00

THIS ARTICLE IS THE BEST! THE SMARTEST, MOST INFORMATIVE PIECE THAT YOU CAN READ ON THE 'YES ON PROP 8' LIES.

From the Los Angeles Times
ENDORSEMENTS 2008
No on Proposition 8
Debunking the myths used to promote the ban on same-sex marriage.

November 2, 2008

Clever magicians practice the art of misdirection -- distracting the eyes of the audience to something attention-grabbing but irrelevant so that no one notices what the magician is really doing. Look over at that fuchsia scarf, up this sleeve, at anything besides the actual trick.

The campaign promoting Proposition 8, which proposes to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, has masterfully misdirected its audience, California voters. Look at the first-graders in San Francisco, attending their lesbian teacher's wedding! Look at Catholic Charities, halting its adoption services in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal! Look at the church that lost its tax exemption over gay marriage! Look at anything except what Proposition 8 is actually about: a group of people who are trying to impose on the state their belief that homosexuality is immoral and that gays and lesbians are not entitled to be treated equally under the law.

That truth would never sell in tolerant, live-and-let-live California, and so it has been hidden behind a series of misleading half-truths. Once the sleight of hand is revealed, though, the campaign's illusions fall away.

Take the story of Catholic Charities. The service arm of the Roman Catholic Church closed its adoption program in Massachusetts not because of the state's gay marriage law but because of a gay anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier. In fact, the charity had voluntarily placed older foster children in gay and lesbian households -- among those most willing to take hard-to-place children -- until the church hierarchy was alerted and demanded that adoptions conform to the church's religious teaching, which was in conflict with state law. The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not mention that the Mormon church's adoption arm in Massachusetts is still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and lesbian households.

How can this be? It's a matter of public accountability, not infringement on religion. Catholic Charities acted as a state contractor, receiving state and federal money to find homes for special-needs children who were wards of the state, and it faced the loss of public funding if it did not comply with the anti-discrimination law. In contrast, LDS (for Latter-day Saints) Family Services runs a private adoption service without public funding. Its work, and its ability to follow its religious teachings, have not been altered.

That San Francisco field trip? The children who attended the wedding had their parents' signed permission, as law requires. A year ago, with the same permission, they could have traveled to their teacher's domestic-partnership ceremony. Proposition 8 does not change the rules about what children are exposed to in school. The state Education Code does not allow schools to teach comprehensive sex education -- which includes instruction about marriage -- to children whose parents object.

Another "Yes on 8" canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings -- of any religion -- could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.

The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it's not public. The ruling does not affect churches' religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn't about a wedding ceremony.

Much has been made about same-sex marriage changing the traditional definition of marriage. But marriage has evolved for thousands of years, from polygamous structures in which brides were so much chattel to today's idealized love matches. In seeking to add a sentence to California's Constitution that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized," Proposition 8 supporters seek to enforce adherence to their own religious or personal definition. The traditional makeup of families has changed too, in ways that many religious people find immoral. Single parents raise their children; couples divorce and blend families. Yet same-sex marriage is the only departure from tradition that has been targeted for constitutional eradication.

Religions and their believers are free to define marriage as they please; they are free to consider homosexuality a sin. But they are not free to impose their definitions of morality on the state. Proposition 8 proponents know this, which is why they have misdirected the debate with highly colored illusions about homosexuals trying to take away the rights of religious Californians. Since May, when the state Supreme Court overturned a proposed ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, more than 16,000 devoted gay and lesbian couples have celebrated the creation of stable, loving households, of equal legal stature with other households. Their happiness in no way diminishes the rights or happiness of others.

Californians must cast a clear eye on Proposition 8's real intentions. It seeks to change the state Constitution in a rare and terrible way, to impose a single moral belief on everyone and to deprive a targeted group of people of civil rights that are now guaranteed. This is something that no Californian, of any religious belief, should accept. Vote no to the bigotry of Proposition 8.

The Priest Who Went to Jail

2008-11-07T13:46:00.000-08:00

This morning on "The View" the ladies spent the first 20 minutes or so discussing the passage of Proposition 8. The first words out of Elizabeth Hasselbeck's mouth were about the "priest who was jailed for speaking out against homosexuality." Sherri Shepard immediately chimed in, reiterating her fears about how - if gay marriage is allowed - somehow priests were now going to be thrown into jail for dissing gay people from the pulpit.

This was their justification for supporting a gay marriage ban.

Instead of starting off the conversation with the subject of, say, I don't know, 18,000 married gay couples having their constitutionally granted equal rights stripped away, they started off with the story of one priest, in Sweden - which was never mentioned, by the way - getting arrested for using his church as a vessel for inflammatory hate speech.

And this cuts straight to the heart of the problem. This topic is so huge, so far reaching, with so many different points to focus upon - and yet two of the four women on this television show panel - which undoubtedly helps shape public opinion - choose to focus on this one scare tactic story about something that happened in another country, with different laws, to one man.

What about all the scary stories that have already happened - not maybe, but did - concerning the thousands and thousands of gay couples and families who have been ripped down the middle, denied visiting rights to their dying loved ones, loosing their homes due to lack of protection from tax laws, loosing custody of beloved children?

We could go on and on and on with truly scary stories about what has already happened to our good and loving gay fellow citizens, right here in this country. These same people that are probably friends with Elizabeth Hasselbeck and Sheri Shepard, who lovingly teach their children, care for them as doctors and nurses, fight for them in court, represent them in the government, deliver their mail, cook their food...

And yet the "scary story" they choose to focus on is about one priest, in another country, spewing vitriolic divisive hate speech from the pulpit of a church and, in accordance to that country's laws, is punished in kind. And how this may or may not happen here.

Elizabeth and Sheri are not alone, as we all well know. There are 5 million people in the state of California alone that would gladly chose to focus on this "scary priest" story, and all the other similar scare tactics, before they will focus on the history of bigotry and hatred - even violent crime and murder - that has been perpetrated about the gay and lesbian community in this country for generation after generation.

Now, here's the real gay truth about the "priest who went to jail."

Where did I find it? From the "LifeSiteNews" website. Here's how they described themselves, with the "scary priest story" immediately following.

The service was originally started by Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), a Canadian national pro-life organization headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Campaign Life Coalition, founded in 1978, was one of the first pro-life organizations to emphasize the international dimension of attacks on life and family. Along with a few other groups it pioneered pro-life lobbying at United Nations conferences. CLC president, Jim Hughes, is currently also vice-president of the International Right to Life Federation.

Swedish Pastor Sentenced to Month in Prison for Preaching Against Homosexuality

STOCKHOLM, July 5, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ake Green, the pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, has been sentenced to one month in prison by a Swedish court, for inciting hatred against homosexuals. Green was prosecuted in January for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality.

During a sermon in 2003, Green described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumour in the body of society".

Sweden passed an equivalent to Canada's Bill C-250 last year -- a "hate crimes" law that forbids criticism of homosexuality. In a WorldNetDaily article, the author quotes from the church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning, in which the prosecutor in the case, Kjell Yngvesson, justifies the arrest of pastor Green: "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but this is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible cites on this topic as he (Pastor Green) does makes this hate speech."

The Differences Between Civil Unions and Marriage

2008-11-07T13:11:00.000-08:00

One of the most frustrating and damaging lies of the recent "Yes On Prop 8" campaign was their claim that civil unions and marriage were the same, and that this was not about denying equal rights to gay and lesbian couples.

This could not be further from the truth.

There are hundreds of differences between civil unions and marriages, yet no one even questioned or challenged those who repeated this lie, from elected officials, to the man on the street to the ladies on "The View."

Here's a bullet point version of the main differences between civil unions and marriage.
All it takes is a simple Google search to verify this information for yourself.

The right to marry is not just about the actual legal ceremony, but an equal right to the extensive list of legal protections awarded to married couples. These benefits given to legally married couples range from tax relief to medical decision making. Civil unions and domestic partnerships may seem like equal unions, but the protections they give to registered couples is often far less than that of marriage.

Question: Why do we need gay marriage and not just civil unions? Here are a few reasons:

Number of Legal Benefits:

Marriage: Over 1,049 federal and state level benefits (see list)
Civil Unions: Over 300 state level benefits. *No federal protection (see benefit example)

Tax Relief:
Marriage: Couples can file both federal and state tax returns jointly.
Civil Unions: Couples can only file jointly in the state of civil registration.

Medical Decisions:
Marriage: Partners can make emergency medical decisions.
Civil Unions: Partners can only make medical decisions in the registered state. Partners may not be able to make decisions out of state.

Gifts:
Marriage: Partners can transfer gifts to each other without tax penalty.
Civil Unions: Partners do not pay state taxes, but are required to report federal taxes.

Death Benefits:
Marriage: In the case of a partner's death, the spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits.
Civil Unions: Partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death. In the case of the death of former Congressman Gerry Studds, his partner of 15 years was denied the government pension that would have gone to a legally recognized spouse.

Child/Spousal Support:
Marriage: In case of divorce, individuals may have a legally-binding financial obligation to spouses and children.
Civil Unions: In the case of dissolution , no such spousal or child benefits are guaranteed or required out of state.

Immigration Rights:
Marriage: U.S. citizens and legal residents can sponsor their spouses and family members for immigration.
Civil Unions: U.S. citizens and legal residents cannot sponsor non-legal spouses or family members. (more on gay immigration rights)

Just as the lies are spread, let us now begin to spread the truth. Let's get informed, so when the subject comes up at the cocktail party, the water cooler or the kitchen table, we're armed with the facts. There are so many out there who are shaping the public opinion with misinformation and even brazen lies, that all we can do is counter with the truth in as many ways as they repeat their lies.

The bigotry and the hatred needs to be set free. Love is no longer enough. We now need the truth. The real gay truth.