What the DOMA repeal vote really means (video Sunday)

Respect for Marriage Act: hearing July 20

The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal DOMA. As the Prop8 Trial Tracker tells us,

Sens. Bingaman and Udall have signed on as co-sponsors of the Respect for Marriage Act, sponsored by Sen. Feinstein, which would repeal DOMA. ...This brings the total number of co-sponsors to 28 and the total number of Senators in support to 29....

It is also good timing as this morning, the Chairman Leahy announced a hearing titled “S.598, The Respect for Marriage Act: Assessing the Impact of DOMA on American Families”, scheduled for Wednesday, July 20th at 10 AM EST in Washington ..

Some of the witnesses are listed here.  If you want your blood pressure to rise, you can read the usual anti-gay screed (Parents!  Procreation!  Religion!) from the testimony submitted by the witnesses against equality.

President Obama has come out in support of this bill.

There is no chance it will pass.

Update:  Follow a live blog at the Prop8 Trial Tracker
Or follow a twitter feed at #RepealDOMA

DOMA repeal a wedge issue--on the other side?

From TPM:

In the wake of President Obama's decision to drop support for portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, gay rights advocates have been unabashed in claiming that beyond the merits of their underlying argument they now have the political advantage as well. Not only does public opinion polling suggest they're right, but the reaction of gay rights opponents does, too.

On Wednesday, House and Senate Democrats held separate press conferences announcing the introduction of legislation to repeal DOMA. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), one of the sponsors of the House bill, was asked whether Democrats were politicizing gay rights as a wedge issue against the GOP, as Majority Leader Eric Cantor alleged last month.

"What do I say to the idea that this is a wedge issue? I say 'Hallelujah,'" Frank told reporters. "The fact that we've now evolved to the point where the Republicans are complaining about the fact that we introduced this bill because it causes them political problems is a great sign of progress. It used to be the other way around.".

We can but hope. I think it will be telling whether any REpublicans sign on. The teapartiers (who claim to support liberty and freedom of government intrusion) have, predictably, revealed themselves to be the same anti-gay extremists. You didn't REALLY think they were different, did you?

Repealing DOMA (video sunday)

Both House and Senate repeal bills have been introduced. They won't pass, but it's a start.

Defending DOMA

Now that the DoJ has decided that they will not defend clause 3 of DOMA (which forbids federal recognition of legal marriages), Speaker Boehner and the House Republicans have decided to mount their own defense with YOUR tax dollars.

The HRC did a poll to ask whether people wanted them to do this. The answer is, NO.


Moreover, the people they polled did not particularly care of same sex couples received federal benefits.

Remember about 50% of Americans support marriage equality, so these polls are not surprising.

So why is the Speaker going to defend the indefensible?

Meanwhile, efforts to repeal DOMA in Congress are underway.

Hearings in New Hampshire

We've talked previously about the efforts to repeal marriage in New Hampshire. And the fact that more than 60% of New Hampshire voters want to keep equality in the Granite State.

The graph at right shows you how many people want to repeal marriage equality (red), and how many oppose repeal (blue).

Last week, there was a hearing. Equality supporters vastly outnumbered those against justice. Word on the street is that there's a good chance that the repeal bills will be "retained", which means, not considered further in this session.

The Governor has also promised to veto any repeal. However, with Republican supermajorities, an override could be successful. (The idea that the Tea Party is only interested in the economy is laughable--they have a strong streak of the fundy Christians, make no mistake). The most important thing, then, is to stave this off as long as possible. People have been getting married in New Hampshire for a while now, and the sun still rises. There are more important things to worry about. Let's make it stay that way.

Marriage repeal not popular in NH

New Hampshire survey shows citizens don't want to repeal marriage. A PDF here)

There is strong opposition to a bill that would repeal same-sex marriage in New Hampshire – only 29% of New Hampshire adults support the repeal of the 2009 law that legalized same-sex marriage in New Hampshire ….“Strong opponents of repealing same-sex marriage outnumber strong proponents by a factor of 2 to 1,” said Andrew Smith, Director of the UNH Survey Center. “Politically, this is represents powerful resistance to changing the current law.”

As Joe Sudbay notes, We'll see who NH legislators listen to: their constituents or the homophobes.

But the "true believers" aren't interested in their constituents. It's why the Republicans in Congress are bringing up bills about the Healthcare plan and abortion, and cutting the budget, rather than doing anything about jobs. Yet employment is the primary issue for the constituents. The overwhelming majority of Americans just want Congress to do stuff that's useful, and to work together for the common good, to rein in Wall Street and the banks, and invest in our future. Instead, we get the tea party. Our representative democracy seems seriously, seriously broken.

Marriage Repeal Bill Introduced in NH

From the Concord Monitor (my emphases)

A bill repealing the state's gay marriage law would use the same statute to prohibit both incest and same-sex marriage.

...

It [states], "The vast majority of children are conceived by acts of passion between men and women - sometimes unintentionally." Because of that, the bill states, the state has an interest in protecting the union of men and women to increase the likelihood that children will be born and raised by their natural parents.

Bates's bill lists the marriages that would be prohibited to all men and women. Besides same-sex partners, they include marriages to their children, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews.

The bill states that any marriage recognized by New Hampshire before the adoption of the law would remain intact. But any same-sex marriage performed out of state after the law is passed - for example, a marriage performed in Massachusetts - would not be recognized as valid in New Hampshire.

...

Gay marriage became legal in New Hampshire in January 2010. Since then, nearly 1,000 same-sex couples have married.

House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt said recently that repealing gay marriage is not a priority for House leadership, and he will ask the House Judiciary Committee to retain Bates's bill until 2012. The final decision will be up to the committee, which is led by Amherst Republican Rep. Robert Rowe. A public hearing has not yet been scheduled.

Repealing marriage equality in New Hampshire?

Same sex marriage in New Hampshire is legal, under action of the legislature. But thanks to the 2010 Republican victory, that could be shortlived.From user jpmasser at Daily Kos:

Already four Legislative Service Requests (precursors to formal bills) with intent to redefine marriage solely between a man and a women have been filed by members of the new legislature. It seems all but certain that one such bill will be brought up and passed in the coming session, vetoed by Democratic Governor John Lynch, and then a veto override attempted.

What will it take to sustain the Governor's veto? Assuming all remaining Democrats would vote to sustain the veto, it would take four Republican Senators, for a total of 9 votes of out 24, or 32 Republican House members, for a total of 134 votes of out 400 to deny a two-thirds supermajority. My understanding is that the former (finding four Republican Senators) is considered extremely unlikely, leaving it to defenders of marriage equality to round up at least 32 House Republicans (and possibly more, if there are Democratic defectors) -- approximately 11% or one in every nine Republican House members.....

[A]re national LGBT organizations up to fighting these bills-to-be before they become law in any sort of serious way? So far I've seen little to suggest that national organizations like the Human Rights Campaign or the Courage Campaign are focusing effort on New Hampshire. Did they fail to learn the lessons of California in 2008, and then again, of Iowa in 2010 where the battle was never even joined?

From notes on their web site, the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry group seems to be organizing, but I suspect they will be outgunned, outspent and outpeopled by NOM and other hate groups unless there is aid and assistance from national groups.

Opponents of equality will stop at nothing to gain the victory they so desire: a rollback of human rights in New Hampshire. It's time for the LGBT Community and supporters to wake up from the pleasant dream that was the vote on Don't Ask, Don't Tell's still-to-be-realized repeal and smell the stench that is about to rise in New Hampshire. However badly I mix metaphors.

It ain't over even when we think we win.

The Prop8 report: how we lost the election (video)

Regardless of the decision in federal court, our movement continues to suffer at the ballot box. At some level, until we achieve the voters' support, the criticism of "activist judges" and "ignoring the will of the people" will be used against us.

Right now, support for marriage equality in California is around 51%. That sounds terrific, until you remember that it was also at 51% six months before Prop8 passed. So we are back where we started.

So how did we lose the election? A new report examines what happened to shift our narrow victory to a sound defeat. Dave Fleischer, the author has an oped in the LA Times summarizing his findings.
The executive summary has the précis.

Notably, we were outplayed by the bad guys. As we all know by now, we didn't lose the African-American religious community--we never had them to lose. We lost the white soccer Moms who were terrorized by propaganda that their kindergarteners were going to be taught how to have gay sex if Adam wed Steve. Those were the biggest reasons for the loss, along with mis-management by the No-on-8 people, and a terror of mentioning the word "gay".

THe Advocate details what this means:

[P]arents with children under 18 living at home played a potentially decisive role in the passage of Prop. 8, constituting more than three quarters of nearly 700,000 voters, most of them white Democrats, who switched sides in the most heated days of the campaign and voted to oppose same-sex marriage. Given that Prop. 8 passed by 52% to 48%, or a margin of nearly 600,000 votes, parents and like-minded voters could have swung the contest at the last minute, the report suggests.

The report doesn't pull any punches in pointing out that we were (in Prop8) and continue to be (e.g., in Maine's Question 1) outplayed by totally predictable campaign strategies of the opposition. I think many of us found the Maine campaign depressing, because the anti-equality side ran exactly the same ads as they ran in California (literally the same, in many cases ) and STILL our side hadn't figured out how to respond.

Unless and until we can spike the guns of this argument, and respond forcefully (or better, pre-empt it) we will continue to lose people in the middle who SHOULD be our supporters. And that 51% "support" will continue to be too soft to count on.

No Prop8 repeal in 2010

From the LA Times:

A measure to repeal Proposition 8, the anti-gay-marriage initiative, has failed to qualify for the November ballot.

John Henning, who heads a group that sponsored the repeal effort, declined to say how many signatures were gathered since the all-volunteer campaign got underway in late November.....

"There comes a point where the intake of signatures isn't rapid enough to make up your deficit," Henning said. "We started to realize last week that we weren't going to make it."

He said his group, Love Honor Cherish, will work with other activists to put a repeal measure on the November 2012 ballot.

This is not a surprise. The Big Groups--Courage Campaign, and Equality CA--long ago decided that 2012 made more sense. First, because of the need to educate the public and build bridges with other groups, including communities of faith and communities of color. Second, because turnout is better in a presidential year, especially among the young who are a key constituent of the repeal campaign. And third, economically--no one has any money left. So Love Honor Cherish was on its own, climbing uphill.

Several California polls have come out recently suggesting that support for marriage equality is now about 50%. That sounds great, except you have to remember that the polls also showed Prop8 going down in defeat. There is apparently a Bradley effect around marriage equality, as the polls routinely overstate support for marriage equality.

So I'd like to see that support a lot further north among likely voters before we go back to the polls. Meanwhile, educate, educate, educate.

Courage Campaign withdraws from 2010 repeal campaign

From their press release

The Courage Campaign today called for more research and time to change hearts and minds before returning to the ballot to restore marriage for gay and lesbian couples in California....

Jacobs hailed the work being done in the field by grassroots activists, saying, “We must build our ultimate victory from the lessons of our recent disappointments,” continued Jacobs. “We know that we can change hearts and minds through real conversations with our friends, family, co-workers and neighbors. This takes time and has to be built to scale — so we can’t delay. When we go back to the ballot, we must be strong, clear and embracing.”

Equality CA is also focussing on 2012.

Painful as it is, I think they are right. But that doesn't mean we won't get out there to start the conversation. Because waiting for justice is just not enough.

And why is this taking time? Here's a great article from The Democratic Strategist:

We are losing because we are not persuading swing voters, yes. But that does not mean they cannot be persuaded. People change their views on this issue all the time, as family members and friends respond to a LGBT person’s coming out, or as church congregations vote to become open and affirming. Sometimes it takes years and sometimes it takes weeks. Rarely does it happen without a mixture of love, pain and patience. In these more intimate contexts, we call it transformation rather than “persuasion” and it doesn’t happen due to canvassing and phonebanking. It happens when the truths of someone’s life transcend the doctrine they believe in. Some parts of this process we can map and some remain mysterious to us. It is, after all, the work of the heart we are talking about here....
First, an election cycle is not long enough to completely change someone’s mind about a deeply-held belief, or a conflicted one.

Second, we rely on ineffective methods for persuasion. Scripted, one-off interactions with strangers are simply not going to change people’s minds.

Third, in our strategies and national rhetoric, we make the mistake of treating swing voters, in both subtle and explicit ways, as if they are bigots.

Fourth, we present swing voters with a falsely dichotomous choice – vote no or yes – and then we abandon efforts to personally communicate with swing voters in the final month of the campaign, the period of time during which they are actually making up their mind.

Repeal Prop8: it begins

It's begun. Today, Love Honor Cherish submitted ballot language to repeal Proposition H8 in 2010. The first moves are supported by Yes on Equality , who developed the Get-to-know-us-first campaign. Courage Campaign is working on language as well. Equality CA isn't on board with the timing, but is working on the language, with the idea that we all have to be behind whatever happens.

This amendment would amend an existing section of the California Constitution. Existing language proposed to be deleted is printed in strikeout type. Language proposed to be added is printed in underlined type.

Section 1. To protect religious freedom, no court shall interpret this measure to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person authorized to perform marriages by any religious denomination, church, or other non-profit religious institution to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution.

Section 2. To provide for fairness in the government’s issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

It's begun. What are you gonna do about it?

First suggestion: HELP MAINE. Our case is strengthened if our east coast friends can preserve equality. Get there and protect equality in Maine.

Second suggestion: HELP WASHINGTON. It's not marriage, but the bad guys are attacking like it is. Approve 71.

Third suggestion: COME OUT COME OUT WHEREVER YOU ARE: as a GLBT person, or an ally. Start the conversation, and get started. Join the repeal effort.

Overturn hate.

By the numbers in 2010?

Markos (of Daily Kos) points at Nate Silver's regression analysis and new polling numbers to say that repeal of Prop H8 in 2010 is doable.

If you voted in the 2008 election last November did you vote for or against Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage?

For 51
Against 45
Did not vote 4

As you may know the 2010 ballot may feature an initiative which if passed would allow for same-sex marriage in California. If you were voting today on such an initiative would you vote for or against allowing same-sex marriage in California?

For 47
Against 48
Not sure 5

In the first question, "For" is against gay marriage, in the second, it's for it. In short, support for gay marriage is up 2 points, while opposition is down from 51 percent to 48 percent. That's a five point drop. For a ballot initiative that passed by a scant 4.48 points, that turns this effort into a toss-up.

Well.....

Do we or don't we?

EQCA and Courage Campaign, can you PLEASE GET IT TOGETHER for 2012?

EQCA made an announcement today that they are going to focus on repealing Prop8 in 2012. They have a report outlining their reasons, and while emotionally I want it repealed NOW, they make a good case for the reality on the ground. We want to win, and there isn't enough time or money to win in 2010.

Okay?

Well, NO, because the Courage Campaign is still going after 2010.

As the news report says,

California gay rights groups are at odds over when to ask voters to repeal the state's same-sex marriage ban, with one of the largest organizations saying Wednesday it would wait until 2012 and another announcing it would shoot for 2010...... Equality California, said Wednesday that holding off gives organizers more time to raise money and canvass voters. The group said turnout in a presidential election year will be higher than in next year's gubernatorial race and include more young people who tend to favor gay marriage.

"Emotionally, we all want to win marriage back as quickly as possible," said Marc Solomon, Equality California's marriage director. "We really think that we have a shot in the next three years. But we have one shot, we don't have two shots. We're not waiting at all. We're going hard. But we think the campaign is a three-year campaign."

Meanwhile, Los Angeles-based Courage Campaign announced in an e-mail to supporters Wednesday it would push to get a measure on the 2010 ballot.

Okay, I've HAD it with you guys. This free-lancing running around emotional stuff is crap. We lost the election the last time, in part because of complancy and emotion, and we are going to lose it again without a focused, disciplined, organized and well-funded campaign. This heart-on-the-sleeve grass roots stuff is not going to change the fact that APPROVAL FOR GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT MOVING. If we don't have EQCA and the big donors AND the faith groups and people of color convinced (when they are on our side already!) how the hell do you expect to convince anyone else? We didn't change any minds from November till now. And running around crazy isn't going to make it happen. Plus, on the ballot for a sure-loss in 2010 isn't going to help.

SO here is IT's route to success:
1). GET IT TOGETHER. Unify. ORGANIZE YOURSELVES, dammit! I want to see a disciplined, focused campaign, not a bunch of loose cannons rolling into each other.
2). identify the language. I think a "religious exemption" is going to be essential (I'll post on this later).
3). WORK in other states to keep marriage legal in Maine, and to support DP's in Washington. Learn from their experience. Use it.
4). Continue the necessary and hard work of coming out and talking and talking some more.

The enemy is already organized and ready. And they are licking their chops over attacking us again. We have to be ready this time and....sorry Rick Jacobs....we're NOT.

To repeal Prop8, we need EVERYONE.

From Pam's HOuse Blend:

One of the key issues that I continue to see is the total unwillingness to listen to each other.  This next campaign is supposed to be about changing hearts and minds among the electorate.  Yet in meeting after meeting we do not listen well to each other and from that springs growing animosity towards other LGBT people.  So without these skills how in the hell are we supposed to listen to the California electorate who does not agree with us right now?  

Does anyone truly think that by just showing up on people’s doorsteps they will welcome us in and want to hear our stories?  These conversations require the ability to listen to other people’s beliefs and not just maintain a superior attitude that we know best how people should vote.  Do we magically take the place of their clerics or their religious community?  
.....
  A lot of paens I have read about going in 2010 have not dealt at all with the issue of people of color in California.  Just in case you missed the demographics on the Golden State, we are a majority minority state.  The majority of people in California are minorities, primarily Latino.  So to have these opinions completely skip over the statement made by people of color organizations, the Prepare to Prevail, does not take into full account the true demography here.  

Along the same lines, Karen Ocamb’s post at the Bilerico Project:

The real problem, from my perspective, is that right now - and for the past seven months - the acrimony among institutional leaders and grassroots activists is only deepening. It's as if all the 8hate has been turned inward - we are the enemy, anyone who is not immediately, completely, absolutely with us now and forever more......

It seems to me that the first step to winning back marriage equality is finding a mediator who can help this community find common ground and learn to keep our eye on the prize so we can move forward together. There are now so many LGBT folk who want to be leaders - let this be their first real test of leadership: find a way to bring us together.

And that means everyone: people of color, well off "high gays" from LA and SF, average couples, our families, friends, and co-workers, people of faith and supporters of justice. EVERYONE. No more circular firing squads, dammit!

Over at Unite the Fight, the San Bernardino summit is viewed as an utter failure and calls all of us to task.

Our community has splintered into factions lead by no one, going in all different directions with various agendas, some with good intentions, but many motivated by egos in attempt to out maneuver the other, causing us to fight each other instead of those who have taken away our rights. And why? Because our leadership once failed us in a disastrous campaign which ended not with rights being denied us, but rights we enjoyed being stripped away from us, leaving us naked and exposed. And now we're so anti-leadership, we have spiraled into a quagmire of anarchy with no visible way out. ("The Tyranny of Structurelessness.")
.....
First, we're not done grieving our loss brought upon us by Prop 8. The full scope of its damage has yet to be seen by us because we're still too close to it. ....

Second, we have become what we've hated. Right after the election, we were right to be angry at our leadership. We were right to demand accountability, something that was missing during the campaign. We were right to demand an apology for such a historical mishap, which has failed to occur. But we have taken it too far and for too long.....

But also in this short amount of time, we have failed to see the new leadership for what it is. Accountable to us. Open. Willing to listen. Vocal. And all this almost to a fault. ....

Rick Jacobs of Courage Campaign, whom I admire and for whom I hold deep respect, needs to stop dissing EQCA in the press. Rick needs to sit down with Marc Solomon, EQCA Marriage Director, and work it out..... Marc has, since his arrival, done great work for the community, including marriage efforts, and for me, has restored EQCA's respect, but he has also done his share of pulling the rug out from Courage Campaign in an effort to stay relevant.

I call out Love Honor Cherish for steamrolling their position and strong-arming many in the community to follow them or take the highway. I call out the Prepare to Prevail Coalition for its tendency in the past to be isolationists and not truly engaging in discussion (at one point, yes, they were stonewalled out, but that is not the case anymore and they need to engage, especially if invited to discuss their views). I call out the grassroots activists and community organizers - YOU ARE NOT EXPERTS. Stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater and LISTEN.
.....
Trust the leadership again. Trust that they'll make the best decisions they can with the community in mind. Then shut up, get in line and get to work. We have our rights to win back.

We'll know this week whether there is enough OOMPH in the movement to make it happen in 2010. The Courage Campaign put up a challenge grant to see if people would donate $$$$. My bet? No, there isn't the heart for it. People are trying to save their money for the community needs, in a time of extreme hardship. It needn't have been this way. I'm extremely disappointed in the failure of the anti-H8 people to coalesce in the sharp, disciplined organization that is essential for victory. As they all run around competing for credit, there is no sign of coordination, or focus. At the local Pride, there were at least 3 if not 4 different groups advocating repeal of H8, with no consistent graphic or message.

Hard as it is to take, WE lost the election, and frankly I don't see us anything like grown-up enough to win the next one. And that makes me sad and angry and incredibly frustrated.

Update: From Queerty, saying it'll be 2012:

You see, there are two warring camps in this strategy decision: The old guard, made up of wealthy donors and political strategists who don't want to have to pay for two repeal efforts if 2010 fails, and the new breed of younger grassroots-y activists, who are all like, "Why wait for our rights?," which is a pretty basic question, but the folks asking have terrible FICO scores and will only be contributing $10 to the cause, not $100,000.

So, about that repeal of Prop8....

Reported in the SF Chronicle last weekend, the No-on-8 campaigns are organizing for 2010. Maybe.

As I've commented here many times, it's beyond time for these guys to get themselves together. EQ-CA and Courage Campaign and others are all working on this. The energy is good, but what is not good is seeing 3 or 4 different booths at the pride parade which argues lack of coordination.

As the Chron says

Oh, yeah. And they still need a leader. And a leadership structure. And a decision-making process.

With that in mind, here's a juicy rumor for you: Would President Obama confidante Steve Hildebrand be interested in coming out to California to lead the next same sex marriage ballot iniative campaign?
......
"The Courage Campaign proposes these four principles for a campaign to win marriage equality:

1) Our campaign to win must begin now, regardless of when we put marriage equality on the ballot.
2) To unite the strength of activists across California, the campaign must be independent, accountable, and not dominated by any one organization.
3) To gain the trust and full commitment of supporters, the campaign needs a representative and functional governance structure.
4) Victory on election day requires a strong, experienced campaign manager who knows California well and has won battles like this before. Our opposition is well-organized, and we need exceptional leadership on our side to prevail."

So as I reported a while ago, some parts of the movement are suggesting we wait till 2012. The NY Times explains:

Under California law, language for a 2010 proposition would need to be submitted to the secretary of state by late September, and then some 700,000 signatures gathered to qualify for the ballot.

Opponents of the 2010 campaign say that window is simply too small to change the opinions of enough voters to win, including groups in which Proposition 8 was popular, like African-Americans, religious conservatives and the elderly.

“What we’ve learned is that yes, you can change hearts and minds, but it takes time, focused energy, and money,” said Matt Foreman, the program director of the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, a frequent donor to gay rights causes. “And once a measure is on the ballot and the campaign begins, its almost impossible to change anyone’s mind, because people are being bombarded with lies.”

I'm going to make a bet with you, based on these articles and the continuing lack of a real organization or fundraising. I'm going to bet this will not be on the ballot again till 2012. And as frustrating as I find that, I think that it would be a disaster to run another awful campaign. And I'm not seeing anything stronger in the offing.

2010, or 2012?

A new coalition called Prepare to Prevail has released a statement recommending that any effort to repeal prop8 wait till 2012. Their statement argues

Unlike Proposition 8 in 2008, any upcoming electoral campaign for marriage equality would be one of choice, not one of necessity in fending off an attack from religious-right foes. Timing is ours to determine. Going back to the ballot to remove the voter-imposed ban on same-sex marriage from the state constitution in 2010 would be rushed and risky. We should proceed with a costly, demanding, and high-stakes electoral campaign of this sort only when we are confident we can win. We should choose to Prepare to Prevail.

Meanwhile, LoveHonorCherish disagrees:

Recently, a letter was circulated in the activist community entitled “Prepare to Prevail: Why We Must Wait in Order to Win.” This letter, which was signed by about 30 organizations, some small and some large, argued that 2010 is too soon to seek the repeal of Prop 8. It gave eight reasons. Here are the reasons, and the response to each...

They go on to refute each argument.

I can see reason to both sides of this argument, but just as with the Boies/Olson anti-DOMA case, it seems too often that the GLBT groups form circular firing squads and snipe at each other, rather than our common enemies. Come on, people. Let's formulate a reasonable message and remember that the Bad Guys are already unified, AND raising money to continue to attack us and our families.

Teaming up for equality

The Courage Campaign, one of the Main groups in the coalition to repeal 8, has assembled Equality teams throughout the state. Courage Campaign County Equality Teams are creating infrastructure to enable your community to engage in important long-term work -- recruiting an army of marriage equality activists, identifying undecided voters, organizing in your communities, and taking part in coordinated statewide events.

That sounds worthy.

Also, both Courage Campaign and Equality CA are mobilizing volunteers for many tasks from data entry and phone-banking to walking the streets.

Uh, guys, could you please, you know, COORDINATE?

Massive shift in Michigan

The Detroit Free Press reports,

In what Glengariff Group pollster Richard Czuba describes as a seismic shift in public opinion, even support for gay marriage has nearly doubled since a similar poll in 2004. That poll was conducted before voters approved an amendment to the Michigan Constitution defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman.

In October 2004, a Glengariff poll showed 24% of Michiganders supported marriage rights for same-sex partners, and only 42% supported legal recognition of civil unions. In the new poll, support for same sex marriage was 46.5% and for civil unions 63.7%. Forty-eight percent of state voters said they opposed adding marriage rights, the only one of nine gay rights issues not winning majority support....

Czuba said a shift in opinion was evident in almost every demographic group, including self-identified Republicans. He attributed much of the change to the sharply higher number of poll respondents who said they know a gay or lesbian person in 2009 (80.2%) compared with in 2004 (56%).

Well, that's just marvelous, isn't it? The problem is that before they had their equal rights epiphany, the voters of Michigan passed a broadly-worded Constitutional Amendment against same-sex marriage, which the court has interpreted to say bars civil unions, health benefits for same-sex partners, and other fundamental protections. Which, some believe, has further damaged the economy of a badly damaged state, by making it inhospitable to the "creative class".

So now what, Michigan?

Seems a Michigan lawmaker is making the first move:

The proposal announced by State Rep. Pam Byrnes faces an uphill climb. Michigan voters in 2004 passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, effectively banning the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.....The joint resolution by the Democrat from Washtenaw County's Lyndon Township would have to be approved by two-thirds of the Michigan Legislature before it would be put to voters in the 2010 election.

Good luck with that. Chances are pretty bad.