The hand of the grave: constitutional amendments

From Slate:

[M]ost states can't do what New York did. Their legislatures can't legalize gay marriage, because their voters have passed ballot measures that prohibit it under their state constitutions. The ballot measures were enacted years ago, when gay marriage was unpopular. Now many of the old voters who opposed same-sex marriage are being replaced by young voters who support it. But the old electorate, through its constitutional amendments, has handcuffed the new electorate. The living are being ruled by the dead....

[I]n California, Virginia, or the other 27 states where constitutional amendments forbid gay marriage... legislators are bound not by today's constituents but by yesterday's voters. Many of those voters aren't even around anymore. The strongest support for banning gay marriage, nationally and in nearly every state that has faced a referendum, has come from old people. In Arizona, California, Oregon, and Wisconsin, voters below the age of 30 opposed ballot measures to ban gay marriage but were outvoted by their elders. In Michigan, Ohio, and Virginia, young voters split almost evenly. Today, you can see the same pattern in Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, and other state and national polls. Gay marriage is becoming a majority position in part because people are changing their minds, and in part because a generation that's OK with homosexuality is replacing a generation that wasn't.

The question now is whether the new majority will get its way. To undo the constitutional amendments of the past decade, supporters of gay marriage will have to pass ballot measures in those states. In Nevada, they'll have to do it twice. Passing ballot measures is hard. People tend to vote against them out of suspicion and fear, particularly when you're messing with the constitution.

From a conservative standpoint, that's how the system should work. The point of amending state constitutions while the polls were still against gay marriage was to protect the culture of the traditional family from the onslaught of normalized homosexuality.

But if the culture of the traditional family as enshrined in these constitutions is wrong—if marriage is moral and healthy regardless of sexual orientation—then the walls erected by those ballot measures are a prison inflicted by the old on the young. And that legacy, unlike marriage, is a bond that death alone can't break.

One step forward, one step back: the equality two-step

For a time there, after Massachusetts, after the polling made it clear that the young people are with us, we allowed ourselves to hope. We had come so far, since the early days, and the landmark of Stonewall. So far, from pathologies and medical abuse, to recognition that we are no different than a red-head or a lefty, just a normal human variant.

But the Enemy regrouped, and though we know time and history will not be on their side, their attacks continue.

There was the brief summer of weddings in California, where an estimated 18,000 couples-- 36,000 people!!!! said "I do" to their life partners in joy and hope.

Yet the Enemy succeeded in attacking that joy, crushing us with the disappointment of Prop H8, their self-satisfaction evident. Even with the triumphant presentation of the Federal case against Prop 8, and the laughably poor defense (even I could have defended it better), we win nothing--just more appeals and stalling. They managed to hide the trial from view, to keep their cowardly bigotry under wraps. No matter the outcome, their attacks will continue, the harm will escalate. After all, no one is getting married in California for the foreseeable furture, and DOMA still stands, making those marriages that DID occur meaningless, in federal terms. And the lawyers continue to grind the arguments, like something out of Bleak House.

For every step forward, we take casualties. Now they are attacking domestic partnerships and civil unions every chance they can -- in Washington State, Hawai'i, Wisconsin. It's not about marriage, the word, and it never was. It's about attacking and marginalizing gay people as permanent outcasts. The untouchable caste, American style.

The Catholics and the Mormons are gearing up to continue the fight, with new initiatives. We know who they are by their hate. Smaller, inclusive denominations are shouted down by the budgets and near-military organization of the Big Two. (Jesus, who hung out with sinners and outcasts, is no longer recognizable to them).

The conservative Evangelicals continue to tell hysterical lies. The only reason they get away with it is that they have brainwashed their children so they cannot think. (Look at this one too. Facts and reality literally do not matter to these people.)

The Republican Party platforms in Texas and Montana call for the criminalization of homosexuality. Uganda suddenly feels not so far away. Atascadero, site of gay torture, was not so very long ago. And they would send us back there if they could.

Like any bullies, they scream loudest when it is they doing the damage, claiming somehow that they are the victim when it is we who have been hurt. As someone said, they blame us for the injury when their foot hurts from kicking us. They lie and lie and lie again, and get away with it.

If you visit the web sites of these people, they are marked by bile, and anger, and visceral hatred. They say the most horrible things about those who disagree and propose the worst sort of retributions and violence.

And the air of hope and redemption that swept Barack Obama into Washington is replaced by cynicism. So there is a gay ambassador. Gay families were invited to the Easter Egg Roll at the White House. The same thing happened 20 years ago. And substantive meaningful change to support the gay family or lift up the gay youngster or enfranchise the gay community there is none of that. David Mixner writes

Wait your turn, we have been told. Better to get healthcare for the straights, than nothing. Better to have an unsupportive Democrat, than a hostile Republican. And then the cycle goes round again and it is not the right time. It never will be the right time. We will be behind the door, too small a community, too inconvenient, too embarrassing.

I still do not understand the source of their fear and hatred, except that it is a very primitive human need to have someone outside to loathe, to unite against. Or perhaps it is all wound up in their desperate fear and hatred of sex. A large part of it is inevitably tangled up with misogyny, and a need to protect the patriarchy. Women who demand equality, not subservience, who are breaking gender roles and expectations are sisters to the GLBT people who are also breaking gender roles and rules. Our fundamentalist culture shares more with the societies that bred Al Qaeda than the Enlightenment.

And, as the Enemy embraces its ignorance, hides from the sun of knowledge, and rejects its gay children, is is foolish to fear that violence may be close behind?

California's upcoming election: why it matters

Support marriage equality? Then get on the streets and work for the election of Jerry Brown as Governor and Kamala Harris as Attorney General. From Marc Solomon of EQCA.

Between now and November 2, our priority is clear in California. We must do everything we can to elect Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris as governor and attorney general, respectively. That neither Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nor Atty. Gen. Brown was willing to put the state of California on record in defense of Prop. 8 in court made a tremendous difference. Both Brown and Harris have pledged to maintain the state’s present position, while their Republican opponents, Meg Whitman and Steve Cooley, have both pledged to defend Prop. 8. There is consensus among legal experts that having the key constitutional officers of the state on our side refusing to defend Prop. 8, rather than arguing that the state has a compelling interest in defending the discriminatory measure, is a potential game-changer when an appeal is heard by the courts.

From Labor Day through Election Day, Equality California and its candidate political action committee will use every means at their disposal to elect Brown, Harris, and other California candidates who stand for full LGBT equality. We will have continuous volunteer phone banks at each of our field offices across the state, we will send hundreds of thousands of direct mail pieces, and will make our strongest case to our 600,000 members and to the entire LGBT and allied progressive communities of the critical importance in voting for a pro-equality slate. We will send a powerful message to all elected officials and candidates that we will hold officials accountable as we fight hard for our equality.

When a critical court case is pending, the governor and attorney general in particular are crucial — in ways we now know, and in ways we can’t predict. From my time in Massachusetts fighting for marriage equality, I can recount horror stories of all the maneuvers that then-governor Mitt Romney employed in an attempt to block marriages from taking place in the state. In California we cannot let a Romney clone — a wealthy businessperson trying to burnish conservative credentials on the backs of LGBT people — get elected without a vigorous fight.

New Poll in California: support increases for SSM

The Public Policy Institute of California, a non-profit, non-partisan research group, has polled Californians on various political issues.

For the first time in a PPIC Statewide Survey, Californians are more likely to say they favor (50%) same-sex marriage than oppose it (45%). Support among all adults had never surpassed 45 percent since January 2000. Today, a record high 49 percent of likely voters favor same-sex marriage and 45 percent oppose it. Proposition 8, passed by voters in 2008, created a state constitutional amendment revoking the right of same-sex couples to marry. This amendment is currently being challenged in federal district court. In a similar ABC News/Washington Post poll question, adults nationwide expressed divided opinions about same-sex marriage: 47 percent said it should be legal and 50 percent said illegal.

Majorities of Democrats (64%) and independents (55%) favor allowing same-sex marriage, while a majority of Republicans (67%) oppose it. Since last March, support is up a slight 4 points among Democrats, 8 points among independents, and 6 points among Republicans. Support is far from unanimous across regions and demographic groups. Central Valley residents oppose allowing same-sex marriage (51% oppose, 42% favor), while San Francisco Bay Area residents favor it (64% favor, 30% oppose). Residents are divided in Los Angeles (46% favor, 48% oppose) and Other Southern California (47% favor, 49% oppose). Most whites (55%) express support, while Latinos are more opposed (51%) than in favor (43%). Support declines with older age, but rises as education and income increase. An overwhelming majority of evangelical Christians are opposed (75%). Since last March, support jumped 17 points among Californians age 18 to 34 (49% to 66%) and rose modestly among Latinos, whites, men, residents with lower household incomes, and those without college degrees.

This is progress, of course, but it still has a long way to go to overcome the PropH8 effect. Keep working!

Hypocrite alert

In California, State Sen Roy Ashburn, who has a history of opposing gay rights (even opposing domestic partnerships, let alone marriage), was arrested for DUI.

Ashburn, a father of four, is a Republican Senator representing parts of Kern, Tulare and San Bernardino Counties with a history of opposing gay rights.....Ashburn served six years as a state Assemblyman before being elected to the State Senate. According to Project Vote Smart, Ashburn's voting record shows he has voted against every gay rights measure in the State Senate since taking office including Recognizing Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriages", Harvey Milk Day and Expanding Anti-Discrimination Laws.

He was driving a state car, too. But the best part? He was

arrested for allegedly driving drunk after leaving Faces, a gay nightclub in midtown Sacramento, early Wednesday morning.....

A male passenger, who was not identified as a lawmaker, was also in the car but was not detained.

Yup, that staunch supporter of family values and opponent of icky queers picked someone up at a gay bar.

Why, it's Larry Craig all over again.

What is it with these pathetic closeted gay Republican men? Why are they so vitriolicly anti-gay?

My theory is that they are so deeply invested in living in the closet that they are fiercely resentful of the healthy, happy men who are living open lives. They are so deeply mired in their lie, their entire careers depend upon it, that they can't bear the thought that it is no longer necessary. And they have so deeply internalized that it's wrong, that they are self-loathing self-flagellates. Of course, as is inevitable when you unnaturally suppress normal sexuality (yes, I'm looking at YOU, "celibate" priests) this leads to unfortunate and inappropriate outbursts.

Like toe-tapping in the airport restroom.

Or cruising local gay bars in your State-owned vehicle.

Update Ashburn has admitted he is gay, and votes against GLBT rights because his constituents are bigots want him to.

Frank Schubert and his sister

Remember Frank Schubert, the whiz behind the pro Prop8 and Question 1 campaigns? You know, the consultant for hate who said,

"However, I represent those who read the Bible and believe in God." Some people found that incredibly offensive. At one point, some people were hissing.

yeah, that one.

his sister is a lesbian in a partnered relationship, running for judge. Reported in the Bay Area Reporter:

The lesbian sister of Proposition 8 mastermind Frank Schubert has announced her candidacy for Sacramento County Superior Court judge.

At her campaign Web site, Anne Marie Schubert, a deputy district attorney for Sacramento County, promotes herself as a law and order and victim's rights candidate with several endorsements from local law enforcement organizations......

Frank Schubert told the Bay Area Reporter the two women are in a registered domestic partnership.

"She and Julie are in a domestic partnership, and they have two wonderful children," Frank Schubert said.

Asked if he considered the children and Greenberg to be a part of his family, Frank Schubert replied, "Of course I consider them and their children to be part of my family, and I love them very much."....

He also endorses her campaighn.

So, let's get this straight, so to speak. This awful person attacks the rights of people LIKE HIS SISTER to have a marriage and says he loves her very much. Some brotherly love. No comment from the would-be judge, either. OF course she's a Republican.GIve that woman the Mary Cheney award for cognitive dissonance. You cannot make this stuff up.

Imagine what Christmas is like around THEIR family.

As one blogger suggests,

It also forces one other question: can you be as anti-gay marriage as Frank Schubert is, and still believe that LGBT people, like his sister Anne Marie, can be great mothers, judges, and members of society? Because it sure seems like, in this case, Schubert is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Marriage updates around the nation

Washington DC

After months of buildup, D.C. Council member David A. Catania (I-At large) announced Wednesday evening he would introduce his proposal to legalize same-sex marriage in the District at Tuesday's council meeting.

Illinois

The race to marriage equality for the fifth largest state in the Union was kicked off this morning when State Senator Heather Steans became the first Illinois Senator to introduce a marriage equality bill - SB2468 the Equal Marriage Act - in that chamber.

Texas

In a first for Texas, a judge ruled Thursday that two men married in another state can divorce here and that the state's ban on gay marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

And progress on the legal front. On the Boies and Olson case Perry, which challenges Prop8 in Federal court, the judge ruled that materials from the Prop8 campaign cannot be kept secret.

The judge agreed with lawyers for two unmarried same-sex couples who have sued to strike down the ban, known as Proposition 8, that confidential communications between the campaign's leaders and professional consultants could reveal a rationale for denying gays the right to wed that is relevant to the case.

The lawsuit argues that the measure was motivated by hostility toward gays and as such must be struck down as inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equality.

So I think this means that if there is evidence of hostility to GLBT people in the correspondence, that suggests that animus drove the campaign, not the coverup of "children" or "religion". The SF Chron agrees:

If the courts find that the ballot measure was motivated by discrimination, they could strike it down without having to decide whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.

"The intent or purpose of Prop. 8 is central to this litigation," Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker declared Thursday in requiring backers of the November 2008 measure to give the opposing side their internal campaign communications.

In Maine, anti-marriage group NOM is getting into further trouble, and the commission on ethics voted to investigate further.

Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate filed a complaint with the commission saying the group should be required to disclose the names of donors. In response, Brian Brown, executive director of NOM, said they have not raised money specifically for Maine and therefore are not required to report individual donors.

If NOM is specifically raising money to fight marriage equality in Maine without disclosing donors, that would be illegal. An interview with Fred Karger, who brought the charges, here.

Mob Rule

During the Prop8 aftermath, peacefully protesting gay people were accused of being terrorists, and peaceful protests were referred to as "mobs". 25,000 people marching without incident were called intimidating. The Christianists made numerous unsubstantiated claims that they had been attacked, and when the donors (pro or con) were made public, as required by law, they bleated that they would be targets for violence.

Guess what?

NOTHING HAPPENED.

Conveniently overlooked was the fact that the Pro-H8 side had themselves threatened people and business and committed vandalism. Indeed, despite THEIR accusations of religious persecution, Pro-H8 demonstrators interrupted a Eucharist at the Episcopal Cathedral of San Diego because that church dared to disagree with them.

By contrast anti-Prop8 protests were legitimate, peaceful, and no one was harmed. (The largest demonstration, in San Diego in November, had one arrest: a PropH8 supporter who opposed GLBT rights).

Of course, right wing protests are a little different and the recent goal of the mobs have been to shut down any discourse with violence. The hypocrisy seems pretty clear.

Now, in Maine, the anti-equality forces are terrified that they will be targeted for violence, so they are hiding their address and making dark pronouncements. However, the pro-equality forces (who have not hidden their address) have issued a call for ethics and civility. Based on precedent, which side do you think is more likely to be violent?

Should we wait to repeal Prop8?

Writing in the Independent Gay Forum, Dale Carpenter argues that we are bound to lose in 2010. He predicts:

On November 2, 2010:
1) A repeal of Prop 8, in some form, will be on the California ballot.
(2) About $60 million will have been raised in the effort to repeal Prop 8.
(3) The repeal will fail.
(4) The margin of loss for SSM advocates in California will be greater than the margin of loss in November 2008, probably in the neighborhood of 46% "yes" (for repeal) and 54% "no" (against repeal).

His reasoning is very logical. But I don't agree with his conclusion.

Everything else being equal, the conditions were about as favorable for SSM supporters in California last November as they are likely to be for many years. They aren't likely to be as favorable in 2010. This is true for several reasons: First, 2008 was a presidential election year, when turnout is higher and when more mainstream, less ideologically committed, voters dominate...... Second, 2008 was a bad year for Republicans. 2010 will likely be a better year in general for Republicans since mid-term elections are usually good for the party out of power. Sorry to say it, but good years for Republicans are usually bad years for gay rights. Third, gay marriage was the status quo in 2008, however briefly, and meant that gay couples were actually marrying. It will not be the status quo in 2010. People have a status quo bias. Fourth, the ballot language on Prop 8 reflected the status quo by indicating that it would "eliminate rights," something Americans don't like to do. In 2010, nobody will lose existing rights if voters refuse to repeal Prop 8..... Fifth, supporters of SSM needed a "no" vote to prevail in 2008. In 2010, they will need a "yes" vote. There is a small built-in bias (maybe 1-2%) for "no" votes. Sixth, some voters will resent being asked to vote on something they just voted on......

The longer we wait for repeal, the more likely we'll win. This assumes that younger voters continue to support SSM, that older voters gradually get used to the idea, and that the oldest die-hard opponents succumb to certain actuarial realities over time. So, all else being equal, 2012 would more likely produce a victory for SSM than would 2010. And 2014 or 2016 would be even more likely.

But is he right, either as a matter of fact, or as a matter of justice?

The momentum right now for our side is looking towards 2010, which everyone acknowledges is risky for many of the reasons Carpenter enumerates, and a few extras like the economy, but has a few advantages: a highly motivated, mobilized force; no competing federal election issues (how many of our potential organizers were working the Obama campaign instead?), and a momentum from other gay marriage victories around the country. Not to mention the 18,000 club, people like me, who are married.

Still, it's a compelling idea to wait...to play it safe for the "sure thing". But we can't do that.

I find myself returning over and over to Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail:

Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

King goes on to say,

I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

and

I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will.

Sadly true, I think. How many allies just didn't think Prop8 would pass?

We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

So in answer to the question in my title, NO. We should not wait. We should bring this up as frequently as we need to until justice is done.

Will we lose in 2010? Possibly. Maybe even probably. But the degradation to our community, which was for 6 brief months a full participant in our society, is a cost most of us are not willing to pay any more. Those who oppose our dignity and our full citizenship have spit on us before, and will spit on us again. And maybe what it will take to expose their ignorance, revulsion and hatred, maybe what it will take to cleanse all that from our society, is for us to drag them into the sun over and over again, exposing their lies, until the light sterilizes their hatred and heals them.

Cross posted at Daily Kos

So what's up in California?

The marriage equality campaign for Prop 8 is widely viewed as having been, well, incompetent. They got complacent, and I remember feeling very worried last summer that they were not doing much. Folks were asked to write a check, or make phone calls. In fact, when they finally tried to get people out to street corners to counter the sign-waving bigots of the "Yes" campaign, the volunteers were told not to bother to engage, or try to change minds. One person told me that gay-friendly San Francisco was leafleted many times; equality supporters in Fresno were left on their own. And let's not even talk about the soft advertisements which featured no gay people and did not anticipate or respond to the lies and bigotry from the other side.

This led to a lot of anger after the fact against Equality California, which tends to be heavy in the San Francisco and Los Angeles centers of "high gay". Like the Human Rights Campaign in Washington, EqualityCA appears to be somewhat cumbersome, and traditionalist. After the election, there was a push by the progressive group Courage Campaign to build a grass-roots army against Prop8. The Courage Campaign has since been running "Camp Courage" weekends to train activists on the ground, which is a great move. EqualityCA also revamped, recruiting a new campaign director, and the two large groups appear to have established some kind of an alliance for the next round, all to the good.

But, a nimble, small group has appeared on the scene: Yes on Equality. As recently reported in the LA Weekly, Yes on Equality is the first group to file language with the attorney general for repeal.

Now, I am not an expert. But it seems to me that these groups need to ally and organize quickly. They can't have turf wars, and they have to be expert in the distinctive political climate in California. Each brings strengths to the table: EqualityCA in the money centers of gay politics; Courage Campaign with its roots in progressive political issues; Yes on Equality with an energized base in the people. But EqualityCA blew it last time, and they can't be left alone to run it. (I have to say that my enthusiasm for EqualityCA has waned just the way it waned for the HRC in Washington, which seems more concerned with a narrow, cautious approach that keeps them political "insiders"). It would be nice to see some grown up behavior from all concerned rather than angling for power and ego.

So, here's what I would like see happen:

1. Identification of a director and experienced staff. And familiarity with California is essential.
   
2. Define a clear campaign "brand" and start getting material out there (building on the current "I DO! support freedom of marriage" is probably simplest)
   
3. Coordinate grass roots efforts; right now, both Courage Campaign and Equality are doing canvassing, but it's not clear if this is coordinated
   
4. Outreach to the diverse communities of the state. This can't be centered in the Castro and WeHo.
   
5. Argue on multiple fronts. We have to be pro-active, not re-active. We can't let the other side define the issues again.
   

Remember, the bad guys don't have to re-vamp. They are all ready for this, with their lies, their twisting of religion, their bigotry. We have to out-think them and out-maneuver them. And there isn't much time.

Is Maryland next?

In Maryland, the Baltimore Sun writes about the recognition of same sex marriages:

But there is one inescapable reason to do it: Because it's the right thing to do. Same-sex couples and their children should no longer be treated as second-class citizens. Interim measures the state has adopted - changes in how the inheritance tax is applied to domestic partners, for instance - are woefully inadequate.

Maryland is a progressive state, and voter registration numbers suggest it is growing more so all the time. Same-sex marriage is nothing less than a civil rights issue, and citizens of the Free State have historically favored equality - if their leaders have the courage to rally them to the cause.

Today, New Hampshire

New Hampshire's marriage equality legislation was threatened with veto unless they added some specific language to protect religions, which we discussed before. The NH legislature has passed it. From NY Times:

New Hampshire legislators have approved a measure that would make the state the sixth to allow gay marriage.

Gov. John Lynch is expected to sign the legislation Wednesday afternoon.

He had promised a veto if the law didn't clearly spell out that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services.

Nevada over-rides governor's veto of DP/CUs

Nevada lawmakers reject veto of partnership bill

Nevada's Assembly voted Sunday to override Gov. Jim Gibbons' veto and to change state law so that domestic partners, whether gay or straight, have many of the rights and benefits that Nevada offers to married couples.

It's not marriage but it's a start to get SOMETHING in a state with an anti-marriage amendment. Gibbons previously said that there was no point because DPs were an "interference of government in private matters". This kind of thing shows that it's not about marriage for the conservative side. It's against ANY recognition of gay couples. And for this reason, overturning the veto is a small success for the good guys.

Silencing Harvey Milk

There's an effort in California to have May 22nd, Harvey Milk's birthday, noted as "Harvey Milk Day" in the state. Not a holiday, but simply a named remembrance of someone who was a tireless worker for social justice as well as the first openly gay man elected to public office in the state. (The governor doesn't agree.) Of course, Harvey Milk was the subject of a recent biopic, and was a victim of assassination.

In Ramona, CA, a rural, conservative town in the hills of San Diego County, a student who wanted to do a presentation on Milk was forbidden to present it to her classmates.

Jones was told she could not talk about Milk because it violated the school district's strict policy on "family life and sex education." Days later, Jones was told she could only give the presentation during recess, and students would be required to get parental permission before they could attend.

The school's policy stresses that parents will be notified if their children are being exposed to lessons about "human reproductive organs and their functions, processes, or sexually transmitted diseases" as well as "family life, human sexuality, AIDS, or sexually transmitted diseases."

Bonnie Jones, Natalie's mother, called the ordeal "unbelievable" in a press release on Wednesday. "To say my daughter's presentation is 'sex education' because Harvey Milk happened to be gay is completely wrong."

Unfortunately, this makes perfect sense in the current right wing strategy. It has nothing to do with Milk's sexuality, which (aside from the adjective "gay") has nothing to do with his story. It's not about gay marriage, which wasn't even on the radar when he lived. It's nothing explicit about his sex life. It's his act of existence...it's OUR act of existence, that the school, and the conservatives, want to eliminate. This is about enforced discrimination.

"Schools that act as if any mention of the existence of gay people is something too controversial or 'sensitive' to discuss are doing a disservice to their students," the ACLU's Elizabeth Gill said in a statement.

Indeed. No newspaper or television is free of "teh gay". Will and Grace, Queer Eye, the L Word, are all years old. It's not as though kids are unaware that some people are gay. What are they afraid of: Milk's sexuality, or his message of equality and social justice? "My name is Harvey Milk, and I'm here to recruit you!!" was not just a rallying cry for the GLBT community. It was how he brought together a coalition of groups for a progressive agenda in the City.

But they are trying to hide that because he was gay. Because we are gay, they are trying the same thing. Claiming we are too controversial for prime time has been increasing of late. Trying to hide us. To deny us rights, and protections. Do not be silenced. Be Harvey. As he said, “I finally reached the point where I knew I had to become involved or shut up.”. Now it's up to us to be the change we need.

The Day of Decision is Tuesday, May 26th. BE THERE!

NH Gov to sign gay marriage bill, with one addition

Gov. Lynch of New Hampshire will sign the gay marriage bill, legalizing gay marriage in that state, as long as there are explicit protections for religious groups. New Hampshire Public Radio reports the actual language, which includes the following:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits from such religious organization, association or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society.

Now, there are three points to this text that I notice. First, is the persistent use of the term "religious organization"; and second, a very precise specification of people who have a formal relationship with that organization. What I get from this , is that any exceptions that are covered in this text that allow someone to deny service or accommodation, are specifically limited to formal religious groups and their direct affiliates and employees. That means, the average man on the street who may be a member of this religious organization but is not acting as their agent (for example, someone at the florist) is not covered by the exemptions and therefore not excused from providing service under usual anti-discrimination laws. Third, this text is very specific about marriage-related services.

SO, my understanding (and I'm sure legally minded readers will correct me if I'm wrong) is that this text allows any religious group and their formal affiliates to deny marriage associated services to anyone they choose. Which I believe, is a right they already had for the most part.

In any case, I can live with it.

LA Times: Marriage equality back on the ballot in 2010

From the LA Times, about the next stage of the battle in California:

Both sides are already gearing up for another political campaign likely to come in 2010.

As recently as a few months ago, some gay activists feared 2010 would be too soon. But the fact that same-sex marriage is now legal in five states, with New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire poised to follow, has changed the political climate, they say.

"There is no doubt we are witnessing an enormous and unprecedented sea change in both public opinion and momentum on the issue of marriage equality," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "I believe the electorate nationally and in California is in a different place when it comes to marriage equality than it was six months ago.".....

"The more states that come on board, the more people in California wonder, 'What did we do here?' " said Marc Solomon, the newly hired marriage director for Equality California. "Are gay couples in Bangor, Maine, and Dubuque, Iowa, really going to be marrying when people in Pasadena can't?"

Answer: Yes. Next question?