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.

After Prop8

I found another useful website that acts as a digest of information on marriage equality, called Stop 8. They have some nice videos and editorial as well.

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.

Same sex marriage legal in Texas!

As pointed out in this excellent NY Times Op-Ed, there are actually legal same sex marriages in all 50 states, thanks to a patchwork of rules to deal with transgendered married people. And is it ever confusing. The author considers the 1999 case of Littleton v. Prange, in which Christie Littleton, a MTF transgendered woman legally married to her husband in Kentucky, found her marriage invalidated when she moved to Texas and upon her husband's death, found herself with no legal standing.

A 1999 ruling in San Antonio, in Littleton v. Prange, determined that marriage could be only between people with different chromosomes. The result, of course, was that lesbian couples in that jurisdiction were then allowed to wed as long as one member of the couple had a Y chromosome, which is the case with both transgendered male-to-females and people born with conditions like androgen insensitivity syndrome. This ruling made Texas, paradoxically, one of the first states in which gay marriage was legal.

A lawyer for the transgendered plaintiff in the Littleton case noted the absurdity of the country’s gender laws as they pertain to marriage: “Taking this situation to its logical conclusion, Mrs. Littleton, while in San Antonio, Tex., is a male and has a void marriage; as she travels to Houston, Tex., and enters federal property, she is female and a widow; upon traveling to Kentucky she is female and a widow; but, upon entering Ohio, she is once again male and prohibited from marriage; entering Connecticut, she is again female and may marry; if her travel takes her north to Vermont, she is male and may marry a female; if instead she travels south to New Jersey, she may marry a male.”

The author goes on to note that "male" and "female" are not simple black/white binaries, but elusive and changeable. Since the confusion is already rampant, isn't it simpler to say "an adult may marry one other unrelated adult of their choosing"? Since that is really what has happened.

Similar confusion abounds over issues of under-age marriages, or marriages between first degree relatives. Even if it is illegal in state A for first cousins to marry, however, they will recognize marriages between first cousins performed in other states.

So it's all a mess, really, isn't it?

More information on transgender marriage equality here.

What's up with the white house?

As I've posted before, there are a lot of people becoming frustrated with the slow pace of GLBT rights federally. Obama, who promised to be our "fierce advocate", has proven to be a soggy supporter at best. He's been called out by Frank Rich and scolded by Andrew Sullivan for the "fierce urgency of whenever".

The White House wants credit for expanding the hate crimes legislation to include gay folks, but this is not and has not been one of our "major" issues. Our MAJOR concerns are repealing DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell), to allow our community to serve openly in the military, repealing DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), so our marriages and partnerships are eligible for federal recognition, and passing ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act), so you can't be fired simply for being gay. This was all on the white house web site....which they quietly removed it, until a community outcry restored it. The gay community isfeeling that the White House wants us back in the closet, to be trotted out again when they need the money.

Now, we all know there are important, huge issues facing this president, and these are arguably more important than GLBT rights. Yes, we get that. And we aren't arguing that this be the front-and-center issue.

But look what's happened. Gay marriage advances in 5 more states, when Dick Cheney sort of supports gay marriage, and in return, we have the anti-gay marriage groups point to Obama standing in opposition... and we find out that (like the infamous quote pointing to John Kerry) , he was for it before he was against it. In fact, Obama's opposition to marriage equality is trumpeted by the other side, and is an albatross around our necks. Nothing is said about DOMA.

Meanwhile, high-profile military officers like linguist Lt Dan Choi and pilot Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach are dismissed in a time of war and there is no movement against DADT. The latest semi-scandal suggests that the tepid Human Rights Campaign has been co-opted to campaign AGAINST the repeal of DADT.

We're supposed to be content with the Hate Crimes act, when in fact, this White House had nothing to do with it. And frankly, we're so easily bought off, it wouldn't take much more than a few kind words, even without anything concret, for us to go back to the rear of the line, where everyone leaves us. Just a few crumbs of encouragement...

Are they being anti-gay? Or are they being incredibly subtle? I'm starting to wonder. Obama has a wrestler's way of using the opposition's weight against them. He doesn't take strong positions or spend political capital if he can avoid it, but co-opts the other side until the movement becomes inevitable. Is that what he's doing here? If so, then our ire as a community may be part of the gameplan, lulling the bad guys into a false sense of security.

Re. DADT, we have a lot of noise and anger about Choi and Fehrenbach . Then we hear the nominated secretary of the Army is a Republican Congressman --- more ire, until we learn he reportedly thinks everyone should be able to serve. Most Americans agree. Movement becomes inevitable....?

Re. DOMA, there are hearings in Congress to examine bi-national couples, who essentially become exiles because the American partner can't sponsor their partner. These are of course opposed by the bad guys, because they fear any weakening of DOMA. Meanwhile, Secretary Clinton is establishing policy that gives same sex partners the same rights and benefits regarding postings. Again, DOMA is tacitly under attack. Movement becomes inevitable?

Andrew Sullivan has coined the idea of Obama playing "rope-a-dope" with his political opponents, drawing them in before the knockout, making escape impossible. I'm not sure that's what is happening here, of course. But Obama's a smart politician. Our cause is still toxic to the middle he needs to woo. So it might....might..... be the case that he's actually facilitating some incremental movement without wanting to be seen to be doing anything.

And I guess time will tell.

Talking equality Part I (video)

Arguments to counter the usual right wing talking points, from the estimable videographer Rob TIsinai

ElsieElsie's story

Writing at DailyKos, ElsieElsie says,

I cannot provide my husband health insurance if he loses his job. His medication is very expensive, and without it, he faces a debilitating disease. We can't afford it without his income or his insurance.

Conversely, he CAN provide me health insurance if I lose my job, but, because the federal government does not recognize our marriage, I must pay taxes on the thousands of dollars his company provides me in benefits in that case -- not a trivial amount of money.

This is but one of millions of examples why, though our civil rights aren't important to you, they are for millions of people and their families intimately connected with the issues [some] deem so much more urgent.

Without full equality, should politicians resolve these burning issues, we get left behind.

Do you have a story about being a gay married Californian? Put it in the comments and I will post it.

California couple denied hospital rights in Fresno

This is quite frightening. Because, you know, the right wing tells us we don't need marriage as long as we have civil unions, and besides, anything we care about can be covered legally.

But not, it appears, in Fresno, where despite documentation, a woman was not allowed access to her partner. Another example of "we don't do that here."

"They refused to take my medical cards from her. They refused Teresa's offer to have my advance directive and power of attorney faxed over from UCSF."

Orbin said she asked the nurses several times if Rowe could join her, but each time they refused. "They just kept looking at my Marriage Equality shirt and giving me dirty looks," she said.

Orbin and Rowe were not reunited until a doctor intervened a few hours later.

"When the doctor arrived, I asked him if Teresa could join me," Orbin said. "He asked me why she wasn't already with me, and I told him the nursing staff told me I was in a no visitor zone. The doctor gave me an odd look and said, 'I will take care of that'. He left the room, and a few minutes later Teresa came in" ..... the nursing staff suddenly had a change of heart while the doctor was present and allowed Rowe to stay with her until she was discharged.

The couple said they have never experienced such blatant discrimination. They are both so upset over the incident that they have contacted the ACLU for legal advice.

Even getting insurance is a trial

Under our current system, health insurance is linked to employment. If you are straight and married, your family will be covered by your employer. Gay, not so much. From the NY Times:

Even if the relationship is formalized with the state in a marriage or union, that does not always obligate the employer to cover a same-sex spouse. For one thing, self-insured employers are not regulated by the states.

And other benefit-providing employers that choose not to offer such coverage can sometimes use the Defense of Marriage Act — a law that forbids the federal government to recognize same-sex marriage — to trump state laws......

If you’re part of a same-sex couple and you’re fortunate enough to work for an employer that will provide coverage for your partner, the process can still be cumbersome and costly.

Yes, as in it is viewed as a taxable benefit (a costly one!) among other things.

Go check out the article for useful tips.

And remember, the Republican Party considers the denial of insurance to gay couples to be a good reason to deny them marriage. Otherwise, you know, it would be too expensive for small business. Of course exactly the same argument applies to straight marriage (or is it "opposite" marriage now?) You cannot make up this stuff!

Cheney supports gay marriage?

It's being widely reported that former VP Dick Cheney actually supports gay marriage. Cheney says,

"People ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."

He did say that he opposes any federal regulation, preferring it to be left to the states. Only he didn't actually SAY the word marriage, so I'm not so willing to assume he's had a real epiphany.

And Still we Rise

Letter to a Prop8 advocate:

It's quite offensive that you assume that there is anything less than permanent in my marriage than in yours, simply because of the gender of my beloved. The bigotry of this view may arise from fear, ignorance, or hatred, or some combination thereof.

But denying my faithful, long term relationship the benefits and responsibilities of civil marriage is simple bigotry.

Either way, whether you deprive us of the piece of paper or not, we're married in reality. You can't stop that. You can't eliminate us, or drive us into hiding.

We are your neighbors. We teach your children. We work in your office. We are your doctor, your lawyer, your grocery clerk, your taxi driver. My wife's picture is on my desk, and mine on hers. You and your children see it there when you come in my office.

We are in the PTA. We go to the supermarket and kids' soccer games together. We hold hands. Our children are friends with yours. Your daughter may date my son. We may sit near you at graduation. And some of us even go to church, and stand next to you in the pew.

In the face of all your bigotry and attempt to marginalize us, to make us smaller, we are here, bearing the witness of what marriage is, through better or worse, in sickness or in health, as long as we both shall live.

Oh my, can you imagine the degree of commitment to marriage that endures despite the ignorance and bile of people like you? Despite every effort you make to tear us apart, to disenfranchise and abuse us, to desecrate what we hold sacred, we endure, and still we rise.

It makes you rather small, doesn't it? Bigotry generally does have that effect.

Originally posted at Friends of Jake

The Religion Question: 3. Religious Values

The opposition claims that their ability to teach their children religious values is abrogated by the presence of people who do not adhere to those values. They use this argument against marriage equality. It can be summed up as, "how can I teach my children homosexuality is wrong if their teacher has a same-sex marriage?"

The answer is, look to the Roman Catholics, who manage to teach a lot of things that are different from the culture to which their children are exposed.

On the subject of sex and sexuality, the Roman Catholic church is way out of step with the mainstream of America. The teachings of the church are not only against homosexuality (which isn't working so well, as it is widely accepted a large fraction of the RC priests at least in this country are gay), but against contraception, and against divorce.

Now, let's start with the strictures against contraception: the Church does not actively work in the political sphere to eliminate access to The Pill, condoms, diaphragms or other forms of pregnancy prevention. Although they disapprove, and are very clear on the subject within the church, those who are not RC are free to use whatever means they can to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

Of course, all you need to do is look around inside a Roman Catholic Church to see how well the People of the Church are adhering to that stricture. The days of the big Catholic families with 6 or 8 children are long behind us; I don't think anyone pretends that the majority of the faithful are using the rhythm method.

But here's the thing. Despite the failure of the contraception rule, they (the Institutional Church) are not trying to outlaw contraception.

What about divorce? This one is particularly helpful to consider. The Roman Catholic church is absolutely clear: you cannot divorce and remarry (unless you can afford an annulment, but we won't go there). For the vast majority of Catholics, that means that if they divorce in the civil sphere, they cannot remarry in the church. And that rule IS adhered to, very strongly.

Yet divorce in the civil sphere is legal, as is remarriage. As Andrew Sullivan writes in his excellent essay, Modernity, Faith and Marriage (a MUST READ):

Catholics, for example, accept the word marriage to describe civil marriages that are second marriages, even though their own faith teaches them that those marriages don't actually exist as such. But most Catholics are able to set theological beliefs to one side and accept a theological untruth as a civil fact. ..... Catholics can tolerate fellow citizens who are not Catholic calling their non-marriages marriages - because Catholics have already accepted a civil-religious distinction. They can wear both hats in the public square.

Thus, despite firmly teaching that divorce and remarriage are not allowed, the Roman Catholic church is able to co-exist with a society in which divorce and remarriage are available. They are not advocating for constitutional amendments to outlaw divorce or remarriage. They teach their own values, even if they conflict with the greater society. Because our nation is not a theocracy, and no single religious group gets to make the rules for all.

We really must stress that we are discussing a separation of civil from religious marriage. Religious groups do not get to inflict their definition of marriage onto society at large. The Catholics already accept that for divorce. This is no different.

Marriage Equality, Religious Freedom, and the facts (video)

There is a great advocacy blog called Waking up now. The blogger is a talented video artist and posts a lot of his own work as well as videos from others. I strongly encourage you to check it out. Here's one I particularly like, that takes apart the most cited cases that the Right uses against us in their schema to claim discrimination is religious freedom. We'll be talking about that meme, as well as other things, in weeks to come.

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.

The Religion Question: 2. Religious Freedom

The next canard of the religious right is that religious freedom demands that they be allowed to discriminate against gay people.

First, as pointed out previously, they don't even speak for all religious groups; what about the freedom of the liberal groups to marry their gay parishioners?

Second, of course, is the myth that somehow they will be arrested for hate speech if they preach against homosexuals. The actual FACTS are that both under guarantees of freedom of religion and freedom of speech, they can say what they want within the context of their own church. Events in Sweden and Canada are irrelevant, as those countries do not have the same absolute free speech guarantees as the US. So anyone can, and does, use the pulpit for whatever viewpoint he chooses.

The real crux is, however, that they claim that simply by recognizing gay rights in the secular sphere, their freedoms are abridged. And this argument isn't even about gay marriage, mind you. It's about discrimination law, pure and simple: laws that already exist to protect gay people. They want to be free to discriminate.

One example frequently used is that of a Methodist church in NJ "forced to have a gay marriage in their church!" as the other side breathlessly tells us. Except that's not true at all. The church owned a seashore pavilion, and asked the city for help in its upkeep. In return for the tax dollars, hundreds of thousands of them, the church had to guarantee the public access to the pavilion. Take the public's money, you have created a public resource. You don't get to pick and choose WHICH public is allowed to partake. So they became upset when a lesbian couple wanted to use it (not for marriage which was not legal at that time). The solution was easy: don't take public money, and you owe the public no accomodation.

But the issue here is not that simple. They wanted it both ways; to have public money (including the gay dollars) but without public access. Now, replace the words "gay" with "black", "Jewish", "disabled" and you can see why there's a problem--but only if they have entered into a public partnership.

This isn't about religious freedom at all. It's about using religion as an excuse for discrimination. We need to call them on this, with the following: No church will be "forced" to marry gay people. Indeed, any pastor, priest, rabbi or imam is completely free right now, at this minute, to deny ANY couple marriage rights in their church, synagogue, or mosque. They already have, and will continue to have, absolute right of refusal to anyone. Which is exactly as it should be.

Hearings on bi-national couples

From Andrew Sullivan, news that the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday learning about the obstacles faced by lesbian and gay couples under U.S. immigration law. Unlike straight couples, gay partners cannot sponsor each other for immigration, and under DOMA, have no access to the rights provided bi-national straight couples. Under the law, our families do not exist.

Andrew writes,

The premise of the marriage waiver - and of all immigration law in the US - is that tearing families or married couples apart should be avoided at all costs. But bi-national gay married couples now have to face exactly that choice between spouse and country that the US has always avoided.

Why? Because our marriages are null and void for the federal government under DOMA. Because our very being is regarded as sub-human.

Update: Some actual stories here

Is there any logic in opposing gay marriage?

There is a great piece by Jonathan Chait in TNR, called Until Logic Did Them Apart about the anti gay marriage argument.

Chait begins with the observation the argument against gay marriage is most often expressed as "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman".

The anti-gay-marriage soundbite.... makes no attempt at persuasion. .... You believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman? Okay! But why?

And then the truth comes out. This argument relies on the idea that gay marriage takes away from the opponents' right to define marriage....basically, their right to discriminate.

....In a liberal society, consenting adults are presumed to be able to do as they like, and it is incumbent upon opponents of any such freedom to demonstrate some wider harm. ....[The anti-gay marriage] arguments rest upon simple tautologies. Expanding a right to a new group deprives the rest of us of our right to deny that right to others. If making a right less exclusive devalues it, then any extension of rights is an imposition upon those who were not previously excluded--i.e., women's suffrage makes voting less special for men.

Then there is the procreation argument.

Another objection holds that gay marriage would weaken the link between marriage and child-rearing, therefore encouraging out-of-wedlock births. If true, this would at least provide some weight on the scale against gay marriage. But it suffers from two massive flaws. First, it's hard to imagine how the tiny gay minority's behavior can materially influence the way the vast majority of heterosexuals view marriage. Second, if you think about it, the causality gay-marriage opponents imagine is running the wrong way...

.
Because, of course, we do not deny gay marriage to the old, the infertile, or the sterile. Chait ignores the counter argument that many gay families have children, so if anything this is discriminatory AGAINST families. I discussed with the children issue here.

The most striking thing about anti-gay-marriage arguments is that they dwell exclusively on how heterosexuals would be affected. Heather Mac Donald of the conservative Manhattan Institute writes, "I fear that it will be harder than usual to persuade black men of the obligation to marry the mother of their children if the inevitable media saturation coverage associates marriage with homosexuals."

Right. SO gays can marry, so why would straight guys want to marry ? Is this any sort of argument? Chait also finds it insupportable.

This is the One Percent Doctrine of social policy. If you place zero weight upon the preferences of gays, then all you have to do is suggest a possible harm, however remote, associated with gay marriage. The same sensibility was on stark display in a recent National Review editorial. Dismissing the argument that marriage might foster more stable gay relationships, the magazine's editors replied curtly, "[T]hese do not strike us as important governmental goals." There's a word for social policy that disregards the welfare of one class of citizens: discrimination.

Some hard-core conservatives are willing to openly discriminate like this, but most people aren't, which is why public opinion is warming to gay marriage. Most opposition arises from simple discomfort.....

The line "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman" is an expression of that sensibility--a reflection of unease rather than principle. As people face up to the fact that opposing gay marriage means disregarding the happiness of the people most directly (or even solely) affected by it, most of us come around. Good ideas don't always defeat bad ideas, but they usually, over time, defeat non-ideas.

Go read the whole thing!

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.

Mainline clergy and gay rights

A new study reports on clergy attitudes towards gay rights. And may more clergy are for us, than you might have thought. Important notes:

Assurances that churches and congregations will not be required to perform gay marriages make mainline Protestant clergy much more willing to accept them, according to the report. Support for gay marriage jumped from 32 to 46 percent with the "religious liberty" assurance, according to the survey.

Are you listening, New Hampshire? Just do it, would you?

More than two-thirds of mainline clergy support hate crimes legislation and protections from workplace discrimination for gays and lesbians; more than half (55 percent) say gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.

But the survey found "significant and sometimes stark differences" between mainline Protestant denominations, with clergy in the United Church of Christ and Episcopal Church most supportive of LGBT rights. Clergy in the United Methodist Church and American Baptist Churches USA are least supportive.
....
Overall, mainline Protestant clergy have become more supportive of equal rights for gays and lesbians over the last decade, and 45 percent now favor the ordination of gays and lesbians with no special requirements, the survey found.

Still, a slight majority (51 percent) of mainline ministers said that disagreements in their church over homosexuality have become a crisis. Among that majority, 40 percent say the crisis is about how the Bible should be read, 27 percent say it concerns what the church is supposed to be and 23 percent say it's about core Christian doctrine, according to the survey.

I actually find this modestly encouraging. You know, if they want an explicit statement of what's already true (that is, freedom of religion not to participate, a la New Hampshire), I've got no problem with it.

The Religion Question: 1. Religious Identity

The Right loves to invoke religion, and unfortunately we on the left have let them get away with it for too long. It's been a skillful move on their part, because it has led to a lot of general anti-religion bashing from our side, which makes THEM look like the victims. And their current favorite meme is "religious freedom".

The first point to make is that Religion is not of one mind. And the Roman Catholic and Mormon hierarchies do not speak for all religions. Indeed, they do not even speak for their entire communities; Roman Catholics in the pew support gay marriage at about the same rate as other Americans, despite their bishops. Moreover, there are lots of faith communities that are welcoming to various degrees to gay families and gay marriages, and either fully inclusive or getting close to it. These include UCC and the Episcopalians and the Reform Jews and many others. The Episcopalians, the tradition next to the Catholics with which I am most familiar, have a gay, partnered bishop, and many faithfully partnered gay clergy. So, the right wing fundamentalists do not own religion. (See This post for more on the clergy.)

A corollary to this is that there are substantial numbers of GLBT people of faith; many of the religious denominations have active GLBT groups working within the religious structure to change things. I mean, do they really think that there aren't gay people in the pews?

Thus, the opposition cannot speak for all religions, and must share the public sphere with other faiths, as well as with those of no faith. This is really fundamental. Prop8 allowed a single view of religion from an unholy alliance between the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches to dominate the discourse. More reasoned clergy views were ignored. And there are a lot of clergy who are pro gay rights. Some are part of the HRC Religion Council or the California Council of Churches or the coalition group California Faith for Equality.

So the first conclusion is that some religions actually SUPPORT gay marriage. Therefore there is no single "religious viewpoint" on this issue, and we must strongly, but respectfully, point out that the vocal opposition does not speak for all religions.

Myth one busted.

Now, an important part to this is that it does not serve our side to attack those of faith generally. There are lots of progressivee faithful folks who are on our side (some of them hang out at Street Prophets, which is part of the Daily Kos family). Beware the over broad brush. By letting the other side paint us as "anti-religious", we lose. Far more effective to recognize religion is really on our side. After all, Jesus didn't hang out with the Pharisees and the priests. He was with the ones they reviled.