America seriously needs a lesson in civics, most particularly the Bill of Rights. In three states this past Tuesday, as voters took a historic leap forward in electing Barrack Obama, they simultaneously said “separate and not really equal” to gays and lesbians. But we will not give up, we will not accept second class citizenship, and one day, we shall overcome.

We shall overcome
We shall overcome
We shall overcome some day

The issue in California will go back to the courts to decide whether this initiative measure meets Constitutional muster or not, so the battle continues, it has just changed the venue. But that does not address the appalling lack of understanding about equal rights by those who voted to ban gay marriage.

For some, they believe that being gay is a choice and therefore not entitled to legal protection. Ask any gay person and they will assure you it is not a choice to prefer their same gender, even if it is a choice whether to act on those feelings or not. How many heterosexuals do you know who say their orientation is a choice? Should gays have the right to prohibit opposite gender marriage? If not, what is the difference?

Some base their position on religion, and to them I say I won’t impose my views on their religion and ask that they not impose their religion on my life. If I don’t have the right to tell you who you can marry, why does your Bible have the right to dictate who I can?

The bitterest pill of all though comes from African Americans who voted overwhelmingly for these bans. One op-ed written by a self-described black lesbian contended it was, after all, just a white gay male issue and not a civil rights issue at all. She argued that gay white males didn’t reach out to her community to show why they should vote no on 8 (our proposition here in California).

My response is that no one from her community came to me when at age 17 I read about a demonstration against racial segregation in housing at a Los Angeles new tract of homes. That was 1957. No one had to tell me to keep marching, demonstrating, protesting, writing, voting and otherwise insisting on equal treatment for all ever since. No one came to me when, driving from L.A. to Texas with my buddies, one Hispanic, another Afro Cuban, we were denied service at every restaurant, motel and other facility along the way. I knew that it was up to me to stand for the rights of all people, so I insisted in sitting in at a lunch counter, the right to integrated housing at the Kiwanis sponsored convention in Texas, and even the right to sleep in an all “negro” motel on the way.

I just don’t buy all the excuses and explanations for those who cannot own up to their bigotry. Yes, that is what it is. I do not care what you think of my sexuality, I don’t care what your damn Bible, Koran or whatever has to say.

This is America. Our Constitution demands equal rights for all, not just those we are “comfortable with” or approve of. I may be going to hell in your way of thinking, but the Constitution gives me the same rights as you along the way.

We shall all be free
We shall all be free
We shall all be free some day
We shall overcome some day.

-

Well, marriage seems to be an increasingly antiquated way to manage sex, companionship and the raising of children. But if people want it, why not? Different strokes for different folks.

At last resort, if people who want equal rights fail in our increasingly corrupt courts, why not change the focus to, in law, abolishing the status of marriage for everybody? It might be amusing to see how heterosexuals react when it is done to them!

-

HUmm
might it be possible to pass an amendment that makes marriage a religious institution... and specifies that all domestic partnerships are civil unions as far as the law is concerned

All those things you can do without marriage, as Phil has pointed out elsewhere it is the tax advantages, insurance advantages, property ownership advantages and many more that are being denied same sex couples on a federal level. These are simple constitutional rights denied on the basis of gender.

If the next Congress revokes the DOMA - "Defense of Marriage Act" and changes all federal laws to recognize non-marriage relationships, it would be a big step. Obama pledge to work to revoke DOMA< but it has to be way down the list.

Passing a federal level amendment is impossible at this point.

In response to Jeffros post from the closed thread:

That was an enlightening response Jeffro, and made me think about things I never considered before. Thank you. A “funny” aside from my standpoint is that I have sometimes wished I were religious, (I lean between agnostic and atheist in case you were unaware—I just don’t friggin know) and could somehow accept that fairytale, and then I would not have to think about things but just accept things as I was told to believe. It would seem like such a relief. But my brain just cannot accept religious dogma so I am as I am, and that’s all that I am, and I am not Popeye the sailor man. (I’m sorry, sometimes I just cannot help myself.)

Ahem: Getting back to the topic…..Indeed, not sinning by not acting on it. How fu….absurd. I too am always perplexed by how some religious types want their freedoms (to worship, pray, believe, not be persecuted etc) yet they want to control the behavior of others that have no affect on themselves in any way whatsoever. That is why I arrive at the “creeped out” conclusion. Perhaps, as others have suggested, it’s because they are closeted or at least concerned that they are somehow “infected”. Getting into someone else’s head is always an exercise fraught with peril IMO.

I hope society can get beyond all of this, and gays can get the rights that they deserve. And then in 100 years or so people will look back at all this hubbub and wonder what the big deal had been all along. But I also realize that for you, Phil and others time is short and getting shorter.

If gays want to marry, who does it hurt? I remember Mel Brooks' "History of the World Part I" where he portrayed the second prehistoric marriage of a gay couple.

Thank you Ken (you forgot the toot toot at the end of the Popeye quote - it's okay, I heard it in my head ) I was sort of raised Catholic. Mom was, Dad wasn't and it wasn't until I was 12 years old that Mom started taking us to church. I was put on a fast track: baptized, confirmed and first communion all within a year. It may have been too late for me as I was always an independent thinker. While I tried to embrace the positives, I found way too many inconsistencies. By 16, I was frequently confronting Mom with something the priest had said and she would state emphatically that he did not (Yeah, Mom, I couldn't believe it either! . What is very telling, is the Sunday after I came out, Mom stopped waking me for mass.

I have settled into atheism. I did the agnostic thing for awhile in my 20's but it was too much like a spiritual insurance policy. If I'm wrong, I go to hell, I'm taking personal responsibility. Ironically (or not) it has been the silent respect that has allowed for a dominance of religion in this Country that has driven me to a more definitive non-belief. I am not alone.


I think there is something in the Bible, end times prophecy or something that tells the fundamentalists that they will be persecuted (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) so not only do they mangle and distort their thinking, common sense and logic to believe in a literal Bible, they do the same thing in order to feel victimized. This same simplicity of thought also seems to allow them not to see blatant contradictions and furthers their denial of facts and radical double standards. Logically speaking, if their main purpose was to protect traditional marriage - they would be working day and night to ban divorce. If they honestly feel that marriage should produce offspring, they would ban infertile couples from getting married.

None of their arguments stand up to scrutiny. This is an emotional issue, which, when not blocked by religious meddling into a secular issue, is (disturbingly enough) anchored by a single word. Marriage. It is all a semantics game.

Look at all the the comments from people saying "I'm fine with gays having equal rights, just don't call it marriage". They don't even notice that the second part of their statement completely negates the first.

I don't care what mental gymnastics they have to perform to make everything fit into what they believe. I really don't. I have no problem with people having faith, believing what they want to believe, praying, whatever. They have every right to do so. AND they have every right to be heard when they disagree, they do not have the right to make laws that ultimately force me to accept their beliefs.

All this vote did was to say: We are better than you. You do not deserve what we have.

All they did to deserve what they have was to be born heterosexual. What a struggle that must have been.

I completely agree with Phil above when he says that we should not have to reach out to a minority community to let them know our side. They should know our side, I have always made it a point to know theirs.

What would the people who voted "yes on 8" lose if "no" had won?

-

Those who cling to something are enchained by what they cling to.

-

Los Angeles Times

Ken and Jeffro, thank you for your posts. I am with you on the religious point of view. Sometimes I think it would be better for me too if I could just stop trying to figure it all out and just do it too.
I've have a very diverse background of exposures (up front and personal) from Southern Baptist to Mennonite to Jewish.
Most of it doesn't make sense to me and it seems like bending the big old book (written so long ago!) to make it work. I don't buy it.
It's like religious people WANT to be afraid all the time.

There is a little park very close to me. Less than a quarter mile. I like to walk down there sometimes by myself. I mean it's just RIGHT OVER THERE.
I can't tell you how many times I've been cautioned by some of my Christian neighbors around here that it is a "gay hang out" and there is "no telling what I'll see"!
Huh?

I'm just now getting caught up on both of these threads.

Jeffro, your postings in the other thread and here too have touched me deeply.
Thank you for sharing all that.
Even when I thought I knew all about it...no I don't actually.
I hate this. I am so sorry.

I don't think religious people want to be afraid, I think fearful people want to be religious.

I think religious people were responsible for originating the song "we shall overcome", were they not? And I think religious people were largely responsible for the monumental achievements of the Civil Rights era. I think they would not have achieved nearly so much as they did, had they not been, shall we say, fearless.

If I'm not mistaken, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a religious person. I think he was extraordinarily courageous, and that the foundation of his courage was his religion.

I think fearful people, as Barack Obama so rightly observed, often cling to "G*D and guns" to protect them from the unknown, invincible things they fear. I don't think courageous people cling to G*D. I think courageous people who choose to be religious do so as a matter of faith.

Just a footnote: "We Shall Overcome" was originally a church hymn -- but it was Pete Seeger who wrote new words and made it part of the civil rights movement.

VEry excellent point, Steve, and one the Christian Coalition founders knew very well.

Yes—and don’t get me wrong. I am not anti religious. Religion has done much good in the world through its many charities and well as been a great motivation in helping compose some of the most stirring music ever written. It’s not for me but I do believe it has provided much needed comfort and help for many. Most humans seem to need it and would be absolutely lost and rudderless without it.

My problem with religion is when it becomes militant and tries to impose its views and will on other people. That’s when I believe it becomes harmful and hurts (sometimes kills) other people. If religions would stick to their good side and encourage its followers to do beneficial things for both its adherents and outsiders, all would be well in my book.

But what is religion anyway? It’s a set of beliefs that can either be a tool for good or bad depending on the whims of its leaders and followers. Good religious leaders motivating their followers to do the right thing can provide good benefits for humanity. The converse is also true, unfortunately. The same can be said for political leaders.

Olyve, you are welcome. I feel like I have been consumed by this one issue for a week now and am trying to make it make sense. Thank you for reading and commenting. It has ended up being a very emotional issue for me.

I don't know that it is possible to know all about it. Each of us has a different story and I think it's easier to understand a position when you know the background. Thanks to CHB for indulging me in my lengthy posts.

Now, about that park...

Jeffro;.....it's right over-----there.

I agree Steve. But when it comes to fundamentalism, the fearful feed each other - it is like a snake eating its own tail. And as Olyve said, the leaders know very well that it works.

I try to distinguish between religious and fundamentalist, though it is getting harder to tell them apart. The religious people I know do not use fear to motivate people. I never got threats of hell from Mom and Grandma (Grandma who thought I would be a great priest and the fact that I was gay was a plus since I would never be getting married, a belief in God was negligible, may she rest in peace).

I am convinced that fear is ALL the fundamentalists have. The list of things that scare them is endless. It is almost like living among some ancient tribe.

Thanks Ken, You wait here, I'll go check it out for you... be right back.

I have finally found an article on Prop 8 that I can fully agree with from start to bottom:


snip


http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10798657

Where in the hell is that rolling over laughing icon?

Hey Jeffro is that YOU I see outside my window disappearing back into the cul de sac looking for the short cut to the park?
It is a cool as hell place. Very pretty, very small. A lot of dogs. The poor river is only about half there anymore since the drought but it's still very pretty.

I've never seen anything...ahem naughty or dangerous or even weird. In fact the atmosphere is exceptionally sweet and laid back.

My next door neighbor was a very sick man (bi polar in fact). I'm convinced he was a closet gay man. He got banned from the park because he would go down there and pick fights.
How sad is that?
He was such a mess we finally had to ask his landlady to make him leave.

For the record, I am not anti religion either. I know many fine Christians who I admire greatly, their beliefs and the way they live but I think many Christians in recent years have gone over to a dark side. These folks can be very scary.

Heard an interview on TOTN today with someone matching this description. Another point she raised was that AA's did not at all appreciate the WeHo Halloween effigy that so strongly invoked lynching imagery.

Los Angeles Times

I wrote about this very same thing last week on the other thread about a Bay Area Black minister saying this was a "gay white male issue" because gay white men have never reached out to the Black community. (Check it out - it's there, I wrote it a week ago.) Seems to me that the Black community has their "talking points memo" well rehearsed.

Blacks are so offended when gays say this is a "civil rights" issue. Blacks vehemately disagree because being gay is a "choice"; therefore, it can't be a "civil rights" issue as being born with black skin.

When the talk show host pointed out that research is leaning towards gayness as genetic, the self-described Black listener stated that homosexuality is still a "choice."

I listened to a show on NPR last night that debated how much responsibility blacks have for killing Prop. 8. One woman said that it was not the blacks who were putting up the millions to fight it. It was white conservative churches and that blacks were being scapegoated to drive a wedge between gays and blacks.

EmmaG

Here on Bay Area talk radio this subject has been discussed ad naseum since the elections. Black listeners state that they voted for Prop 8 because "homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God" and that they are offended by the suggestion by gays that this is a "civil rights" issue - absolutely, unequivocally, offended by those labeling "gay marriage" as a "civil rights issue."

How dare gays equate gay marriage with civil rights?

True, but Blacks freely admit to voting for the Proposition.

You Ranters know where there term "down low" came from, don't you?

The term originated in the Black community because homosexuality is not embraced in Black culture to the extent that a Black gay or lesbian can't be their true self and must live the lie on the "down low" by cruising and having outside sexual relations to (temporarily) cure that constant yearning.

(Now "down low" has become so mainstream that it applies to a myriad of situations.)

Down low - Urban Dictionary:

DEFINITION 5:

DEFINITION 9:

I'm not mad at the Black community, I'm just disappointed in the Black community. As I stated in the other thread, I'd expect Black Americans of all people to appreciate this struggle.

I've neglected to factor in their religious convictions.

...and I forgot to factor in the "AIDS factor" as well. In Black culture, AIDS = gay. Never mind that on other continents AIDS is a "heterosexual" issue.

I'm an a-hole.
The other day I posted something about my so-called "squeamishness" about gays who carry an agenda everywhere they go.
Then after reading all the coverage on Prop 8 and its eventual passage I realized why.
If I were a gay person you would never hear the end of it from me.
I'd use it in my signature much the way I used to use "Occupied TX" but it wouldn't stop there. I'd be the guy with a hammer who sees everything as a nail, and I'd never stop hammering on everything I see.
Last night I listened to Keith Olbermann's reaction and it struck me that I might be one of those people standing on ceremony, one of those people who represent "separate but equal".
We all know that separate but equal doesn't work.
I apologize for my thickheadedness and I've decided it doesn't matter if the churchies get their panties in a wad over the issue.
Gays should be allowed to participate in the institution of marriage as fully as any other couple. There should be no restrictions whatsoever.
I wish my head would catch up to my heart but my heart acknowledges that something is very wrong with a community that can pass a proposition aimed at depriving one group of people happiness.

At least you're a handsome one. I forgive you Jeff.



Panties...wad - oh my!

Here's a factoid that many outside of the Bay Area may not know.

The "Yes on 8" people ran ads stating that children in Kindergarten would be taught about gay marriage in school.

Then the "No on 8" people ran the California Superintendent of Schools stating that using children in this issue is shameful as California does not teach about "marriage" of any kind in school.


Then...


This idiot Bay Area lesbian couple invited their entire first grade class to their wedding, during school hours, allowing parents to opt out.

The "Yes on 8" people seized on this event and said: See? See? They're teaching the kids about gay marriage.


Stupid lesbian couple. They should be tarred and feathered. How could they not see the "political" ramifications of inviting their students to their wedding - especially before the election!!

Congratulations, Jeff. It is that kind of revelation that will someday get this nation past its obsession over gay marriage and really, gay people in general.

at least some are keeping their sense of humour

On a serious note - both of them are cute - what a cute couple!!

For anyone interested there will be a nationwide protest for gay rights this coming Saturday. There will be events in cities in every State here is a list: Join The Impact

Brentwood and Walnut Creek aren't on that list.

I know, weird, huh? My boss lives in Walnut Creek - his was the only house in his neighborhood with a "No on 8" sign

Well, I didn't really have any obsession over it, really.
The way I see it is like this:

Look, marriage is a contract between four parties, two spouses, a church and the state, but first and foremost it has always historically been a church sacrament. I mean, that's what it was first, before the state ever entered into it.

So, regardless of whatever the church folks feel, one can understand why some of them might feel that this is an attack on their holy rites. After all, if a "Bible believing" church (whatever that is, I thought all Christian churches believed the Bible) centers their philosophy on the marriage of a man and a woman, having gay marriage enter into it will cause a fight.

I think what's going to have to happen is the state is going to have to declare that the civil side of marriage is the only one that counts, and the church side is ceremonial and spiritual only.

And, in a sense this has already happened.
For 35 bucks I can get a piece of paper that says I am empowered to perform marriages.
Why aren't the churchies getting all upset over people performing marriages on top of speeding airplanes, underwater, in the municipal zoo, on top of landfills, inside hash bars in Amsterdam?
Where's the holy aspect of that?
And, look at some of the Hollywood marriages over the years.
You want a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage, there you go.
So, in essence the state has already shown that it is the civil side of the union that counts, and what the f**k does the state care if the couple is a man and a woman?

And, it turns out, as Keith Olbermann and many others have pointed out, it doesn't matter. But in reality it does...it matters to lot of people who think it's their business to inject the church into what is, for all practical and legal purposes, a state contract.
The churchies should have started getting up in arms when folks started getting married at the circus or something.
If they cared so much about defiling the sacred institution, then where were they when it was being performed under the Big Top amongst elephant droppings?

So this is going to wind up going to the Supreme Court.
I think it will ultimately win.
I don't think that will change things much, it will be a lot like the South after the Feds forced the states to abandon their Jim Crow laws. A lot of prejudice will still exist.

But not from me. I just don't see the point.
People should be allowed to be happy, and it's none of anyone's business if a married couple is gay or straight.

Just to be clear, Jeff, i did not intend to convey that you had any obsession about matters gay.

Keith Oberman weighs in on gay marriage.

Thank you Mr. Oberman!

...just a thought to ponder:

California voted for proposition 2 - which, in essence, voted for giving animals "the right" not to live in small cages.

...and in the same election voted to take away the right of gays to marry.

I've always been one to appreciate irony.

Well at least they didn't give those animals the right to marry.

To make matters worse, wasn't Prop 2 specific to chickens?

Now, had it been for protecting puppies, it might not hurt so much.

Yes, Prop 2 was mainly about laying hens, but it also applied to cows for veal and other farm animals kept in cages.

The point stereoman, is that animals "got rights" while certain humans had a right taken away.

Two things.

Participating in the protest on Saturday, with my son who is fervently involved and as shocked as I.

Second, I read the article from Jasmyne A. Cannick in the LA Times, and if she is truly a black activist, and truly a lesbian, she is even more ignorant and dangerous than the bulk of the populace. Here is someone who should understand that it is not particular rights or particular communities that matter, it is the concept that any group or any right can be denied simply based on their status. There is a real perversion here that is saddening to me. She notes that the civil rights movement was tied to the church, which is true, but ignores the fundamental christian precept that Jesus taught - "what is done to the least of God's children is done to me." Jesus did not teach intolerance, yet this is a mindset that trips willingly down that road because "THEY" are "Less Worthy" of protection than I am. Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

I thought Olbermann's special comment was one of the best I've heard on the topic. I was particularly enamored of this: Olbermann, Countdown What's so wrong about that?

Here's what Jasmyne Cannick wrote on the subject five months ago: Jasmyne Cannick Doesn't Give a Fig About Gay Marriage

A little more insight into her position, which I take it is not in favor of Prop 8, but in favor of understanding why so many Blacks are in favor of Prop 8. I see that distinction. And as Ms. Cannick says:
I don't agree that Ms. Cannick is "even more ignorant and dangerous than the bulk of the populace". I think she has thought these things through as deeply and personally as anyone who is stridently opposed to Prop 8. I may not agree with her position (I don't), but I think it's wrong to disparage her as "ignorant" because she holds it.

What's wrong with using the "civil rights movement as a blueprint to spearhead" our own rights?

...and why are gays always "white and wealthy"? I think the "wealthy" part is at the crux of issue and it's simply jealousy.

Hello, we biologically can't breed.
Hello, we don't have to spend money on kids.

Straight people choose to perform acts which produce children. Children cost money - just as a Lexus costs more to maintain than a Hyundai.

Don't hate on us because "God" gave us the inability to breed and therefore, we choose to go on fabulous vacations and drive Lexus cars instead.

Not 100% correct, Rick...there seems to be quite a few gay couples that have adopted children or are seeking the legal right to adopt.

Well for the most part, it's true - we don't want/can't have kids. Being biologically incapable of breeding only makes that job easier.

I'm simply raising the money disparity issue as the lady in stereoman's quote refers to gays as "white and wealthy."

I'm simply putting out there "reasons" why gays are "wealthy" and putting out there some reason why I think we are perceived as "wealthy."

Well all choose to spend our incomes as we see fit.

Steve, my commentary was written as a direct response to Ms. Cannick's piece in the LA Times. I agree she is clearly not ignorant in the sense of her lacking the intelligence to think on the issue.

But she is apologizing for the behavior of voters who acted ignorantly in the sense that their viewpoint was myopic and wrong. Ms. Cannick herself expresses so many stereotypes in that piece it is breathtaking.

All white gay men are wealthy? I wish she could convince my bank account of that. All white gay men are prejudiced? Maybe she could convince my partner of that. White gay men are riding on the back of the civil rights movement? As I point out in my piece she wasn't even alive when I put my life on the line for her along with thousands of other white men and women.

No, there have always been those who were apologistas for prejudice and bigotry, but that doesn't elevate them to thinkers. They are just hiding their own prejudice behind lengthy explanations and nice sounding words.

The black community has a lot of growing up to do and it isn't helpful to paint over their own prejudices in this manner. As this columnist puts it we need a black Elton John

Is there anything wrong with using the civil rights movement as a "blueprint"?

Of course not, Rick, especially since in part we helped design it.

So why are black Americans so up and arms about gays using the civil rights movement as our "blueprint"?

Shouldn't black Americans be proud of what was accomplished thru their efforts and want to share their movement with others?

...or do Black Americans simply feel that they "own" the civil rights movement? If so, Black Americans should have trademarked the idea: Civil Rights Movement®

Maybe they should have thought of Bayard Rustin which actually did design the civil rights movement.

Good one Phil! Perhaps you have a career in Gay Education 101. I know I have certainly learned a lot from you about our history.

I've read the essay three times now Phil. It does not come across to me as an apology for anything. It appears to me that Ms. Cannick is offering A) a reality check and B) some very good advice that the gay community as a whole would profit by if it wants to open the wider Black community to the idea of gay marriage as a civil rights issue. For example:

Does she? Why not quote her then, instead of paraphrasing?


I don't believe she comes anywhere near saying that. She does say this though:
To me, this looks like good advice.

Please, show me where she says "white gay men are wealthy". Please.

Again, Phil, if you would be so kind as to quote what Ms. Cannick said that led you to make such an accusation, I would be glad to discuss it.

Again, Phil, if you would be so kind as to quote what Ms. Cannick said that led to your impassioned defense of your own actions in 1957, I'd like to give it some thought.


I respect and concur with your feeling that way about folks who are opposed to gay marriage. At the same time, I respect and concur with Ms. Cannick's feeling that the White community still has a lot of growing up to do.

This is a statement of fact, not an apology. The fact that it states is that the Black churchgoers are no different than White churchgoers in their views about homosexuality, and it is presumptuous and condescending for White people to assume they "should" feel differently because they are Black.

But black church goers are different than white church goers on this issue. That is my point, Steve. White church goers did not vote 70-30 for Prop 8 but black church goers did, according to her analysis.

You have your interpretation of her piece, I have mine.

Los Angeles Times opinion

She wrote that "images" of gays are white and wealthy.

According to the exit polls, Protestants voted 65% YES on Prop 8, and Catholics voted 64% YES on Prop 8.

So what was your point, again?

The difference is 5 percentage points, Phil. I interpret that as a not-pick. The similarity is much more significant than the difference. Those who reported "no religion" voted 90% NO.

I agree with that. But you're not going to convince Black churchgoers that they should support gay marriage because they are Black. It would be better to try convincing them that they should support gay marriage because they are Christian.

Steve, it strains credulity to suggest that some 5 million people who voted against proposition 8 are non church goers. I know we are a blue state, but c'mon.

In all the post-election commentary about California's passage of Proposition 8, perhaps none was more offensive and wrong than I call "bull$hit"! How does the writer know that it's a regular occurrence? How about a few examples? And with them, examples of the "muted response"?

Straw man.

Oh, and speaking of straw men. Phil, how about those quotes from Cannick's essay supporting your claim of her "breathtaking" stereotyping?

Maybe a refresher course in statistics or logic would be helpful, Phil. If there were 100,000 non-church goers in California and 90% of them voted NO, how many votes would that be? Where, one might ask disingenuously, would the other 4,910,000 NO votes come from then? Why, they would come from the 35% of churchgoers who voted NO.

Any further questions on the subject of reading and interpreting data?

She did? Please provide the quote.

Steve, you can say what you will. The fact is 70 of blacks voted to discriminate against all gays. the fact is that Ms. Cannick wrote an article that amounted to a justification for that vote and blamed it on white gay men.

I don't know what your point is but that is what my point is. Yes white people also voted for the ban. So what? What is most striking is the claim by Cannick that it is not either a civil rights issue nor a priority.

That to me is a cop-out and hypocritical. Play the numbers game as you wish, bigotry comes in many colors, flavors and ways.

That's really a shame, Phil. I regret that I was unable to express myself more clearly.

I see no support for that statement in the linked article.



A different analysis also would question your assertion:

Los Angeles Times

Sorry, wrong link!

CNN exit poll data

Thanks for looking though.

Excuse me?


Not stereotyping? BS.

then how about this?


Where we now feel safe? Damnit, she is saying that as though it is true. I repeat, I put my life on the line for her rights probably before she was born and I didn't wait for any damn gentrification.



Really? But a black lesbian can tell me how to act and what to say?

Cmon Steve, this woman is a racist pure and simple. And yes, I have it from many African American friends of mine who are gay and lesbian that in the pulpits of the black churches of LA the sermons demonizing gays are frequent and commonplace.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

I looked further for the analysis of votes and found this:
CNN

there is one category that supports your 65% claim but other categories seem to contradict that. It seems that more important was how often one went to church.

Nevertheless, everyone seems to agree on the vote in the black community. Ms. Cannick attempts to explain that, but to me it completely misses the point I tried to make to start this thread.

How can an oppressed people have a justification for passing on their oppression. I think Bayard Rustin, quoted above, said it best.

How to convince church-goers that gays should have equal rights Lesson 1:


http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20081112/NEWS01/811120369

I personally think that groups like this one, mayor of SF and the lesbian couple inviting the 1st graders to their ceremony are doing a good enough job turning people against gay marriage than black people... but hell, what do I know.

I am not gay and I am not black, but I am offended by Cannick's lack of logical acumen and her apologia for her inaction and the homophobia of her community. And yes, I read both articles, and I still think that her position is ignorant and ill-informed. She is just too self-absorbed to understand other points of view. That's my opinion. Yes, there should have been a different approach by the "no" campaign, but her language is inflammatory and racist - which should be shocking, but it consistent with a certain portion of the "activist" community - the "holier than thou" wing, of which I believe Ms. Cannick is an occupant. Specifically, lines like She seems to be carrying a lot of resentment for someone who wasn't alive during the civil rights movement. Jasmyne Cannick Blog It's not that she supported Prop 8, but her apologia is offensive, because it is based upon an attitude of "victimhood." It harks back to a different, older kind of activist attitude. I have read more of her than just these articles, and within her "community" she is more outspoken, but carries that insularity like a badge of honor. She is more about "blackness" than anything.

But more significantly, she is young and uninterested in marriage. That is a division within the gay community that is probably more profound than the black-gay divide. There are those that see marriage as the ultimate and singular issue, and those that are more incremental in their approach to gay civil rights. That is really the area she is trying - in my opinion inartfully - to address. But poorly formed arguments can be just as destructive as ignorance, which is what my original point was intended to convey.

Maybe citing to her blog will be illuminating: Dear Black Dear Black California…About Your Support of Prop. 8. She was willing to make this argument in her "community" but not in the L.A. Times, and says so. It stumps me.

I was just looking around, and found this on five thirty eight.com, which I think I've seen quoted at RR in the past.


I realize that the last line is more food for the fire than it is a consolation - but what about their main point, that the problem is generational, and not racial? The artical says young Latinos voted against, 59-41 (no numbers available for a corresponding group of black voters.)

I think that assessment is sound. The same is true even in the military: a majority of Soldiers under 25 don't care about the sexual orientation of other Soldiers. Those over 25 reach the opposite conclusion.

helluva big hill to overcome, but the battle goes on, Phil.

Gay rights protesters disrupt Sunday service


More Brilliance from our citizens...

I find the behavior of this particular group despicable. There are nuts in every community. But it is certainly easier to paint all by the actions of a few.

The mayor of SF stood up and said EXACTLY what needed to be said. He said homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals - the idea that that would drive people away from supporting gay marriage does not reflect poorly on homosexuals but rather the people who would be driven away at the thought of equality.

The lesbian couple did NOT invite the children from the charter school to their wedding. It was a surprise for their teacher. The children and their parents arranged the whole thing (there were even two children unable to attend because their parents did not sign the permission slip). The "Yes on 8" campaign then used the video of these children at the wedding - repeatedly - AGAINST THE PARENTS WISHES for their smear campaign full of lies.

Again, if the images of happy children celebrating their teacher getting married turns people against gays having equal rights, the problem is from the people already predisposed to think of gays as lesser citizens.

Jeffro,

I'm sure that you know that it's not what you do but how you do it. For 3 months I watched the same video clip of SF mayor saying "Wether you like it or not" to gay marriage, something that doesn't play well. I'm sure his heart was in the right place, but his words did a lot of damage.

As far as the school class, the supporters of "no on 8" (which I'm sure that most of them that organized the thing were) should have been a bit brighter and not make it an organized thing as a class because anyone could have seen the "yes on 8" supporters use it.

I see it that if you give people the right to vote on an issue, they have to vote how they see fit according to their values. If this is a civil rights issue the courts should deal with it. Why didn't the "no on 8" people manage to get the measure off the balot if it is unconstitutional?

The Court refused to hear the issue prior to the election which is the right decision. The court always refuses to decide cases of this sort prior to a vote.

Kap, they tried. The California Supreme Court dismissed the petitions as premature. In order to have a "Case in controversy" there has to be an existing harm. Until Prop 8 passed, there was no harm. Now that it exists, I suspect that the Cal Supreme Court will strike it down as a "revision" not an amendment to the Constitution. Legally, I think the No on 8 people are correct. Unfortunately, it will once again create the perception that "activist courts" are "forcing" the issue onto the populace, when in fact it is the activist religionists that are doing so.

I disagree, Kap.
My guess is these parents think it is important for their children to grow up knowing that the union between two people in love regardless of their gender is normal and beautiful.

I understand what you're saying...that they then had it used against them but I still think the bigger lesson for their children was more important.
I think the "no on 8" folks need to pull the facts out on this and use it back at them. Big time.

I do know that it is how you do it, and I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but we are not discussing an opinion, we are discussing taking away the rights of a segment of the population. Trust me, gay marriage is not the issue I ever thought I would be so outraged about, but from where I stand "Like it or not" resonated with me.

As for the teacher. The timing was unfortunate, but you know what? I believe we had the right to get married when that occurred. It was legal and had that teacher waited until after the vote, I am sure she knew she may not get the chance again. The children and their parents wanted to express their appreciation and love for their teacher and this was her "under the wire" wedding day. Who called the press? Don't know. Could it have been "Yes on 8" people? Again, I don't know. If you spend your life - scratch that, if I spend my life wondering if something I do could be used against me by homophobes, I wouldn't ever leave my apartment. I prefer to live my life.

I am really not comfortable with the idea of playing nice and watching my step to be considered an equal member of society. I'm 46 years old and, quite frankly, it's getting really old.

Prop 22 was put on the ballot years ago, voted on and it wasn't until years later that the Supremes said it was unconstitutional. I honestly don't know why Prop 8 couldn't be withdrawn from the ballot, perhaps Phil could help me out since I've had the very same question. We managed to get the language changed from "protection of marriage" to "elimination of rights" but clearly that wasn't strong enough.

Maybe it should have said "Gays will officially be declared second class citizens". But judging from what I've heard lately, that may have won in a landslide.

I am frankly very tired of people, either gay or straight, telling us how we should have handled this issue. If you did not participate before election day by contributing or making calls or at least sending emails or walking precincts, I say you had your chance and should now just shut the f up.

Sorry it is said so bluntly, but I am pissed. It is easy to tell us what we should do, in fact it has been going on for many years. We hear it from every corner.

I am with Jeffro on this -- I will not worry how you take what I do, it is my/our life. If you don't like it, turn your head and go live your own.

Do I want your support for my/our rights? You are damned right I do, but that is your duty as a citizen, not a gift for my/our good behavior.

"Yes on 8" used this unfortunately timed event for all it was worth. The 'Yes on 8' commercials were flooded with children saying things like "I learned that a man can marry another man The reality is, if same sex marriage is legal (as it was when the ads were running)then a man CAN marry another man. Is it better to lie to the kiddies? This same little girl then says "one day I can marry a Princess" so something tells me that this parent is going to have this conversation somewhere down the road anyway

Ironically, these ads prompted two children of women I work with to ask their parents about gay marriage - in both cases, the children were confused about why anyone would try to stop people from getting married. And in one case, "why would we even vote for that?"

From the mouths of babes, eh? Honestly, kids don't care. I have six nieces and nephews and none of them give a damn about who I date as long as they get their Christmas money.

Jeffro, thanks for that... a couple of pages ago I posted a link that suggested the split in voters was not so much ethnic or racial, but generational. I'd be interested to hear from the California residents whether they think that's true, and if so, what might be done about it.

You may get an idea of our outrage from what happened about El coyote, a long time gay friendly restaurant. In fact, we are largely responsible for their success. One of the owners was found to have contributed to Yes on 8.

El Coyote tries to explain

What is at stake for me, as a citizen, is the diminishment of the rights of all citizens to the protection of the state and the preservation of the principles of the Constitution itself. Gays happen to be the oppressed minority du jour, but it could as easily be you or any of us. Like to own a gun? You should have voted against Prop 8. Think your religious freedom is important? Should have voted against it. Like free speech? Get over it, this is the camel's nose under the tent. People seem to miss the bigger picture here - this isn't about "gay" rights, this is about all Americans' rights to live in a country governed not by the whims of the populace or the wording of a legal provision, but fundamental constitutional protections and rational legislation. If this proposition stands, it is the start (strike that, we already have the start in DoMA, and 39 States that have anti-gay legislation in place) of a significant diminishment of the entire Constitution itself. Like the Bill of Rights? Well, just remember how they used to be respected, revered, and followed.

I believe there probably is a generational divide. In one of my posts I mentioned the older guy I met on election night who said he thought the whole thing was 'silly'.

But the more I think about the race part of the equation, the less I believe that anything could have been done to change that.

There are gays in every single community out there - we are not defined by race. It is amazing to me that, a large percentage of the population, perceive that gays are only white males. That should come as a surprise to the black, latino, middle eastern, asian men I have slept with over the decades.

Why weren't they heading up the push within their own communities?

I'll tell you why. Because many of these men were not out to their families, they knew they would be rejected. They sensed that most of their parents knew but, if you don't talk about it, it doesn't exist. Putting something gay oriented on a ballot is not going to yield a positive result in these communities. I would bet that in a lot of cases, particularly if there was a gay child in the family, those parents would be the first to vote against gay marriage - if the option does not exist, their child may end up marrying someone of the opposite sex. Take that right away then being gay is no longer an option. (and no, that doesn't make sense but it does seem to be the thought process for parents in denial).

For the record, I know self-hating gay white males who voted "Yes" as well (see: Jerry, the guy I met election night).

I resent some members of the gay community blaming other minorities, but I really resent being told that the gay white males needed to reach out. For some of these families, if their own children could not persuade a "no" vote, then some gay white guy ain't gonna do it.

Thank you NW! I really do not see how this is not blatantly obvious to everyone. Perhaps that is why it has hit me so hard. Hell, I don't even have a boyfriend!

Phil, this is the second story like this I have read today. The first was this one http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/12/state/n111331S39.DTL

I find myself more angry than I was when I first heard the results. I am tired of being told all that we should have done, even when we did it. It all just sounds like "you should have been nicer and then we would have given you your rights". I am not alone.

I believe the gay community has finally hit a breaking point, even more so than during the AIDS crisis with groups like ACT UP. We are beyond that now and are stronger for it. I think we are going to see a lot more stories like this. We have always been perceived as docile and weak. This has radically changed. It has come in steps and they have been slow (though I never thought I would see this in my lifetime). Stonewall, Anita Bryant , AIDS, and now this - it is energizing, angry, sometimes childish and empowering.

I don't know how it will end, and it sometimes hurts intensely (more than I thought it could). I do have a lot of hope but it is fraught with anxiety (I feel like Gary Cooper watching the clock).

I do feel whichever way it goes, it is going to be big.

Of course it does. She wasn't trying to make your point. She had her own axe to grind.

The media seem fixated on promulgating the myth that opposition to same-gender marriage is somehow connected to race, but the data show that it is connected to church attendance. And it happens that among Blacks and Hispanics, church attendance is much more prevalent than among Whites. Is that a racial characteristic? I think not.

Indeed. Bayard Rustin suffered from this kind of rejection, and was careful to keep his sexual orientation under wraps "for the good of the cause". He was candid about his sexuality, but he wasn't "openly gay". Again, from wikipedia:


Certainly homophobia was, and is, is rampant in White, Latino, and Black communities (though, I am led to believe, it is far less common in Asian communities), but as I have been pointing out, it is more connected to the power of the Church than the power of race.

Steve, it may not be a racial characteristic but, in my experience, it is certainly a cultural characteristic. I honestly do not like the way the race thing is being played up. It came as no surprise to me that African Americans and Latinos would vote for this change to our Constitution.

The fact is that religion is the root of all of this. Whether it be Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, etc. It is religion that fouled the waters. This is absolutely not a race issue, even though within the African American and Latino communities, religion is an important component. I don't think that can be argued, but I personally do not know any atheists in those communities (even the gay ones).

I can say that with confidence because I know the objections to gays in general always come from the religious. They can discard everything that directly affects them from their holy books, but they cannot let go of the gay thing.

I remember, years ago, reading that when straight people heard that someone was gay, all they could imagine was that person having sex and it was icky to them. This comes as no surprise since our minority status is based solely on our sexual orientation. You can't say "gay" without some mental image that includes sexuality.

I believe that this writer has placed race above sexuality. She really does seem to have an axe to grind but rather than an overall complaint, I believe her complaint is specific to her feelings about the gay community. And it is valid. I have always been surprised at the racism I have experienced within the community. Never mind the rest of society, I have heard many racist remarks within the sometimes insular world we inhabit. I have never understood it and have fought it when it has come before me. I believe her perspective is colored by this.

I firmly believe that religion is the enemy of any advancement in our society. I am open to arguments about the good religions have done, but in this case, I can guarantee that nothing will persuade me from this position.

that is not what I see. It is something I have focused on only because it is so insulting. I focused on Ms. Cannick's commentary in large part because of her attempt to blame me for the failure of the black community to honor my rights to the same equality of legal treatment that I worked hard for her to enjoy.

I agree completely with this analysis, Steve, which, from my viewpoint, reinforces the unconstitutional quality of the effort - i.e., trying to promote a religious viewpoint in public policy. It does not matter that the unconstitutional act was promoted by the majority if it violates fundamental constitutional precepts.

NW, is there any way possible that the courts will not throw this out and it will actually go in effect?

Also, if it does get defeted in the courts, will this provide enough basis to make change at the federal level? Even if gay couples can mary and have benefits in California and a few other states, they are still not entitled to the federal rights of married couples.

Yes, I am afraid there is a significant possibility that the courts will not throw out Prop 8 and that it will go into effect. The problem is that this was a popular election, and even the courts are sensitive to throwing out popularly passed provisions. While I think that the law favors throwing it out, we are all aware that courts are not particularly finicky about following the law, sometimes. My confidence, however, is that the Chief Justice of the Cal Sup Ct is a conservative, but still wrote the opinion upholding the right of gays to marry in a well-reasoned decision. I would find it surprising that the majority would change simply because of the vote.

Now, if it is defeated in court, I think it would be incumbent upon the anti-Prop 8 folks to work to get something on the ballot confirming the court's decision. Crafting it will be tricky, but I think they need to "set the standard" before the opponents do. Something along the lines of "no civil rights currently granted by law may be abrogated by less than a super majority of the electorate." That could cement the right and make it highly unlikely to be overturned by a proposition.

The state high Court had little hesitation overturning Prop 22, which was not a Constitutional amendment. In fact, that was how the right to marry got recognized. So I am more optimistic, NWP, although I recognize that the high temperature of the issue will make a threat of removing justices a real threat.

Work has already begun on a 2010 initiative to overturn Prop 8 and the strategies adopted by the No on 8 campaign are coming under heavy attack. Best of all, they are under attack from the kind of young, educated, internet-based grass roots effort that helped Obama get elected.

It is widely acknowledged that had the gay community organized and acted with as much fervor as we are post election, things probably would have been quite different. After all, we started out plus 8 in polls at the beginning.

Key to any new ballot measure will be a better on the ground campaign that reaches out to religious and minority voters. Another round of marches and demonstrations is scheduled around the nation for this Saturday, November 15. I really have not seen the gy community this active since the early days of the AIDS epidemic.

Most of all, we have to show all California voters that this is less a gay marriage issue than one of civil rights and equality. And in the process we will come even further "out of the closet."

I am very proud of our young gay activists right now.

Los Angeles Times

Interestingly, I had been perusing the SFGate site, Proposition 8 contributions, for Washington State contributors, to consider my personal actions with regard to these organizations. Not much I can do organizationally (being a federal employee), but it will influence my personal decisions.

Why did gay-marriage ban pass? 'No' campaign was in turmoil

sorry if this already has been posted; looked for it but did so quickly:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein14-2008nov14,0,2377851.column

I don't think anybody's posted that, logan. Interesting idea. It reminds me of a play I read several years ago - forgive my terrible memory for titles and authors, but Martha might well remember for me - the premise of which was that one day all the African Americans disappeared from a sleepy little Southern town.

My, my, my. What a disaster ensued!

I love it.

day off work.... ok im willing to mince a little!

more seriously though, if you feel like putting on your best protesting shoes...

find your local protest

IMPACT

NEWS FLASH! Schlack agrees to mince words!!! NEWS FLASH!!!

Thanks, Schlack.
I had not heard about that. I'm going to try and get to ours tomorrow (demonstration).

I just signed a petition circulating (No on Prop 8) and forwarded it on to more people I know.

Hmmm... that's funny Olyve, I believe I linked to this back on page 4.
Thank you for your support. Seriously. It has not always existed and to hear and read so much positive from heterosexuals during this has been amazing. There have been a lot of negative, hateful reactions (not here), but in reading a lot of message boards, I have been pleasantly surprised at how much support we really have. I don't mean to negate any of that in all my whining.

I will be at the protest tomorrow morning. What is discouraging (and Phil made a point of this earlier) is that I spoke to several gay people I work with this week who are not going to attend. The reasons I got were valid (will be traveling, have to work, etc) to really lame (really hate crowds, "what will this accomplish, the election is over") and my neighbor and co-worker may or may not be going with me because "who planned a protest for gays at 10:30 on a Saturday morning?!". I explained to him that 10:30am isn't really all that early, particularly since we live FIVE FREAKIN' BLOCKS from Civic Center! We'll see.

Someone asked what we hoped to accomplish. I said "well, I would like to get a right I am granted by the State Constitution back. So, I guess, not much". I have never felt like hitting so many people as I have the past couple weeks.

But, if it is worded so that it can be rescinded by vote, then it is not a right, but rather a mere civil privilege subject to abrogation at the whim of the populus. There should be something more foundational on which to rest a claim to a right if it is to be "secured" by law, and in my opinion that foundation is whether "marriage" is an inherent, and thus, unalienable right.

Earlier, when it was being bandied about as a federal issue, I viewed same sex marriage from several perspectives before coming to my own conclusion. I will simply repeat here what I posted then.

"1. The US Constitution does not grant the Federal Government authority over marriage therefore it is not a federal matter.

2. Is marriage a right or a privilege? If marriage is defined as a contractual lifetime commitment between two consenting people, and the exercising of this action does not require active provision by non-involved persons, and the exercising of this action does not infringe upon the rights of others, then I would have to conclude that it is an inherent right not dependent upon the state or other authorities.

3. If engaging in a contractual lifetime commitment by two consenting individuals is a right, then the question becomes, is such a right restricted to heterosexual contractual commitment, or is a same-sex contractual commitment also an inherent right?

4. All natural or inherent rights are morally self-restricting in that each person's liberty to exercise such a right ceases just prior to infringing on the inherent rights of another. In addition, society (usually through the power of the state) may place additional limitations on an inherent right. The reason for doing so is to ensure as best it can, social harmony (I mean by this, respect for the rights of all individuals).

So, when it comes to determining if same-sex consensual 'marriage' is also included in the general right to consensual marriage, the question is, "Does its prohibition protect other individuals from a threat great enough to infringe on what is otherwise an inherent right"? If so, what is that threat?

My personal opinion is that 'marriage', same or hetero, is not a matter for state involvement. I also do not accept altering constitutions -- state or federal -- to restrict individual freedom that does not infringe on the rights of others or severely and negatively impact others in society. This leaves the question of whether the individual states should pass laws that would restrict such freedoms. In the case of consenting contractual commitment (a.k.a. marriage), I do not see why they should.

I do personally consider marriage, in the traditional meaning of the word, to refer only to the consensual contractual commitment between a male and a female (whether through a church ceremony or legal documents drawn up in a lawyer's office). However, I cannot see any threat from the same documents being drawn up for a same-sex couple. There may be threats that I am not aware of, and -- like Perot said -- I am all ears.:-)

In pondering this issue, I think principle compels me to not support the "yes for man and woman only marriage" thingie."

I have seen nothing nor thought of any reason since writing the above to change my position on this issue.
Yours,
Issodhos

Iss, your ears will fall off waiting for an explanation of the threats. Opponents claim a threat, yet are much less forthcoming when asked for specifics. The question has been asked repeatedly and I have yet to hear what this threat to "traditional" marriage is.

That is not even how prop 8 passed, it passed, at least in part, based on lies about children being taught about this horrible abomination in schools. The other component was, of course, religion. While I appreciate the time you took to spell out any kind of rational, legal objections to this vote, and hopefully that is how it will be resolved (at least for my state), the objections to gay marriage are neither.

Issodhos, all rights in a constitutional system are subject to vote, the question is what level of hurdles are in place to reduce the likelihood of basic rights being abrogated.

It is my contention that there is such a barrier to an initiative like Prop 8 in the California Constitution but it was not followed.

Sometimes I miss things.
I'm sorry, Jeffro.


I'm doubly sorry, Jeffro. My heart truly hurts for you. I can 'hear' your pain.

I have too many gay friends not to support this.
One couple that we are close to have been committed to each other as long as we have known them....close to ten years. They would love to get married.
If you think things are tough in California...

That said, we DO depend on you big 'librul' states to get the ball rolling on these kinds of issues so that we can 'hope' at least to piggy back on your victories.
That is why we here have demonstrations in solidarity with you. We want you to feel us over here rooting for you.

You're getting complaints about it being so early there. Here the complaints are that is it during the football game!

My best to you Californians.
Go get um.

The 8=hate org has pubished a list of businesses that contributed to Prop 8:

John Griffiths / Dentist, John C. Griffiths, Dds, Mds, Pc /Las Vegas, NV / $1,000

Anne-Marie Anderson /Consultant, Cps Human Resource Svc. / Rocklin, CA /$3,900

Darren Hulstine / Sales, Patterson Dental / Santa Maria, CA / $1,500

Dale Olsen / Contractor, The Floor Show Of California / Lemon Grove, CA / $1,000

John Sawyer / President, Penhall Company / Laguna Hills, CA / $2,500

John Sawyer / President, Penhall Company / Laguna Hills, CA / $1,000


Samuel Coates / Attorney / Palo Alto, CA / $2,500

Fieldstead And Co. / Irvine, CA / $95,000

Margaret Friedrich / Farmer, Friedrich Enterprises / Paterson, CA /$1,000

Frank Winger / Insurance, Aim / Santa Ana, CA /$2,500

Andre Carli / Professor, Cal. State Univ. Sacramento / Elk Grove, CA / $1,000

Container Supply Co., Inc. / Garden Grove, CA / $250,000

Wesley C. Hilton / V.p. Ins. Sales, Dominion Insurance / Lafayette, CA / $1,250

Kemp Burnham / Software Developer, Xact Ware Inc. / Lehi, UT / $1,000

Koreen Martone / Budget Analyst, State Of Ca. / West Sacramento, CA / $1,000

Gary Mcarthur / Dc, Ppc / Paradise, CA / $1,000

Gary Melman / Investment Manager, Horus / Los Angeles, CA / $1,000

Barnabas Chen / Manager, World Trend, Inc. / Pomona, CA / $1,000

Gayle Wells / Seminar Business, Empty Spools Seminars / Moraga, CA / $1,000

Lambeth Consulting / Greenwood, CA / $1,000

Stephen Elgorriaga / Sheep Rancher, Stephen Elgorriaga Livestock / Madera, CA / $1,000

Country View Farms / Pierce, NE / $2,500

Roy Menchavez / Equip. Eng., Venzon Engineering / Mountain View, CA / $1,000

Frank Velasquez / Coo, Cornerstone Technologies / San Jose, CA / $1,000

Tyler Albrechtsen / Healthcare Administrator, Victoria Care Center / Oxnard, CA / $1,000

Bruce Andrus / Hotel Owner/operator, Huntington Hotels / Park City, UT / $20,000

Daniel Brinton / Physician, East Bay Retina Consultants / Lafayette, CA /


$2,000

Stan Lee / Pharmacist, Nelsons Drug Store / Upland, CA / $5,000

Jeffrey Puryear / Lab Research Assoc., Texas Agrilife Research Station / Bryan, TX / $1,000

Matthew Wade / Medical Resident, Uc Irvine / Salt Lake City, UT / $2,000

Focus On The Family / Colorado Springs, CO / $2,909

Robert Gray / Consultant, Rg-construction Consultants / Plumas Lake, CA / $2,000

Robert Mendenhall / Pres., Western Governors University / Salt Lake City, CA / $1,000

John Mcgaffey / Manager, Polara Engineering / Fullerton, CA / $2,000

Garth Pickett / Accounting, Ladera Integrators / Mountain View, CA / $2,000

Tracy Pickett / Executive Support, Ladera Integrators / Mountain View, CA / $1,999

Lisa Myler / Wedding Planner, Myler Weddings / American Fork, UT / $10,000

Jerner Construction, Inc. / Turlock, CA / $1,000

Paula Barnes / Scheduler, Disneyland / Mission Viejo, CA / $3,000

Michael Brown / Attorney, Michael R. Brown, A Law Corp. / Lake Forest, CA / $1,200

Earl Goodman / President, Goodman, Gene, Dtl, Inc. / Chandler, AZ / $9,999

James Mclaughlin / Investment Management, Lincolnshire Management, Inc. / New Canaan, CT / $1,000

Donald Nanney / Attorney, Gilchrist & Rutter, Pc / Pasadena, CA / $1,000

Coalition For The Protection Of / Las Vegas, NV / $5,000

William Allen / Orthodontist, North County Orthodontist / Carlsbad, CA / $1,000

Morgan Lynch / Management, Lago Di Como / Cedar Hills, UT / $2,500

Scott Haskins / President, Facl, Inc. / Santa Barbara, CA / $5,000

Jessica Wooden / Rn, Sutter Roseville Medical Center / Rescue, CA / $1,500

Yvonne Tsai / Consultant, Kingdom Design / Irvine, CA / $1,000

Caleb Nelson / Self Employed, Unishippers Of Oakland/oregon / Albany, OR / $1,000

Jan Pinney / Insurance Broker, Pinney Insurance Center, Inc. / Granite Bay, CA / $10,000

Ken Campbell / Personnel Officer, City Of Long Beach / Mission Viejo, CA / $1,000

Price Funeral Chapel, Inc. / Citrus Heights, CA / $1,000

Kevin Neubert & Associates Inc. / Lake Arrowhead, CA / $1,000

Scott Borgia / Tax Director, Armanino Mckenna / Morgan Hill, CA / $1,000

Leading Edge Duplication, Inc / Moorpark, CA / $1,700

Joseph Ray / Civil Engineer, P G & E / Rodeo, CA / $1,000

Kimberly Sneddon / Teacher, Chino Usd / Brea, CA / $1,000

Tisha Harty / Office Manager, Law Office Of Douglas Harty / Castaic, CA /

$1,000

Steven Udvar / Manager, Pacific Life Insurance Co. / Dana Point, CA /


$1,000

Lorin Rocks / Engineer, Tandberg Television / San Jose, CA / $1,000

Melenaite Piutau / Contractor, New Epoch Construction / Ontario, CA / $2,000

Heath Fields / Shipping/receiving, Terico / San Jose, CA / $1,000

Container Supply Co., Inc. / Garden Grove, CA / $1,520

Blake Wettengel / Attorney, Snell & Wilmer / Laguna Niguel, CA / $1,000

Cheryl Aday / Real Estate, Provident Realty / Upland, CA / $1,000

Ray Zinn / Ceo, Micrel Inc. / Atherton, CA / $1,500

Gregory Tuttle / Dentist, Gregory K Tuttle Dds / El Dorado Hills, CA / $5,000

Katherine Foster / Manager, Cisco / Mountain View, CA / $2,000

David Boyce / Cpa, Brown, Fink, Boyce & Astle

/ Folsom, CA / $4,000

Michael Lee / Researcher, Natl Inst. For Materials Science / Elk Ridge, UT / $1,500

Joel Gibson / Consultant, Permanente Medical Group / Albany, CA / $1,000

Courtney Sirard / Medical Provider, Woodland Hospital / Woodland, CA /

$1,000

Alex Spjute / Attorney, Hughes Hubbard & Reed / Redondo Beach, CA / $1,000

Wei Li / Engineer, Sensage / Daly City, CA / $1,000

Sherri Steenburgen / Real Estate, First Team Real Estate / Anaheim, CA /

$2,341

John Lewis / Doctor, Tpmg / Cupertino, CA / $1,000

Kevin Schick / Programmer, Synteract Inc. / Carlsbad, CA / $1,000

Anne Jones / Calligrapher, Self - Anne Jones / North Hollywood, CA /


$1,000

Sherry Jagard / Program Manager / Simi Valley, CA / $1,000

Walter Gubler / Professor, Uc Davis / Davis, CA / $1,000

Montgomery Painting / Cerritos, CA / $1,000

Jeff Lemmon / Businessman, New Star / Pacific Grove, CA / $1,000

Brandon Ballard / Investment Advisor, Investools Inc. / Los Angeles, CA /


$1,000

Matthew Thueson / Office Manager, Roll Services / Tucson, AZ / $1,000

Lawrence R. Taylor / Cpa, Gallina, Llp / Antelope, CA / $1,000

Carl Trubschenck / Dentist, Carl Trubschenck Dds Inc. / Citrus Heights, CA / $1,000

Christopher Porter / Vp Sales, Pearson / Folsom, CA / $1,000

Ryan S. Beck / Physical Therapist, Western Physical Therapy / Orland, CA / $1,000

David Bjarnason / Analyst, Western Investment / Salt Lake City, CA / $1,000

Ralph E. Carr / Social Worker, Dept. Of Children & Family Serv. / Downey, CA / $1,000

Kirk Phillips / Civil Engineer, City Of Claremont California / Upland, CA / $1,000

Tca Partners, Llp / Fresno, CA / $1,000

Thomas Carmack / Attorney, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosa / Mountain View, CA / $1,000

Mike Power / Engineer, Intuit / San Jose, CA / $1,000

Rhonda Killion / Secretary, Church On The Rock / Woodland, CA / $1,000

Brian Avery / Property Manager, Acco Mgt. / Mountain View, CA / $1,000

Blaine Ray Workshops / Consultant / Pismo Beach, CA / $1,000

Scott English / Programmer, Tmmg / Yorba Linda, CA / $2,000

Special Funds / Santa Clarita, CA / $2,675

Bolt Motorcycle Hardware / Atascadero, CA / $1,000

Ridgway Pope / Accountant, County Of Ventura / Ventura, CA / $1,000

Daniel Trueba / Doctor, U.s. Navy / Stonington, CT / $1,000

Alta Home Care Inc. / Riverside, CA / $2,500

Mark Riem / Audio Visual, Self Employed-mark Riem / Los Angeles, CA / $1,000

Chris Barlow / Finance, Lombard Street Partners, Llc / San Ramon, CA / $1,000

Tulikininifo Penieli / Intl. Export., Dhl Express / Lawndale, CA / $1,000

Metal Related Services, Inc / Chatsworth, CA / $2,000

Kawika Tupou / Engineer, Alg Corp. / Camarillo, CA / $1,000

Brian Everett / Architect, Nmr Architects / Orangevale, CA / $1,250

Cory Reid / Loss Mitigation, Consumer Protection Institute / Moraga, CA / $1,000

Kendell Ricks / Dentist, Village Dental / Bonsall, CA / $1,000

Alekisanita Vimahi / Merchandiser, Retail Marketing / Millbrae, CA / $1,500

Cooley Family Investment Llc / Higley, AZ / $10,000

Andrew Hunt / Civil Engineer, City Of Sacramento / Folsom, CA / $1,000

Craig Yeates / Auditor, Us Department Federal Government / Camarillo, CA / $1,000

Robert Ludlow / Dentist, Self Employed - Robert Ludlow / Modesto, CA / $5,000

Katherine Laret / Teacher, San Juan Unified School District / Orangevale, CA / $1,000

Sandra Ball / Manager, Treehouse Almonds / Lemoore, CA / $1,000

Bruce Stephenson / Cpa, Gallina Llp / Granite Bay, CA / $1,000

Mann Construction / Santa Barbara, CA / $1,000

Golding Publications / Canyon Lake, CA / $1,000

M By 6 Inc / Stockton, CA / $1,000

Richard Reep / Hrm, Home Depot / Shingle Springs, CA / $2,000

David Hilburn / Nursing Home Administrator, Sherwood Healthcare Center / Granite Bay, CA / $5,000

Danielle Peterson / Gis Analyst, Granite Construction / Sacramento, CA / $1,000

Ken Sanofsky / Ceo, Path Solutions / Angoura Hills, CA / $1,000

Scott Kuhnen / Paper Stock Dealer, Recycling Industries / Yuba City, CA / $28,750

John Larcabal / Optometrist, Brea Optomatry / Brea, CA / $1,000

Wailana Kamauu / Agent, Wailana Kamauu Ins. Agency / Sonoma, CA / $1,000

Lori Hooke / Civil Engineer, Ventura County / Ventura, CA / $1,200

Gordon Jones / Chemical Salesman, Cardinal Industry / Thousand Oaks, CA / $2,000

Calvary Chapel Corona /Corona, CA / $2,533

Trentman Corporation / Auburn, CA / $1,000

Bart Walker / Owner, Barts Electric / Pleasant Valley, MO / $1,000

Huesser Neweight Llc / Concord, CA / $1,000

Nathan Jensen / Attorney, Morrison & Foerster / San Diego, CA / $10,000

Randall Hatcher / Human Resources, Maui Inc. / Augusta, GA / $5,000

Margaret Mccauley / Landscaper, Pml Landscape / Clovis, CA / $1,000

Brian Hayes / Restaurateur, Aunt Fannys Hot Pretzel / Auburn, CA / 1,000

Craig Huey / Advertising, Creative Direct Marketing Group / Torrance, CA / $1,000

Elizabeth Thomas / Teacher, Burbank Usd / Burbank, CA / $1,000

Shelburne Ponsford / Pres., Systems Information Tech. / Santa Rosa, CA / $1,000

Rodney Hewitt / Chief Risk Officer, Centrue Bank / Manlius, IL / $2,500

Kelley Drake / Supply Chain Mgt, Lsi Corp / San Jose, CA / $1,000

Thomas Larson / Engineer, Cal Trans / San Diego, CA / $9,900

Jason Swart / Owner, Specialized Dairy Svc. / Ontario, CA / $1,000

Steven Turner / Attorney, Jones Turner, Llp / Irvine, CA / $1,000

Focus On The Family / Colorado Springs, CO / $328

Focus On The Family / Colorado Springs, CO / $981

Focus On The Family / Colorado Springs, CO / $46

Focus On The Family / Colorado Springs, CO / $83

Lauri Janssen / Accountant, Intermountan Health Care / West Jordan, UT / $1,000

Lee Monson / Air Attack Capt., Dyncorp International / Atascadero, CA / $1,000

Byron Johnson / President, Eml Associates Inc. / Manteca, CA / $1,000

April Bullard / Business Owner, Scv / Whittier, CA / $1,000

Debra Cabeza / Programmer, City Of Los Angeles / Montebello, CA / $1,000

Michael Manning / Cpa, Qlogic Corporation / San Juan Capistrano, CA / $20,000

Dan Northcutt / Property Management/real Estate, Northcutt Properties Inc. / San Diego, CA / $1,000

Brian Thulin / Teacher, Lausd / Simi Valley, CA / $1,000

Lance Dane / Small Business Owner, Self Employed - Lance Dane / Lafayette, CA / $2,500

Karen Rohm / Professor, California State University / San Bernardino, CA / $1,000

Karen Merrill / Finance Director, Bcbg / Pasadena, CA / $1,000

Nancy Hales / Self Employed, Hales Engineering / Camarillo, CA / $5,000

Lupeni Tuaone / Construction, L.t. Concrete / Chino, CA / $1,614

Ryan Hall / Real Estate, Keller Williams / San Clemente, CA / $1,000

Brent Webb / President, Rpm / Granite Bay, CA / $5,000

David Bills / Teacher, Sbcusd / Corona, CA / $1,000

Michael Wach / Self Employed, Self - Michael Wach / Pomona, CA / $1,000

Theron Brown / Nuclear Radiologist, Va / Torrance, CA / $1,200

Robyn Evans / M.d., Self - Robyn Evans / Redlands, CA / $2,500

John Lewis / Physician, Tpmg / Cupertino, CA / $2,000

Craig Ferguson / Accountant, Craig W Ferguson / Laguna Niguel, CA / $1,000

Marsha Saylors / Secretary, Tire Man / Santa Rosa Valley, CA / $2,500

Barnabas Chen / Manager, World Trend, Inc. / Pomona, CA / $1,000

Reybro, Inc. / Vista, CA / $5,000

Quality Recycling / Lakeside, CA / $2,000

Linda Reynolds / Bookkeeper, Quality Recylcing / Escondido, CA / $2,000

Calvary Chapel Of Costa Mesa, Inc / Santa Ana, CA / $9,000

Mont Flora / Manager, Liberty Heating & Air / Laguna Hills, CA / $5,000

Robert Eakin / Tutor, Mobile Math Tutoring / Carmichael, CA / $3,000

Chuck Musselwhite / Pastor, The Village Chapel / Lompoc, CA / $1,000

Nicole Whitman / Administrator, Greystar / Thousand Oaks, CA / $1,200

Brian Sprague / Analyst, Dept. Of Energy / Fair Oaks, CA / $1,000

Phillip Fletcher / Dentist, Phillip Fletcher, Dds / Redwood City, CA / $1,000


Lin Whatcott/ Accountant, Davita Inc. / Maple Valley, WA / $10,005

Adam Smith /Cpa, Pwc / Santa Ana, CA /$4,000

Marty Walker / Pastor, The Sanctuary / Santa Clarita, CA / $2,500

Michael Lee / Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher / Sierra Madre, CA /

$1,000

Donovan Sanchez / Food Services, Mtc Dining Services / Fairfield, CA /

$1,000

David Watts / Engineer, Aeris Communications / Morgan Hill, CA / $2,000

Daniel Jensen / Owner, Jensen Fasteners / Sacramento, CA / $1,000

Dan Darchuck / Investment Advisor, Ubs / Clovis, CA / $1,000

Karen Floyd / Trainer, First American Title / Newcastle, CA / $2,500

Calvary Chapel Montebello / Montebello, CA / $1,000

Scott Anderson / Executive, Zenith Specialty Bag / Chino Hills, CA / $1,000

Steven Clark / Manager, R.l. Co. / Orangevale, CA / $1,000

Janet Mahoney / Nursing, Scripps Health / San Diego, CA / $1,000

Matthew Major / Engineer, Lockheed Martin / Sunnyvale, CA / $1,000

Paul Eumurian / Engineer, Boeing / Anaheim, CA / $1,000

David Warner / Periodontist, David A. Warner Dds / Whittier, CA / $1,000

Integrated Dental Implant Services / Las Vegas, NV / $1,000

John Ludwig / Dentist, John B. Ludwig Dds Dental Corp. / Santa Clara, CA / $1,000

Craig Paullin / Partner, 14000 Avalon, Llc / Los Angeles, CA / $2,500

Richard Snelson / Accountant, Ernst & Young Llp / Newhall, CA / $5,585

Brent Griffiths / Self Employed, Brents Carpet One / Newhall, CA / $1,000

Gordon Maughan / Medical Doctor, Self Employed / Palos Verdes Estates, CA / $1,000

Scott L. Larson / Mngr., Scandia Rec., Inc. / Ontario, CA / $1,000

Richard Teerlink / Real Estate Consultant, Richard M. Teerlink Consulting / Gold River, CA / $2,500

Mark Warden / Executive, The Bergman Corp. / San Jose, CA / $1,000

James Elison / Geologist, Paso Creek Reources / Bakersfield, CA / $1,000

Mark E. Abel, Dds / Auburn, CA / $1,000

Douglas Myers / Cpa, Douglas S. Myers, Cpa / Mission Viejo, CA / $1,000

Dallin Large / Pool Cover Repairman, Cover Care / Los Angeles, CA / $1,000

Patrick Foley / Ceo, Rirock Technologies, Inc. / Redlands, CA / $5,000

Mark Walton / Accountant, Reading Intenational, Inc. / South Pasadena, CA / $1,000

Wikitoria Lovett / School Teacher, San Bernardino City Usd / Redlands, CA / $1,580

Lois Lafrance / Cinematic Artist, Activision / Thousand Oaks, CA / $1,000

Scott Wallace / Engineer, Carlsbad Manufacturing Corp / Chula Vista, CA /

$1,000

Steve Keithly / Vice President, Whittier Mailing Products / La Mirada, CA / $3,000

Paul Kepes / Risk Manager, Ctc, Llc / Chicago, IL / $9,900

Monica Kepes / None, N/a / Chicago, IL / $9,900

Salvatore Cordileone / Clergy, Catholic Diocese Of San Diego / San Diego, CA / $2,000

Lance Paddock / Teacher, Alvord Usd / Fullerton, CA / $1,000

New Covenant Church / Martinez, CA / $3,050

Nathan Birchall / Cfo, Ranch Capital / Encinitas, CA / $1,000

Ken Swanson / Engineer, Sun Microsystems / San Jose, CA / $3,000

Patrick Svedin / Sales, Sanofi Pasteur / Salt Lake City, UT / $1,000

Jay Mortensen / Consultant, South West Dealer Services / Laguna Hills, CA / $2,500

Edward Weaver / Teacher, Tehachapi Usd / Tehachapi, CA / $1,000

Jay Clark / Produce Dealer, A & Z Produce / Centerville, UT / $25,000

Scott Eckern / Artistic Director, California Musical Theatre / Citrus Heights, CA / $1,000

Rodney Remington / Physician, Self - Remington / Clovis, CA / $1,000

Harold Stevens / Building Contractor, Stevens Construction / Lancaster, CA / $1,200

David Payne / Self Empoyed, Muzicraft / Santa Barbara, CA / $9,550

Behrouz Younessian / Cfo, The Brass Ring Inc. / Oceanside, CA / $2,000

Robyn Evans / M.d., Self - Robyn Evans / Redlands, CA / $1,000

Todd Johnson / Dentist, Todd L Johnson Dds / Citrus Heights, CA / $1,000

Todd Johnson / Dentist, Todd L Johnson Dds / Citrus Heights, CA / $1,000

Benjamin Whitesides / Principal, Orange County Logistics / Huntington Beach, CA / $1,000

Michael Freeland / Optometrist, Family Optometry Of Camarillo / Camarillo, CA / $1,000

Stuart Watt / Attorney, Amgen / Camarillo, CA / $2,500

Stuart Watt / Attorney, Amgen / Camarillo, CA / $2,500

Drew Dellenbach / Sales, Bms / Corona, CA / $1,500

K. Melton Higgins / Ceo, Ca Bapist Foundation / Fresno, CA / $1,000

Arthur Birtcher / Real Estate, Birtcher Anderson / San Juan Capistrano, CA / $1,000

Barry Magaoay / Advisor, Lee Financial Group / Kapolei, HI / $1,000

Shelley Mitchell / Owner, Strategy Micro / Laguna Hills, CA / $1,000

Brian Mendenhall / Manager, Pendum / Lake Forest, CA / $1,000

Drew Dellenbach / Sales, Bms / Corona, CA / $1,500

K. Melton Higgins / Ceo, Ca Bapist Foundation / Fresno, CA / $1,000

Arthur Birtcher / Real Estate, Birtcher Anderson / San Juan Capistrano, CA / $1,000

Don Francis / Manager, Cbs / San Ramon, CA / $2,500

Jeff Hendrickson / Manager, Legacy Professional Services / San Clemente, CA / $3,500

John Mcgaffey / Manager, Polara Engineering / Murrieta, CA / $1,000

Mike Denning / Consultant, Ernst & Young / San Clemente, CA / $3,000

Jeff Grover / Manager, Solecon / Modesto, CA / $1,000

Lu Little / Admin Asst, Rw Little Ins Agency / Los Angeles, CA / $8,500

Robert Little / Ins Agent, Rw Little Ins Agency / La, CA / $9,500

Richard Zamboni / Manufacturer, Zamboni, Co / Paramount, CA / $1,000

Donovan Cyndi / Secretary, Gaelic Electric / Santa Barbara, CA / $1,000

Calvary Bible Church / Bakersfield, CA / $2,255

Donn Crummer / Real Estate Mgmt, Crummer Realty Mgmt Group / Santa Ynez, CA / $1,000

Ronald Smith / Professor, Biola University / San Bernardino, CA / $1,000

Helen Boltz / Chemical Plant Manager, Tressidewl-kirley / Mesa, AZ / $5,000

Myron Randall / Computer Programmer, Firemans Fund / Penngrove, CA / $1,000

Dave Barlow / Real Estate Broker, Barlow Williams Realty / Camarillo, CA / $1,000

Bohl, Nixon & Schoneman / Ventura, CA / $2,000

Jon Van Woerkom / Attorney, Aig / Roseville, CA / $1,001

Orion Wood / Consultant, Orion Wood Consulting / Newark, CA / $2,500

Frank Johnson / Engineer, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center / Oxnard, CA / $1,000

Robert Frost / Project Manager, Ace Hardware / Clayton, CA / $1,000

Patrick Fitzgerald / Cpa, Pricewaterhouse Coopers Llp / Mission Viejo, CA / $2,000

Jon Hickman / Investment Analyst, Mdb Capital / Pleasant Hills, CA / $1,000

Scott Letellier / Sports Executive, Big League Dreams Usa, Llc / Palos Verdes Estate, CA / $1,500

Sally Lee / Vp Media, Guthy-renker Corp. / Los Angeles, CA / $1,000

John Warren / Cpa, John Warren Cpa / Uniah, CA / $1,000

Dan Lang / Attorney, J.d. Lang & Associates / Westlake Village, CA /

$1,000

Kelley Ivancovich / Farmer, Ivancovich Farms / Porterville, CA / $1,500

Alan Colledge / M.d ., Central Utah Clinic / Lindon, UT / $1,000

John Griffiths / Orthodontist, John C. Griffiths, Dds, Mds, Pc / Las Vegas, NV / $1,000

Darren Wight / Finance, Insight Health Corp / Laguna Niguel, CA / $1,500

Dana Del Francia / Ceo, Bullet Freight Systems / Anaheim, CA / $1,000

America Francis / Apartment Manager, Spieker Companies / San Ramon, CA / $2,000

Bruce Higginson / President, Awc / Garden Grove, CA / $2,001

Brian Gibson / Operations Manager, Hewlett-packard

/ Antelop, CA / $1,000

Jennifer Johnson / Manager, Coraticum Asset Mgt. / Holladay, UT / $2,500

Mark Lindgren / Pilot, Fedex / San Luis Obispo, CA / $5,000

Thomas Brasher / Insurance, Brashers Insurance Svc. / Newcastle, CA / $2,500

Jeff Nelson / Tech Support, Shields, Harper & Co. / Vacaville, CA / $1,800

David Knowles / Insurance, David Knowles Insurance / Sacramento, CA /

$1,000

Jon Iverson / Cpa, Jon Iverson, Cpa / San Jose, CA / $5,000

Michael Schield / Manager, Orpor, Inc. / Laguna Woods, CA / $2,500

Eric Schwarz / Consultant, Omni Management / Thousand Oaks, CA / $2,000

Roman Catholic Bishop / Sacramento, CA / $1,000

Schmoekel Insurance Agency, Inc / Sacramento, CA / $1,000

Eugene Van Zee / Pastor, Faith Community Church / San Jacinto, CA / $1,064

Travis Clawson / Potato Processor, Joy Foods / Laguna Beach, CA / $1,000

Aldric Porter / Co-producer, Columbia Pictures / Santa Rosa Valley, CA / $5,000

Richard Jordan / Professional, Natural Success International / Laguna Niguel, CA / $25,000

Anne Weaver / Rn, Kaiser Sand Teresa Hospital / San Jose, CA / $1,000

Janet Smith / Interior Design, Labelle Maisor / Altadena, CA / $1,000

Kevin Riches / Business Owner, Self - Riches Group / Portola Valley, CA /

$1,000

Stephen Taylor / Financial Advisor, Bank Of The West / Sacramento, CA /

$1,000

Robert Pratt / Attorney, State Of Ca. / Woodland, CA / $1,000

Susan B. Jones / Psychotherapist, Susan B. Jones, L.c.s.w. / Yuba City, CA / $5,000

Gregory Clark / Consultant, Cirrus Financial / Dublin, CA / $21,500

William Orlando / Manager, Aes Ins. / Concord, CA / $1,000

Ross Biesinger / Financial Advisor, Morgan Stanley / Palm Desert, CA / $1,000

Lise Dimartino / Teacher, Lammersvill School District / Tracy, CA / $1,000

Friends Of Ron Packard / Carlsbad, CA / $5,000

Pam Peterson / Executive, Folsom Lake Ford / Granite Bay, CA / $1,000

Iris Marshall / Designer, Hyundai Kia / Laguna Hills, CA / $1,000

Carole Waite / Teacher, Los Angeles Usd / Huntington Park, CA / $10,000

Karen Cooper / Tech, C.h.w. / Riverside, CA / $1,000

Meghann Pricer / Project Director, Century Group / Los Angeles, CA / $1,000

Kristine Kiser / Accountant, Kristine M. Kiser, Cpa / Mission Viejo, CA / $1,500

Eric Chen / Research, Ucla / Los Angeles, CA / $1,000

Thomas Butler / Real Estate, Fortress Investments / American Fork, UT / $1,000

Fang Lu / Engineer, Broadcom / Rowland Heights, CA / $5,000

Cay Pooley / Accountant, Mosaic / San Luis Obispo, CA / $1,350

David Paxman / Teacher, Byu / Provo, UT / $1,000

Tracy Pickett / Executive Support, Ladera Integrators / Mountain View, CA / $3,000

Garth Pickett / Accounting, Ladera Integrators / Mountain View, CA / $3,000

Richard Marshall / Veterinarian, Sutter Institute For Med. Resrch / El Dorado Hills, CA / $1,000

Angela Li / Software Engineer, Yahoo!, Inc. / San Mateo, CA / $1,300

Bruce Jensen / Engineer, Raytheon Co. / Goleta, CA / $1,250

Linda Reeve / Landscape Design, Self- Linda Reeve / Alamo, CA / $9,500

Ca State Council Knights/columbus / Fontana, CA / $8,889

Lasco Enterprises / Spring Valley, CA / $1,000

David Pace / President, High Valley Construction / Villa Park, CA / $1,000

Calvary Chapel Mission Fund / El Centro, CA / $2,000

High Valley Construction Co, Inc / Anaheim, CA / $1,000

Central Christian Church / Lancaster, CA / $2,490

Larry La Monica / Property Manager, La Monica Properties / Carson City, CA / $1,000

James Lee / Pharmacist, Yorba Linda Pharmacy / Anaheim, CA / $1,000

William Albert / Developer, Sares-regis Group / Irvine, CA / $1,000

William Wilson / Dentist, William G Wilson Dds / Modesto, CA / $1,000

Lisa Call / Teacher, Los Altos School District / Los Gatos, CA / $1,000

Brad Zimmerman / Grading Contractor, Quest Engineering / Tustin, CA / $2,500

Sharleen Peterson / Research Clerk, Bank Of America / Alhambra, CA / $1,000

Paul Manwaring / Ces Coordinator, Ces Seminars/institutes / Twin Falls, ID / $1,800

Linda Williams /Cpa, Ristau & Co Inc Cpas / Turlock, CA / $1,000

Keith Rowbotham / Tradebinder, Allied Binding Co / Corona, CA / $1,000

Robyn Robinson / Insurance Broker, Self - Robyn Robinson / San Juan Capistrano, CA / $1,000

Kenneth Woolley / Ceo, Extra Space Inc. / Salt Lake City, CA / $5,000

Angie Crosby / Teacher, Anaheim City School District / Newport Beach, CA / $1,000

Melanie Jensen / Insurance Broker, Sheppard & Assoc. / Orangevale, CA / $1,000

Tevita Piutau / Contractor, Self - Tevita Piutau / Ontario, CA / $3,300

Ralph Ogden / Attorney, Law Offices Of Ralph C. Ogden / Modesto, CA /
$1,000

Sarah Pack / Therapist, Emq Children And Family Services / San Jose, CA / $2,000

Neal Proctor / Appraiser, Appraisal Net / Folsom, CA / $3,000

William Obryant / Director, Unitedhealthcare / Mission Viejo, CA / $1,000

Hierbert Gillespie / Attorney, Gillespie Law Office / Roosevelt, UT / $1,000

Steven Olsen / Psi Network, Inc, President / Laguna Niguel, CA / $24,999

David M. Fenn / Contractor, Fenn-robbins Homes / Lake Arrowhead, CA / $1,000

Daniel F. Johnson Forensic Services / Canyon Country, CA / $1,000

Ashcraft Design / El Segundo, CA / $1,000

Keven D. Oreilly / Physician, Dr. Kevin Oreilly / Redlands, CA / $1,000

Eric Fors / Comm. Loan Underwriter, Bank Of America / S. Pasadena, CA /
$1,000

Jeremie D. Mckee / Mngr., Npc / Corona, CA / $1,000

Robert C. Van Sweden / Finance, Gfi Energy Ventures / Santa Monica, CA / $1,000

Bradley E. Haag / R.e. Appraiser, Appraisal Solutions / Lehi, UT / $2,000

Daniel E. Burgoyne / Mngr., Ca Dgs / Folsom, CA / $1,000

Matthew Perona / Acct., Price Waterhouse Coopers / Concord, CA / $1,500


=================================================================

Please boycott these businesses as you see fit

Some of my favorite signs from Join The Impact today in SF.

The first one is TOO funny Jeffro...

Given the marriages of Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, Ted Haggard and Eliot Spitzer, one has to wonder which sanctity of marriage remains to be protected... and from whom.

I know Ardy, that one really cracked me up - the other side of the sign was basic No On 8 stuff and he kept turning, so I had to watch that guy to get the picture (not that it was big sacrifice to keep my eyes on him

The Sanctity Of Marriage is a complete and total disregard of reality. When challenged with figures on divorce rates, multiple marriages, unwed mothers, anything that resides in the real world, the opponents say nothing. They pretend they didn't hear the question. They probably have to in order to maintain their fantasy that there is a legitimate, moral reason for their objection rather than a simple hatred of, or superiority to gay people.

Now, follow this pretzel logic:

There was a letter to the editor of the SF Chronicle prior to the election from a woman named Muriel who said she had gone to lunch with her lesbian niece and her niece's current partner. A friend of Muriel's saw her and approached. Muriel was flummoxed as to how to introduce her niece's friend. Should she refer to her as a girlfriend? Partner? Significant other? What word should she use? This caused her so much anxiety, that she decided she was going to vote to support Prop 8, and eliminate the right for her niece to marry.

I found it refreshing to know that my equal right to marry hung on an awkward lunch introduction.

That is so incredibly stupid, Jeffro. Painfully stupid. It challenges my sense of egalitarianism to concede that such a person should enjoy the right to vote.

Pretzels are more astute. Indeed, it would have been simpler for Muriel's simple mind if her niece were allowed to marry, then she could have simply introduced her friend as her "spouse." Fiancee should suffice until the nuptials.

Alas, I was unable to attend the protest, but there was lots of coverage on all the news channels.

That must be a totally contrived story. The terms "my daughter's friend", "my daughter's girl-friend", and even "my daughter's roommate" have mostly non-sexual meanings when applied to a woman during an introduction.

There really is no need to include the specific intimate details about someone's private life in such a situation. Would anybody ever think of introducing "my son, the masturbator" at lunch, to explain why he didn't bring a date?

I had the same feeling when I read it - I wanted to link to the actual letter but can't find archived Letters on SFGate.com (it was in the Oct 25 issue). I boiled it down to the basics but Muriel seemed genuinely concerned. Like NW said, "spouse" would be easier than the tangle of options Muriel waded through. Hell, "friend" would work.

My mother might, I get my overt honesty from her

Absolutely! What other dumb choices has this lady made at the ballot box?

Oh I can think of a fe"W."

Another euphemism: the "low information" voter, which is nice-speak for "dumb as a rock."

All one would have to do is notice said "Sons" thick, THICK glasses to know that...

Mother: Son! Quit doing that - you'll go blind.
Son: Can I at least "do it" until I need glasses?

Or, upon shaking hands with said son, noticing the profuse growth of hair on his palms!

Whatever her reasons for voting the way she did, she has the right to do just that. You call it dumb, and she says voting "NO on 8" is dumb.

If you give the option to a person to be prejudiced towards others, that person will take that option. It is only human nature and the examples throughout the world are plenty to illustrate this point.

Because I was born in Romania, I have to live my whole life with some people making the assumption that I'm a "gypsy" and all the negative connotations that come with it.

If you want to live in a society that treats everyone equal, don't give people the option to let their prejudices become laws.

,

Please notice how "few" is spelled. That was one dumb vote - IMHO.

Dear Get-A-Clue -

How about this:

"I'd like you to meet my daughter Marcia and her friend Eloise."


or

"I'd like you to meet Marcia and Eloise."

or

"I'd like you to meet my daughter, Marcia, and our friend Eloise."

Is this woman routinely in the habit of introducing people by their sexual relationships to others at the table?

"I'd like to introduce my husband, Howard, and his secretary/f***buddy, Tricia."

"I'd like you to meet our neighbors, Philippe and Martine, and their poolboy Luis, Philippe's piece-on-the-side."

Good grief. If the person becomes a good friend, she'll come to know the relationship. And I'm not saying it's not important to recognize the relationship. I'm saying there are times and there are times, and a casual lunch with a stranger isn't one of those times. I do not always introduce married friends as "Jill and her husband John."

Phil,
It is my opinion that thihs is just wrong. We have had our disagreements and will probably have many in the future, but I doubt we will ever disgaree on this subject.

Who is sleeping with whom is nobody's business but the sleepers and who can marry whom is also nobody's business but the people who are involved.

As a traditional Republican I am aghast at this vote. The whole anti-gay platform is an invented issue to attract voters. This issue falls under the personal privacy aspect of Republicanism. Believe it or not, one of the traditional planks of Republicanism was personal privacy.

This is a shameand will be overturned eventually.

Hear, Hear, Ma. That was always one area I used to be able to find agreement over with conservative friends. <sigh> - for the bastardization of the term.

Thanks, Ma, I know you have always been a supporter of liberty and equal treatment under the law for all. I appreciate your statement.

Well said, kap!

You know what a "f.b." is mellow? I thought that was a gay term. My, my, "they" grow up fast in Nebraska these days...

Attorney's General Jerry Brown has asked the California Supreme Court Justices to weigh in on this issue in a speedily manner, today.

SUNSHINE ALERT
**************

http://palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/104Generals%2526Admirals-GayBanMustEnd

**************
SUNSHINE ALERT

Whoa, Nellie!
Well, it will be interesting now, won't it folks???

Phil,
Sorry they didn't get this out in time for your recent Birthday!

And for all concerned, even sorrier this didn't come out before Election Day. But it is out of the closet now!

Hurrah!

Thanks for that logan

Something made me look back through my posts in this thread. (I realized lately that I've lost posts because I forget to submit after previewing and when I rewrite I don't get it all back.)

I had thought somewhere I had stated clearly my support for gay marriage. It appears now that I haven't. I thought the questions I had were posted after that statement of support; without it they would have looked critical. That wasn't my intention.

I am absolutely in support of this cause - in case that was missed by anyone.

Can Savage on colbert Report on gay marriage

Thanks for posting that, Phil, I've heard Dan Savage before, many times, but I think this is the quickest and sharpest I've ever heard him. Well done!

Yes he has also been on Daily Show I believe and if not mistaken Bill Maher

Y'all are hilarious. Good read the last bunch of posts.
Nod to Mellow...
hahaha...perfect introduction protocol.

Kudos to you, Ma. I liked your words. I don't know many conservatives....wait a minute...yes I do too. Even most of my brothers and sisters. One no but the rest....eh...they don't care.
I need to thank them.

I liked the interview too.

Rick, there's a cliche out here in the backwoods about being born in the morning, but not yesterday morning.

Did anybody else notice that the Palm Center press release listed all the officers alphabetically within descending rank order? They even interspersed the Navy ranks with their coresponding Army, Air Force, and Marine ranks, so nobody of lower rank was listed above a higher rank.

Now that's some careful attention to the niceties of our military culture.

Did notice that. But also noticed that the Navy is very sparsely represented. Guess life aboard ship has not created the same level of comraderie among the "troops" as life staring down the gun barrel of the enemy with your buddy covering your back.

Oh, I think the 'camaraderie' is there, the Navy boys are just more closeted about it. They have been in denial mode for at least 30 years . Most of the ex-military gays I have (ahem) known, were Navy.

Nuthin' like a hot, gay Marine - I always say. My very first encouter in the pleasures of the flesh was with a Marine - nuthin' like a man in a uniform!

My only Marine experience was a psycho. He was also a State cop in Southern Indiana. Saying he was hot is a given, saying he had "issues" is the understatement of the Century. I'll spare everyone the details but my favorite part was the next morning listening to him barking about losing his sunglasses ("where are my m.f.in' shades??" - I don't know chief, you weren't wearing them at midnight, dumbass)

At the gay resorts in Palm Springs there are always a good supply of young Marines from nearby 29 Palms. All who I have met say "Don't ask don't tell" is a cruel joke.

The times they are a' changing:

Los Angeles Times

I'm assuming this lawsuit was because eHarmony did not offer their services to gay and lesbian clients. The article is short on details. I don't see anything wrong with a company that caters to a specific clientèle. Beyond that, if it is clear they don't want me as a customer, why would I want to use their services? I guess I don't get it.

Yes, Jeffro, the suit was based upon a violation of state laws against discrimination. While you are free to avoid any company you want, they are not free to avoid you. State and federal laws prohibit discrimination in providing services.

Got it. Don't think I'll be putting an ad on eHarmony anytime soon, but it is a bigger deal than I initially thought just to know that they can no longer say "no gays". Thanks Phil!

I have to admit, this is hilarious to me. eHarmony was started by Neil Clark Warren World Net Daily

California's Prop 8, which bans same-sex marriage will be reviewed by the California Supreme Court as to the validity of the proposition(which, IMHO, should have been done before the election )



ARTICLE

My date with Mr. eHarmony Rebecca Traister, Salon.com

Good news, Scout, although March is going to seem so far away...

We actually had a thread about eHarmony not allowing gays, or lesbians to have accounts. A lesbian brought a lawsuit that started that thread - which was sometime earlier this year.

I think that giving time for this review will allow the bigots time to let it "sink-in" that they are going to lose and allow them time to emotionally adjust to their loss.

...just a theory.

Let the boycotts begin! Boy is Cinemark/Century/CeneArts pissed!!

(Read the entire letter! )

Text of the order:

The boycott of cinemark is very much in the gay blogoshpere. I find it very ironic that Prop 8 supporters who cry "foul" over our boycotts of their businesses also are saying the we should not appeal the issue to the court.

but then it is clear logic has nothing to do with their position.

Thank you for this link NW. I actually found it interesting and (like the interviewer, not completely what I expected) I did notice that the interview took place in 2005.

From a gay perspective (because, well, that's a perspective I have), I found a lot of Warren's statements to be very accepting and his proclamations like: to be very compassionate and genuine yet he stopped short of gays and lesbians in his 'everyone on earth' statement.

Even though in 2005 he said Which sounds good until you remember that he just said It all goes to hell. When I think of American marriage, stability is not the first word that comes to mind. I think of multiple marriages and quickie divorces. I fail to see the disconnect people like Warren have when they know that there are people who are fighting for that simple right.

Though I doubt I will ever get married, I can see clearly a community that desires, in all their hearts, to have that simple right.

Warren seems introspective and perceptive in relationships, the fact that he has a lesbian friend, with a partner and children and STILL can't support that, is an enormous flaw in his character.

I'm pleased his company will now have a gay alternative to his site even if it contains the disclaimer that these tests were created for straight people.

Damn, Jeffro - don't knock quickie divorces till you've needed one!

(And while I hope you get the [legal recognition of your] right, I also hope you never have the need.)

That letter was great Rick! The follow-up after they received the canned response was even better! I rarely go to Cinemark, but I have seen a few things there, I will not be seeing "Milk" or anything else there in the future. Thanks!

heres a handy chart for reference

Schlack, I was counting on you - I nearly posted that last night but thought "no, go to bed - Schlack will get it in the morning!"

Not knocking it Julia, just get tired of the dreamy rhetoric from the defense of marriage types ("it's just not going to have the same kind of stability over time" really rubbed me the wrong way and cracked me up simultaneously).

I don't think I'm the marrying type. I also keep falling for straight guys - one of the guys at work has a gay mother - he is very open and funny. The day after Yes on 8 won, I told him he was going to have to marry his girlfriend now since it wasn't going to happen with us. He jokingly said "yeah, but we can still cuddle". Another young straight Latino guy I work with came up to me after the vote and said "I would like to apologize for my people".

Like Phil (and Dylan) said "The times they are a-changing"

An opinion with which I completely agree: California's same-sex marriage case affects all of us - Kermit Roosevelt, Christian Science Monitor

This is from NPR and is the entire article

That's lovely! I especially like this part:

Newsweek

Don't know if you've seen this yet, but this little video clip is marvelous! Too bad it didn't come out before the election, but it's still worth watching...and hilarious!
Prop 8: The Musical

The biggest negative recurring point in the poll: People over 65 still think there is a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. When it comes to both elementary school teachers and adoption, they are not so comfortable with gay people having responsibility over children.

Other than that, I find most of it very encouraging. It looks like we could even get a federal recognition of same-sex civil unions with all rights of heterosexual marriages. It's not

Marriage

but it's quite worthwhile persuing.

I love it!

I hate to rain on the parade but it is still not equality if they are called different things. In some ways, I wish I cared about the word marriage that is so staunchly defended, from a 'gettin'-ready-to-walk-down-the-aisle' standpoint. But, the fact remains that, if there are two different NAMES, they are not the same thing, it all boils down to "separate but equal". Go tell African Americans that "Jumping The Broom" is equality...

I would be okay if ALL marriages in our society were to be called "civil unions" and marriage was limited to the religious who so love the word. But, if you aren't calling it all the same thing, it ain't equal.

It is encouraging, but it would still be a different thing, wouldn't it? The government would still have to come up with new forms and stuff, right?

I suppose I should be happy and grateful for what I can get from my fellow citizens and humans from the Country of my birth, but, for some reason, I'm just not.

Jeffro: I agree entirely.

Thanks Julia! I just don't understand why "close" should be "good enough".

I meant to post (on the other thread) that you are welcome to come and watch movies at my place any time you are in SF.

In other news: I'm going out tonight to finish celebrating the Anniversary of the end of prohibition - I'm like a fish out of water in the bars alone these days - so wish me luck!

Jeff

Friend speaks my mind.

me too

New York Times Op-ed

Me too

If one looks at all the loaded rhetoric around marriage... sacrament, scared, sanctity etc... the definitions of these words are all rooted in religious concepts. Once government involvement moves beyond a legal civil union agreement, the government becomes inextricably involved in enforcing religious beliefs.

If marriage is a sacred sacrament whose sanctity must be protected... that should happen within a religious, not a civil context. IMO the government is constitutionally prohibited from enforcing anyone's concept of the sanctity of marriage.

Sure it would be a different thing, but I'm just looking at the numbers reported in the poll: We have much more than a majority of people supporting equal rights on every single point...except the use of the term "marriage". I know it's silly, but the silly have made it their sacred cow. We already have same-sex civil unions in several states, and chasms have not opened up and swallowed the citizens, no massive homosexual team recruitment drives in their public schools, etc. So the use of the term "marriage" is really all the opponents have left, in those states.

But wait: Even in those states with civil unions, they really are NOT at all equal because of all the federal rules impacted by the lack of recognition of same-sex civil unions. For example, all the rules about income tax and social security.

So the poll numbers clearly show a path toward equality, and a very significant gain: All we can get right now may be seperate-but-equal, but there is enough support to make the two as equal as possible. Once we have same-sex civil unions in every state (and recognized as equivalent for all legal purposes by the federal government) for a decade or so, then the opponent's arguments just look sillier and sillier.

We shall overcome... but it won't happen tomorrow, even if the California Supreme Court invalidates Prop "Hate". It will be an uphill battle in most states, where ignorance and fear of "the other" are still more powerful than reason and acceptance of each person's right to live their own life their own way. But it's a fight worth fighting.

The fight over the use of the term "marriage" is the single battle the opponents want us to fight: Because it's the only battle they can win right now. (It is one of those powerful iconic words that invoke all sorts of deep emotions in a majority of American people when they hear it. You can't change that with a logical argument.) We can win every other battle, right now! So let's do it.

I agree, but I cannot imagine that the Gay community will willingly sacrifice it's rights just so that all of the other battles can be won.

All the "other battles" I was writing about were in the context of equal rights for gay and lesbian people, as per the poll numbers. The single poll question that did not show majority support for their equal rights was on the use of the term "marriage". All of those other rights are important, with real consequences in all our lives.

But I am not suggesting we give up anything. Fight all the battles, but don't let the opponents direct all of our effort to the one battle we can't win...yet.

Oh my. That's a heck of an astute piece of writing, Phil. Very succinct.

OUCH! Suddenly we White people are faced with the awful reality that churchgoing Black people are no more progressive than churchgoing White people - and there are more of them!

Hey PIA,

You are where I used to be on this issue, I've just stepped a little further over to the dark side

I used to be fine with the idea of "whatever we can get would be great" any advancement is a positive. Win enough small battles and then we can win the war.

Let us not forget, we had the right to marry - that was one of those small battles, and it had already been won. Then, we were put in a position to have to win the same battle again! That ain't right. Suddenly something snapped in my head and I went reeling into All or Nothing Gay Avenger mode!

As I've said, this issue does not affect me personally in any immediate way - In fact, if I was smart, I would shut up about it, it's hard enough to find a date now, it will be impossible once they're all married. But a lot of us are just not feeling the desire or the need to compromise anymore. Been there done that.

The silly people hanging onto the word, don't even have that to hold onto. Here is a little historical gay tidbit that many straight people may not know. In the nearly 30 years I have been out (wow. I really didn't need to put that in those terms), every gay person I have ever known in a committed long term relationship ALWAYS referred to themselves as 'married'.

Years before this battle, male partners referred to each other as husbands, and female partners referred to themselves as wives. So, the sadly ironic part of this whole semantic argument is that, even IF our legal couplings are called something else by the government, church, etc., all you will hear from the gay folks are marital terms. From a social/cultural standpoint, the word marriage and all its little terms have already been adopted by the gay community. In fact, these days, when a gay person tells me that they are married, I now ask: "officially"?

MSNBC

But the poll numbers say that there is enough support to win everything, every single right that straight married people have, right now... but that last little bit. Which as you claim, is just ignored by so many in the gay community because they already refer to themselves as "married".

Win the 99% now and the remaining 1% left will whither and dissappear as the language and culture evolve to handle talking about couples in civil unions: As such unions become more common and more discussed, people will avoid the clumsiness of "they are in a civil union" and just use the word "married".

As for "gay avenger" mode, I know what you mean. Right after the election I entertained some intense revenge fantasies. And I am 100% behind the effort to rescind the tax exempt status of "religious groups" that have violated the IRS requirements limiting lobbying.

Actually the way forward seems simple. Remove all the financial and tax differentiation between gay couples and non-gay couples and the word "marriage" loses its meaning. I have supported your privileged status long enough.

In other news:

Pat Boone is insane

I hate to send anyone to World Net Daily, but that is where this was posted. Some highlights (bolding mine):



Stay away from the brown acid Pat...

Good to see you are keeping a sense of humor about this, Jeffro. What a groaner!

So is Mr. Boone on that contributor list?

Anybody have his home address?

Was anybody so naive they thought they could tell millions of people their marriages are now invalid or they no longer have the right to marry their fiance, and they would all just accept that meekly? Personally, I'm surprised we haven't seen any churches or K of C halls put to the torch. (I'm not encouraging anybody to do that, of course.)

It's ironic that Mr. Boone would bring up India, since India has a strong tradition of discrimination in which the lower castes have been denied the rights of others, and all with the approval of the majority. The resulting carnage has killed countless numbers of people through the ages, some at the hands of the victims and some at the hands of their oppressors.

But, but.... it is illegal to be gay in India so they are ok.

Call in gay

I will not work on Wednesday, but will not post my usual Wednesday opener here and it will feature gay rights.

I'm on vacation on Wednesday - so I have the day off any how...

Which may be why so many are moving HERE.

Fine with me, as long as I can continue getting incredible lamb curry and garlic naan, I'm a happy boy.

I and my fellow sexual jihadists from work discussed this. My office has a LARGE gay workforce. We have decided that it is really not right to punish a company that is very supportive of us and our rights. I know the idea is to show the impact if we weren't here, but we all felt very strongly that we are appreciated and respected already.

Though I am open to compelling reasons to take the day off...

I will talk to HR today and get their thoughts. They may actually be supportive of the idea.

ROFL

Jeffro, no doubt creative minds can come up with ways to bring the spirit of the "day with no Gays" to the workplace even by showing up for work.

Newsweek -- The Bible argues for gay marriage, not against

Largely a pile of nonsense that comes from distorting the subject and/or possessing little knowledge of what the Bible says on the subject. Sounds like something out of what some pastors call "the Bible in your head."

Ron,
I am not certain, was that the pro- or anti-gay marriage biblical argument you are saying is "a pile of nonsense"?

Personally, I don't give a fig what the Bible says about marriage, and neither should the courts. Marriage, as discussed in Prop 8 and any other legislation on the topic is a civic issue, and can only based upon the Constitution. As such, religion has no relevance whatsoever to the topic, although it is very difficult to convince any anti-gay zealot of that. It is difficult, indeed, to get many to understand at all that it is the Constitution and not the Bible that governs our civic behavior and processes as a nation. As far as personal beliefs and behaviors, you have the right to believe and behave as you choose, but you do not have the right to let your personal predilections dictate other people's fundamental rights as a citizen.

By the way, I would love to assist in the "day without a gay" campaign, but being on Active Duty and not being gay, I am not sure how I can do so without compromising my position or avoiding my responsibilities to the citizenry. I am supportive of anything that gets peoples' attention (so long as it is non-violent and civil), but personal participation is not an option.

I just had a very amusing thought of all of the gay Pentagon employees (civilian or military) not showing up for work. Wouldn't that be a shocker!

I thought it was a pretty good essay, especially considering it's the cover story in Newsweek fer goodness sake. It hits all the high points of the Biblical angle, and makes the points about the "true meaning" of Jesus' teachings very well too IMHO. And the distinctions between the civil and the religious meaning of the "M" word.

I predict it will raise much ire among subscribers. And, perhaps, open a few eyes and minds.

Sorry for the lack of clarity - I was arguing that the pro- position advocated by the author of the article was nonsense based on a scriptural argument. Using the Bible to argue in favor of homosexual marriage is much like taking a good chemistry book and trying to convince someone that the atomic weight of oxygen is vastly different from 16.

Absolutely! To argue otherwise would be, in the sage words of Issodhos, letting loose one's inner fascist.

I disagree. From a demonstrable lack of knowledge of both the OT and the NT, it's incredibly shoddy if you have had even a smattering of serious study of scripture.

Amen! To that.

That shoddy type of scholarship raises - at least for me - more questions about what was rolling around inside the author's head than it does about the issue.

Ron, if you read the article it seems to me to display a complete and thorough knowledge of the Bible. Maybe you have something other than Leviticus to support your claim?

I'm not sure what constitutes "serious study" Ron. Maybe you could give an example of what you found to be shoddy, or demonstrating lack of knowledge.

For starters, I would offer her example of whom the Apostle Paul was addressing his comments about "committing shameless acts with men" to. I found that reference intriguing, and one I had not really thought of (disclaimer: I am not a "serious student" of the Bible). Do you think it demonstrates lack of knowledge, or less than a smattering of serious study?

On this point, I am afraid my friend, that we will have to disagree. It is neither a new nor unsubstantiated argument (I noted the book "The Sexuality of Jesus" earlier, by the same author of "Was Jesus Married?" - both of which, written in the 70's, are well supported scripturally and historically), nor is it as verifiable as the atomic weight of oxygen.

Although there are aspects of the article that I disagree with (such as her assertion that "the biblical Jesus was... emphatically unmarried" - which is scripturally, culturally, and historically improbable), the gist of the argument is actually quite sound. Jesus never condemned homosexuality, and Paul's assertions against it were culturally based, not based upon Jesus' teachings. (Indeed, there is good reason to believe that Paul was actually gay himself, but now we are deep into spiritual speculation.) Paul was certainly, though, an odd bird in many respects, and tied very much to a cultural viewpoint that was not always consistent with the extant exemplars of Jesus' teachings. Most importantly, though, is the sense of acceptance that Jesus taught that is not reflected in the vitriolic approach of anti-gay zealots who claim "Christian" support for their position. Seriously, why are proscriptions in Leviticus only followed when convenient, or as the author notes, Selective application, in my view, of archaic texts and not the fundamental nature of Jesus' lessons. I think the author is entirely accurate in asserting
Not to take this thread too far off topic, but what portion of the essay is inaccurate in your view? If you would prefer, you can respond by PM.

New York Times

I consider the author to have been extremely shoddy in his presentation, and to have indulged in a number of logical and factual errors.

Perhaps you think that other parts of Leviticus can be also overlooked? Like the prohibitions on murder, incest, theft and perjury? Of course, perhaps it can be shown that Jesus condoned - or at least did not condemn - these other Levite proscriptions and it is, therefore, acceptable to indulge in them?

One of the problems with arguing from scripture is that you have to come up with all sorts of excuses as to why you should follow this and ignore that.

Those seem odd choices, Ron, since they are all behaviors that victimize another person or persons. What about the passages that prohibit women from wearing men's clothing? Or touching a football? Or wearing cotton/wool blended fabrics? What kind of trouble will we get into for deciding those can be overlooked?

As the author says:

A couple of college literature courses with the Bible as literature, three years of Methodist-oriented Bible study, and a number of years of teaching an adult SS class. Pace, I am not going to argue anything from a theological/doctrinal point of view - only from the point of view of what the scriptures say as opposed to what people think that they say.

How about this, a complete representation of the story:

Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile?

There was no epiphany, much less any sneakiness on the patriarch's part; Sarai and Abram had discussed her infertility for years. It was Sarai who proposed - in accordance with custom - that he try to have children by her Egyptian servant, Hagar. What I think you see here is the problems that arise from the weakness of Abraham's faith in God's promise - or at least that's what a couple of rabbis have told me.

Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.

And in this, as in the story of Abraham, there is the moral lesson of jealousy, betrayal, covetousness and a lack of faith. I think that the lesson from the story of the patriarch's personal lives is not than polygamy is acceptable but that the failure to act always in faith leads to problems not anticipated and difficult to deal with that continue to bother us years later.

The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family.

Well, to borrow a line from the Blues Brothers, he was indeed on a mission from God. Itinerant, unmarried rabbis were not uncommon in that era, and the Levite law allowed for what is called a Nazarite vow - such as undertaken by Samson and by John the Baptist and probably by Bar Abbas. And Jesus's specific injunction is to his disciples - you can follow me or you can follow the way of the world - not to a general dismissal of marriage as unimportant.

The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered.

Paul's approach seems to be based on the expectation of the imminent return of Christ; therefore, the institutions of the world were of less importance than the spiritual ones. It has also been suggested that Paul himself was a homosexual, and that he - as a Pharisee - would have seen it as unacceptable and would have recommended marriage as an alternative to what he considered an unacceptable behavior. He admonishes married Christians to be humble and faithful toward their spouses

Paul's letters to the various churches addressed both their good and bad points. I think that he is specifically addressing problems reported as existing in various parts of the very small Christian world and not necessarily some general misbehavior on the part of the rulers and the aristocracy.

Hope this helps to clarify my position.

The point was that if you can ignore one part of the Levite law, why not another part? It is no more - nor less - logical to ignore all of the provisions, whether or not they victimize others. That's the problem with the "cafeteria menu" approach to such issues.

Many of the prohibitions were directed at preserving the identity of the [Jewish | Hebrew | Israelite] culture in a world where it was a small and weak nation among many larger powers, a method of avoiding what we might now call assimilation or even cultural genocide.

In fact, in the NT, as described in Acts, we have a confrontation and a falling out between Peter/Simon and Paul/Saul over whether or not Gentile converts have to adopt the Levite laws.

BTW, we have no reference to Jesus ever having condemned slavery; therefore, would slavery an acceptable institution?

Perhaps we can only agree to disagree.

As I stated in my reply to Steve/Stereoman, I hoped to base my (dis?)agreement only on what is or is not contained in the set of writings we refer to generally as the Jewish and Christian scriptures - no doctrinal or theological points advanced.

As seen in the NT, there is no indication that Jesus was married, even though - culturally - that would have been the norm. However, the Levite law did grant exceptions such as those having taken a Nazarite vow. And there were indeed itinerant, single [rabbis | teachers | preachers] making the rounds then (I believe that Josephus, among others, refers to them). I think it very likely that Jesus was engaged - that would have been common, arranged by the family - but marriage could have been put off or even replaced by a religious duty.

One can also argue - from scripture - that Mary was widowed and that she was a single parent sometime after Jesus reached the legally/religiously accountable age of 12 and that, as a devoted son, he would have put off marriage to care for his mother. I can also argue from scripture that polygamy is perfectly acceptable for a Christian.

As to Jesus not condemning homosexuality, neither did he condemn slavery; however, I cannot see that as being a rational argument that slavery is acceptable. In fact Jesus says that he did not come to destroy the law - which contains those Levite proscriptions against homosexuality - but to fulfill it; he also says 'not one jot or tittle' of the law will be changed - and that presumably includes the proscriptions against homosexuality.

I simply think it is fruitless to argue the pro-position from scriptures since you have to cherry-pick in order to justify it. There is a better, simpler and far more elegant argument from the totality of scripture that escapes the pitfalls of the cherry-picking approach.

Thanks for your reply, Ron, and your very thorough review of the questions that have been raised. I think you have offered support for the idea that the Bible should not be taken out of the context of its times, and you have offered some good insight into what those "times" were. For example, your explanation of the various prohibitions in Leviticus that the vast majority of modern Christians do not in fact adhere to any more:
Obviously some modern Jews still carry that concern, but for the most part embrace the idea of ethnic assimilation as being independent of and perhaps even advantageous to the preservation of religious heritage. Acknowledging that you have here very well rationalized the "cafeteria menu" approach as you call it, on one basis, why would it not be equally reasonable to rationalize it on other bases as well? It would appear to me that modern Christians would make their "menu selections" for other reasons besides prevention of ethnic dissipation.

I appreciate the distinction you make between Jesus' teachings to his disciples versus his teachings to the general public, and unite with it. Just because we have no reference to Jesus ever having extolled marriage doesn't mean that it should be abolished as a religious ritual. Nor, conversely, should we base a decision on whether slavery is an abhorrent practice on the fact that we have no reference to Jesus ever having condemned it. These, again, are discernments of Divine truth that have come about independently of, and subsequent to, Jesus' sojourn on the Earth. They amplify the point being made by the author, IMHO, that the evolution of spiritual practice did not end with the Council of Nicea, and most Christians I think would readily agree with that.

I have little doubt that, over time, more and more Christians will evolve in their spiritual beliefs regarding gay and lesbian people, and come to recognize that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, gender presentation or gender identity, are equally endowed with the Divine Light, and as such should be welcome within their spiritual communities, to enjoy their fellowship and share in their spiritual life, including rites of passage such as baptism, confirmation, communion, and marriage.

I think the point of the author was that you also have to "cherry-pick" to condemn it. I agree that the better argument is from the totality of scripture, which is also, as I read the article (by a woman, I should note - so she), the point of the author of the piece. That is almost always my complaint about trying to wedge scripture into illogical arguments - it ignores the substance of it in favor of the "jots and tittles." And, of course, as I have noted, is irrelevant to the legal position altogether.

My argument continues to be quite simple and elegant too: under the Constitution, in order to deny a right or privilege to a person, the government has to have a) legal authority, b) a rational basis for the law, and c) a correlation between the rational basis and the means sought to achieve that end. This is true whether the legislation is through the Legislature or Initiative. In this case, none of the three requirements obtain, and therefore Prop 8 must fall. None of the arguments in favor of denying marriage to same-gender couples have rational or legal bases. It irks me no end to see them perpetuated, especially by ideologically-bound activist courts. What most people fail to understand is that the courts of Hawaii, Massachussetts, Connecticut and California are taking the less activist role.

No, that's easily done from a reading of the OT; there is no bones about it - it is considered wrong conduct. What is missed by the "cherry-pickers" is trying to negate it from the logically indefensible position that in the NT that Jesus never specifically condemned it. Doing so is a form of the faulty induction fallacy. OTOH, Jesus essentially validates the Levite proscription on adultery when, in the Gospel story of the woman caught in adultery, he does not accuse her but tells her to go and sin no more. At the same time, he unmasks the hypocrisy of the mob wanting to execute her.

In fairness, let me say that I have no more truck with allegedly Christian literalists who insist that they have a right to subjugate their wives and families because Paul told women to be subservient; they, too, are cherry-picking in order to rationalize their behavior.

Again, as I stated in earlier agreement with you, the religious issue needs to be kept out of the purely secular - rendering unto Caesar and to God respectively.

I appreciate the God-Ceasar point, Ron, but I am just not getting your "cherry picking" position. Are you saying that a Christian is to adhere to all the rules of the OT? If not, why are some to be followed but not others?

No. The OT rules and regs contained in the Levite law - 613, IIRC - are binding upon those who would call themselves Jews. However, the spirit of the law - the Ten Commandments - are, IMCO, generally considered binding upon Christians. The essence of Christian behavior should be, as Jesus taught, to love God with all your heart and to [love | treat] your neighbor as you would like your own self to be treated.

Jesus deliberately violated Levite laws, as interpreted by the Pharisees - the legalists of Jewish culture - in order to point out the hypocrisy of uncompromising literalism: That they were crossing "T"s and dotting "I"s while the real meaning of the law was buried in sterile rituals. Paul, especially in his letter to the Roman church, rails against the yoke of blind legalism.

A counterpoint perspective from an avowed lesbian and athiest:

Agree or disagree with her, Camille Paglia is always an interesting read.

And another gay point of view on marriage:

Then, Ron, why honor what I still say are questionable interpretations of biblical prohibitions of gay marriage/sex? Certainly I see nothing in the NT, other than Paul's questionable statements, to support such a ban. Or am I misreading you?

Sky,. we discussed Ms. Paglia's commentary on another thread

It always amazes me when Christians reach back to the old testament. surely the point of Jesus's ministry (sorry dont believe he was a god) was of a radical departure from OT teachings and practices.

Im quite sure Jesus would vomit up his innards if he saw what was being done in his name today and in the past.

I see... you discussed the commentary she wrote today ..last month? And what about Mark Simpson?

Their points are well taken. Get govt out of religion (marriage) and religion out of civil unions. Let's ALL have civil unions.

The gay community says that takes too much work and too much time. Go figure.

Do we really? Fascinating.

I think, ultimately, and going back some way in the thread, that I agree with the sentiments that: 1) it is important to counteract the (in my view, misguided) "religious" basis for supporting Prop 8 (like) legislation in order to successfully pursue the "gay agenda" (you gayhadists, you ) plank of same-gender* unions, 2) religion should have no role whatsoever in civil legislation regarding marriage, or any other governmental proscriptions, and c) the primarily Christian-religiously-based arguments are based upon a narrow reading of (primarily) OT proscriptions, rather than the gist of Jesus' (NT) teachings. (I personally draw a bright line between the Gospels and subsequent opinions expressed by followers, because their personal agendas tended to obscure/blur the essence of Jesus' teachings. Seriously, what does Revelations really have to do with Jesus?)

* I prefer the term "same-gender" rather than "same-sex" because it refers to the status of the person rather than emphasizing "sex," which we all know is "icky" to Americans.

I'm only restating something state by the thread started in a different thread when the topic came up.

http://readerrant.capitolhillblue.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=85450

I am repeating myself I suppose, but I do not think the gay community is of a single mind about anything, much less marriage vs. civil unions. I don't think many people regardless of gender identity have solidified their thinking as between those two. Most opinions in my experience are reflexive and seldom thought through very well until someone engages them in this kind of discussion.

That being said, assuming for a moment your estimate is accurate, kap17, I say let us decide between the two after we are given the exact same benefits and burdens of marriage. Then we can really decide. Now it is a bit like an undernourished person being offered McDonalds and being denied filet mignon.

I support Sky's proposal to take the word away from everyone as far as the laws are concerned, with the proviso about equal benefits and burdens. I just can't see straight people being willing to give up the title.

Hollywood without gays

I get the point of the article, truly, I do, and maybe it's just the midwesterner in me -- but I'd rather see an article that describes the US without gays - including, perhaps, gay researchers, doctors, therapists, statesmen, professors, financiers, authors...

No disrespect to Hollywood but the contributions of gay people in the US reach so much further than Hollywood that it seems perhaps a disservice to limit the presentation to Hollywood.

It's good of course; I'd just like to see a broader version.

I'm only restating something state by the thread started in a different thread when the topic came up.

http://readerrant.capitolhillblue.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=85450[/quote] But, Kap, you are still overlooking the fact that Proposition 8 was a broadside attack on gays. We HAD been granted marriage, why would we be out there fighting for changing everything to civil unions and reserving 'marriage' for religious institutions when equality had been legally declared?

This is an idea that has really only started gathering steam since Prop 8 passed. Perhaps someone should have thought of it earlier and perhaps someone did, but when you are attempting to get equality, the first course of action is to gain acceptance within an existing institution.

Don't you think that attempting to change everyone's 'marriage' to a civil union so that gays and straights would have equality would be met with as much or more objection if that were the first tactic? That seems like it would come off as some selfish minority trying to change everything to fit their needs. AND you can bet that the phrase 'redfining marriage' would be flying even more over that.

In addition, many people "marry" without any intention of having sex. It constantly amazes me that people can raise the inability of same-gendered people to procreate as an argument against their marriage, when people well beyond childbearing age get married all the time just for companionship.

What a surprise. Many White people are shocked to discover that not all Black people are of the same religion. Go figure.

Neither can I nor can I think str8

Maybe the idea will catch on. Just tonight in our local paper I read the following letter to the editor:
Seems like a great solution to me. One civil contract for everyone. Those who want the religious "marriage" ritual can go to their favorite flavor of church/mosque/temple/wat.

Sky

...then gays will legitimately be accused of "redefining" marriage.

I'm just sayin'...

Same-sex couples in California (and Massachusetts, etc.) have never really had all the benefits of marriage, because the US government has not recognised either their civil unions or their marriages for legal and tax purposes.

Getting the benefits of federal recognition of same-sex civil unions is worth much much more than a state letting you refer to it as "marriage". This is the huge inequality that must be addressed. And if enough state supreme courts find the same way as Massachusetts and California (for equal-right civil unions), then eventually an Obama-picked US Supreme Court will render a similar opinion.

P-I-A has a point.

Yes, exactly the point I have been making all along. Glad he was able to put it in a way that you got it, Rick.

My wife was a putative Catholic when we decided to marry and felt compelled by family considerations to marry within that faith. During the mandatory Pre-Cana class, the priest required me to swear (but not to prove; he was an enlightened priest) that I was not impotent, but noted that it was okay to be sterile. I had always thought that the Catholic doctrine mandated procreation and so was a bit surprised. Upon questioning the two issues, I was informed that the Church felt it essential that the marriage be consumated, whether offspring sprung forth or not. So at least way back then, the "icky" stuff was a requirement; the future Catholics was an anticipated touch of icing on the cake.

I concur with this solution. Being a devout Lutheran, I could satisfy both the legal conditions and my religious convictions. Gays/Lesbians would have equality and parity. Works for me.

A solution that might finally drive the schism in the Episcopal church into an outright canyon!

Top Evangelical Resigns After Backing Gay Unions I suppose the headline could have been "Don't tell" policy alive and well in Evangelical circles...

Why? It doesn't preclude any religion from performing a same-sex marriage. That would still be up to the faith itself.

Colin Powell Reiterates Support for Review of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Not to point fingers (Kap17), but it is other Ranters who feel that gays have legimate equal rights this very moment.

P-I-A has succinctly put into perspective of how and why gays do not have the same benefits as straights at the moment.

As for me, I've just gone along for the ride and truly did not connect the dots as P-I-A has done.

I could perhaps have posted the last two articles as separate posts, but I felt that they were both indications that the debate on the topic is swinging (pardon the pun) toward social acceptance of homosexuality in our society.

I don't think that gays have equal right right now. But due to my personal beliefs I cannot support "marriage for everyone" 100%. I do support civil unions with equal federal/local rights for everyone and marriage up to the church.

If you take that as not supporting the "gay cause" so be it. I don't need to be sorry for my personal beliefs.

Thanks for speaking up, kap. When someone makes an unfounded assumptions about what someone else believes, the most helpful thing the someone else can do is set the record straight.

Oops, I said "straight". Pardon the expression.

I think, STeve, that the record is most assuredly "straight" and that is the problem.

Of course you need never be sorry for your personal beliefs. I just don't know why you think your personal beliefs trump equal rights regarding marriage.

"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"
- George Orwell, Animal Farm, Ch. 10

I'm not the one out there that is trying to pass laws and propositions. But when I am asked to vote and to voice my opinion I will do so.

It is the job of the Courts to make sure that discrimination doesn't take place and the California Courts should have never allowed Prop 8 on the ballots.

My job is to watch out for myself, my family and my friends. Everything else is secondary.

Gosh, I went back and read every kap17 post in this thread, and nowhere did I see him say that his personal beliefs should trump anyone's rights. He said his personal beliefs are his personal beliefs; he said he supported civil rights for all and leave marriage to the churches - which has been said by others in this thread.

Yes, Mellow, i understand, but that is only one option and realistically isn't going to happen in my estimation. So what we have is Kap saying he cannot support marriage for gays. that he supports everyone having civil unions is quite different.

Phil, I support peace. Whether it happens or not does not change the fact that I support it.

Mellow, I don't see your point. To support a possible resolution that fits one's personal beliefs is not the equivalent of supporting full equality.

Phil, my point was that "I do support civil unions with equal federal/local rights for everyone and marriage up to the church" is a long way from saying "my personal beliefs trump equal rights regarding marriage." I did not see that characterization in what kap17 wrote.

That was my only point.

No, kap17, you do not ever have to be sorry for your personal beliefs.

I do not understand them. I and others have attempted to be clear, logical and concise in our arguments (occasionally slipping into emotionalism that I do not regret). You can hold onto your personal beliefs and apparently as long as a majority hold onto theirs, I will have to fight for the right to mine. This is not the "gay cause" you are not supporting, it is me and people like me.


Indeed, and with luck it will be overturned as unconstitutional. But it was on the ballot and people, for whatever reason or beliefs, were allowed to vote away one of my recently gained rights. I think we are in agreement, that that should never happen again.

I saw Milk last night and I have to tell you - I'm pissed today - with the caveat that the movie was factually accurate.

Here's why: (Remember I was 10 years old in 1978 and I had no idea about Prop 6, Anita Bryant, Harvey Milk, John Briggs, etc)

• Harvey Milk made Prop 6 a gay issue
  
• Str8 politicians wanted to make Prop 6 a 'human rights' issue
  
• The owner of The Advocate felt that 'the time wasn't right' for a Gay Rights Movement

Given the absolute parallels between Prop 6 (Firing gay teachers in 1978) and Proposition 8 in 2008 - why in the hell did openly gay politicians not fight for our rights as Harvey Milk did in 1978?

Where was Mark Leno? Carol Migden? Why weren't they fighting for us? You didn't hear a peep out of them!!!!

Then the opponents of Prop 8 people made the proposition a 'human rights' issue exactly the opposite of what Harvey Milk argued against in Prop 6 in 1978.

...and guess what? Harvey Milk was right!!!

Why didn't the older gays who lived thru this link these two issues and educate us younger gays? Why was the 'human rights' path taken and not the gay rights issue taken? Why did YOU older gays allow that to happen - you knew the history behind Prop 6!!!!!!

You can't fight bigotry as human rights issue and then go marching for gay rights!

Hellooooooooo!!!!!

The gay community f^cked up the fight against Prop 8 big time.


Had I known any of this - I would have advocated to fight the proposition differently.

Why didn't the older gay generation fight for gay rights instead of 'human rights' - I'm really pissed today. I feel the older gay generation - who'd already been down this road - let the gay community down.


"If" Harvey Milk were alive today - Prop 8 wouldn't have passed - I can tell you that.

A county supervisor from San Francisco took on a state legislator in a debate in Christian-right Orange County in 1978. Why didn't Mark Leno or Carol Migden fight for us?

Who are the other gay politicans who let us down in 2008? I want names, damn it!! "They" no longer deserve our votes!!


I'm also going to boycott The Advocate and Gay.com - where were they with Prop 8??

The Advocate's current cover has the audacity to say:

Gay - the new black


Please....where were you Advocate in this fight? I didn't see any billboards or TV ads run by your organization fighting Prop 8.

You suck Advocate.

Whoa there Rick. Things were a WHOLE lot different in 1978. I absolutely agree that the Prop 6 and Prop 8 battles were remarkably similar and as I said (somewhere) the gay community desperately needs a leader.

The politicians who are openly gay are hardly leaders. Harvey Milk was. A HUGE part of his campaigns had to do with coming out. His argument was that once people know someone who is gay, they are less likely to discriminate.

Lots of people are out now.

In the decades since, things have shifted remarkably. The levels of acceptance are something I thought I would never see. Remember there were no gay people on TV or in the movies (and if they were, they were evil or suicidal - check out Vito Russo's book "The Celluloid Closet" sometime)

The gay movement that existed in 1978 does not exist anymore. I would argue though, that it was the beginning of the level of acceptance that we enjoy today.

We were dealt a couple vicious blows right in a row. Harvey was assassinated and shortly thereafter the AIDS crisis began. The gay community has been shattered and reassembled many times since then. In the late 80's and early 90's, we actually had a few leaders. Cleve Jones started the Names project. Larry Kramer wrote "Faggots", Randy Shilts wrote "And The Band Played On". We had several high profile advocacy groups like ACT-UP and Queer Nation and it didn't seem like a day went by where there wasn't a protest (here anyway).

I think you're right. The gay community should get some of the blame, the "No" on 8 ads were terrible. A level of complacency has (had?) set in. Perhaps you're right that we should have embraced and hammered the Gay Rights rather than focusing on Human Rights, but I think the idea was to make it more about fairness. No on 8 counted on a level of acceptance (that really didn't exist in '78) and probably a normal voter turnout. I don't know anyone who didn't question the ads they were running at the time. No one found them effective at all. The other side was using children and fear. I don't know if combatting that with gay rights would have worked either. I just don't know.

I really don't understand you blaming the older gay activists for not teaching the younger gays their history. There are busloads of books and documentaries out there. No one taught me about the history of the community, I sought it out and didn't have a hard time finding it either. Suddenly, unlike when I was a kid scouring Mom and Dad's copy of "everything you always wanted to know about sex" to find the one paragraph mentioning homosexuals, there was a new book nearly every day. "After The Ball", "Another Mother Tongue", "Stonewall", "Beyond Queer", the Randy Shilts books. There was a resurgence of interest in gay classics like "Giovanni's Room", Rubyfruit Jungle", "Death In Venice" and "A Single Man". "The Times Of Harvey Milk" won the Academy Award for best documentary. Gay films were coming out that were not all about our "seedy lifestyle"... that's why "Basic Instinct" was such a big deal, if you watch that movie, every single lesbian in the film has killed someone. It was a throwback to a representation we thought we were finally getting past.

I absolutely agree that I didn't see Carole Migden out there, I didn't see Tom Ammiano or Mark Leno out there... and I got a little pissed at the Join The Impact rally when they all spoke loudly and angrily about the passage of Prop 8. I think I even muttered "where were you before this?" Ironically, the politicians who DID speak out, were all straight. Gavin Newsom, Diane Fienstien - hell even Arnold "The Terminator" said it was wrong! I don't know whose idea it was to use only straight politicians in the ads, but that was as wrongheaded as the rest of the campaign.

There were some notable differences between 6 and 8. It was believed from the very beginning that Prop 6 would pass. That made the fight so much more vital and intense. With Prop 8, people were saying all along that it wouldn't pass. "Didn't stand a chance in California". "Who would vote to take away rights?" There was also a landmark presidential election going on. People who had NEVER punched a ballot before were registering in droves. Also, like I said before there was no 'face' on either side. With Prop 6, there was John Briggs (and Anita Bryant) on one side and there was Harvey and the gay community on the other. Who did we have for Prop 8? Who would we get to even sit down to a debate? On either side? We had the People For The Elimination of Gay Rights and The Church of Gays Should Never Get What We Have (not their real names) and... Gavin Newsom (?)on the other.

One thing I do know is that we should absolutely stay angry. Being quiet and expecting other people to do the right thing got us into this mess. Perhaps one good thing will come from this and a new leader will emerge. So far, not so good.

How can we fight for 'Human Rights' when str8 people (...outside of RR) don't even consider gays human?

I saw the parallel between Prop 6 and Prop 8 in the way it was handled. Policians wanted the issues to be 'Human Rights' and Harvey Milk wanted it to be a 'gay' issue.

...as stated before he was right. Prop 8 should have been a gay issue and yes, I'm pretty darn mad at the "openly gay politicians" (...and older gays too because they ALL should have seen this coming - they ALL lived thru this before.)

Rick, there will always be str8 people who think gays are less than human, just as there will always be White people who think Blacks are less than human. The real fight is not in convincing them that they are wrong, but in letting them change their minds. The former cannot be accomplished, the latter only with great difficulty. IMHO difficult is always preferable over impossible.

Well, as one of those "older gays", I can only respond to you Rick by asking if you ever took the time to ask any of us? Did you read anything I wrote? Or the many many others who have been writing, preaching, marching and otherwise putting our lives on the line for several decades now?

Your anger is welcomed, but I think your target is much closer, such as the person sitting in your chair reading this post. Did you contribute money to the no on 8 campaign? Did you man the phone banks? What did you do -- and I am not suggesting you did too little, just asking.

Prop 6 came at a time when there was no notion of "gay" much less "gay rights" in the larger public conversation. Take a look at the contemporary articles at the time and what you will see is that we were primarily described as sick pedophiles who couldn't be trusted not to rape their children.

That was not present to anywhere near the same extent in this campaign and to the extent it was I do not think it made a difference. The vote for 8 seems from what I have read aqnd from the people I talk to not on those kind of fears but rather on religious grounds. That requires a very different kind of campaign.

I told EQ california all along their ads were off base but it is hard to convince people that they are wrong without evidence. To some extent I thought it was also necessary to allow younger leaders to go the direction they thought best.

After all, being gay at 30 years of age today is much different than it was for me, so I have to give my thoughts and then stand back and let people work with their own mindset. It is, after all, an issue much more for you and your age cohorts than for me.

So mistakes were made, but I think it would have been an even bigger mistake to pin 8 as a "gay rights" issue. That would have always relegated us to some kind of "exception", some "other" category and lead to claims we ask for "special rights." That claim is the one that the past 20 years of political activity has sought to deny.

Haven't you argued here Rick that we claim nothing more than what everyone else enjoys? That is a claim based on human, not gay rights.

Did you read anything of what I wrote? From the October 29th 2008 RT:


How can one fight for 'human rights' when one is not considered a human? I think that gays should fight for 'gay rights' before human rights. We need to fight the fight that gays have the right to be humans, first.

We can't put the cart before the horse.

The parallels between Prop 6 and Prop 8 for me are very striking:

• Christians being bigots in the name of children

It's always about the kiddies for Christians. It's like kids will never learn about the what really goes on in the world if the "Christians" shelter kids long enough.

How naive!

"Children will be taught about gay marriage in school just like in Massachussettes."

READ: Gays are sodomites and we need to protect our children from knowledge of that sick, deviant behavior.

Nothing changed in 30 years.

"If" Harvey Milk were alive today, I think absolutely he would have made Prop 8 a "gay issue."

So do my strict, conservative Catholic relatives, apparently - oddly enough.

Of course, I had to come at it from a different direction, regarding divorce. They said that they understood the desire for gay couples to have visitation rights and such, but it shouldn't be called 'marriage'... isn't 'civil union' good enough?

Well, I said, what business does govt have in calling ANY marriage more than a 'civil union', legally speaking? Should that not be the domain of the Church, not State?

Specifically, if you are married in the Catholic Church, you cannot get divorced - Catholics can only get a marriage 'annulled' which means 'it never happened' (a debate itself, but not for this thread). How can the government then grant divorces? "Well, that's a different part of marriage, that's the 'civil union' part". Yes, but they granted the marriage license in the first place, which is now 'ended', so are they now not married? "No, in the eyes of the church , they still are married... the govt part is not the real marriage part, the part that makes marriage 'sacred'"

So, the govt part is not the real part of 'marriage', it's only a civil union? So, why call it a 'marriage' license? Why not just let the govt make civil unions for EVERYONE, legally speaking, and leave the 'sacred' part called 'marriage' to the church?

"Well, yes, that makes sense."

Q.E.D.

Nicely done, RB. That's what, IMHO, the argument for straights is. The argument that "gays have a right to marriage" is NOT a political argument, it's a religious one, because politically no one has a right to marriage.

Marriage is a religious institution. To make it a civil institution violates the First Amendment.

I have the utmost of respect for, and solidarity with, the argument that gays should have the same rights as straights. That's why we went to Massachusetts to get our license in August of 2007. But we weren't "married" until May 24, 2008, when we stood in the midst of our extended faith community and declared our commitment to be joined in the Spirit of matrimony.

I am a little surprised that no one has mentioned an excellent cover article in Newsweek


The article goes on to make the argument that... even from a purely biblical perspective... there is very little that supports the exclusion of Gay marriage. The case to religiously exclude divorce is much stronger... yet apparently ignored by the government. Ironically, it seems that Christ suggested that his followers should avoid marriage all together... if at all possible. And there are another cases in the "old testament" that extol one man's love for another.

So even from a purely religious perspective, it appears that biblically based opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage is rooted in a highly selective reading of the Scriptures.

Rick, I did not say you did nothing or were wrong in any way. All I suggest is that each of us ask whether what we did was enough. Collectively of course not. But I am not fond of finding fault with the actions or inaction of others since I have little impact on that. I prefer to ask myself whether what I have done over a lifetime is enough.

I will try to let you know within moments of my death as to what my answer is. Until then, I just keep trying whatever I can think of.

You missed it, Ardy:
beginning of discussion of Newsweek article
The discussion continued throughout the subsequent day.

Rick, I have been thinking back to 1978 and Prop 6 and I think it is very difficult to view the events of then with the mentality of today.

At the time, there was no widespread support for the very concept of "gay rights". Most of us were just barely coming out, the public at large had only a rudimentary understanding that we even existed much less had rights.

The closest analogy to our situation was the civil rights movement and we sought to tag onto the successes of that push so the word "rights" was a hook we could hang our demands upon.

But like prop8, prop 6 was an attack upon us, only comparatively it was a level 5 attack and 8 was a 2. We had barely won the right to walk hand in hand in public and in most states it was a crime to engage in any gay activity, including dancing together.

We knew that if prop 6 passed we would lose all of our rights, however few they may have been. We could be denied any work at all, could have been denied access to any and all government programs, housing, everything. Our very lives were at stake.

To compare that to losing the right to marry is absurd. Marriage is, for most of us who went through the earlier struggles, icing on the cake. Prop 6 would have annihilated us for practical purposes. You have to remember this was part of Anita Bryant's campaign to make everything we did illegal. Everything.

I am proud of the energy that younger gays and lesbians have discovered in themselves since the passage of prop 8. It heartens me to think the current generation of young men and women have woken up to the possibility that all is not well with the assimilation movement they have adopted.

At no time, however, did any of we "older gays" ever think of "gay rights." We always rested our movement on human rights, not a distinct body of rights that we alone were entitled to.

I urge you to look more deeply into this. Maybe sit down with someone over 60 who was out in 1978 to get a feel for what things were like then.

Isn't "gay rights" what Harvey Milk advocated? That's what I got from the movie last night. I wasn't involved in the Castro in the early 70s obviously, so I can only assume the story told by Gus Van Sant was factually accurate.

The points where I see Prop 6 and Prop 8 merging is the religious right fighting gay people for the very right to exist, to live happily, to live in peace with whomever gays loved.

This is the point of parallel that I found strikingly and eerily similar and nothing has changed from the Christian-right’s perspective to live us alone - they still persecute us.

The Christian-right uses "children" as their device to spread their bigotry and hate.

The gay community should have been ready for the Christian-rights tactics - as the Christian-right used the very same tactics the last time - thirty years ago.

That's what I'm angry about. But the masses were duped this time by the lies spread by the bigoted, homophobic and hateful Christian-right and we weren't prepared for "them" this time with our own “children” defense.

My anger stems from the fact that older generation of gays and politicians should have known the Christian-right would used the “child” tactic and fight them back head-to-head on the "child" issue just as Harvey Milk did to John Brigg in a debate in Orange County, California in 1978 – in the Christian-right’s own backyard!

We should have taken the debate on with the Christian-right head-to-head using "children" and we would have won.

But, we relied on the hope that our "friends" (gay-friendly str8s) would prevail - and we were sorely wrong.

So, in that sense, "gay rights" lost on November 4th 2008 in California and I'm angry about that.

How embarrassing is it for the possibility that Iowans will be able to marry before Californians - Iowans for Pete's sake? I mean, good for them, but the "thought" is California is way more progressive - and it's shamefully not true because lies about "children" and gays prevailed all thanks to the "peace and loving" Morman Chruch and the Catholic Church.

As Harvey Milk stated in his 1978 debate in Orange County - if children were influenced by adult behavior - there'd be a lot more Nuns running around today.

Actually, they are not at all questionable. The Levite law is rather uncompromising, and nothing in the NT changes that - and that's why I think, as originally stated, it is foolish and fruitless to argue from the text of either the OT or the NT that homosexual unions are somehow okay.

To repeat what I wrote elsewhere: Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it - that would include the Levite restrictions on sexual conduct as well, would it not? He also stated that not a jot or tittle of the law would be changed before the Day of Judgment; thus, you get no literal help from Jesus in okaying it. Hence, my continued insistence that to try and generally argue it from scripture is a more or less hopeless task.

Again, please understand that my argument is solely on the point of trying to justify on the basis of text from the Bible.

Rick, I honestly thought that we "Gay friendly str8s" were gonna pull it outa the hat for you guys. I was totally blindsided by Prop 6 passing here and even more so prop 8 in Cali. I'm sorry we couldn't do it for you this time but we'll keep voting your way until finally there are enough of us to make it happen.

Rick wrote

Rick, you graduated high school a long time ago, and at that point, the obligation of others to fill you with information stopped.

If you don't know who worked to get you the rights you have today, or how those battles were won and lost, then it is your own fault for not having the curiosity to find out.

To blame others for not force-feeding you knowledge is both unfair and childish - particularly when it is through their efforts that you live as freely as you do today.

Rick, I don't want to get into a discussion about Milk and I have not yet seen the picture, but even in his day he was very controversial in the gay community outside the Castro. And he was far from the only leader in the anti-6 campaign. Here in LA we seldom heard of him for the most part.

For the record, the anti8 campaign was mostly run by men and women in their 30'sw and 40's, not by "older gays". Wait until you are an "older gay" and then you will understand that it is very seldom we get asked anything and certainly are not always welcome with suggestions or even leadership.

Many younger gays think we fought our fight, they are grateful, but now is the time for a new generation. Kinda like the Obama phenomenon.

So I wonder how often you communicated with Equality California or any other of the actual leaders of the anti-8 campaign. I know I did. No response to me. To you?

There were no openly gay policians at that time in L.A. The movie made it "seem" that Harvey Milk not only was a warrior for the gay cause in San Francisco - but across the nation as the movie showed several scenes in which young gays would call Mr. Milk and tell him that their families hated them and they asked him what should they do. He always suggested to them that how ever they could - get to New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco on the next bus out of town.


The only time was in San Diego when I picked up my three "No on 8" signs.

Next time, I'll be more prepared and not so lackadaisical. I'll be more prepared to fight the Christian-right now that I am aware of their tactics.

For example, if I could go back three months, I would suggest a commerical that ran children saying to the camera:

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court said my parents could marry.

(I would then have shown a collage of lesbian and gay couples over the kid's shoulders)

...with the kids adding:

Please don't take my parents right away to be happy.

(Then all of the kids in unison)

Vote No on Proposition 8.


Fight kid tactic with kid tactic - that's how I would fight the Christian-right.

I would suggest too, rick, that prop 8 opponents gather some statistics on children who have been abused, children who have dropped out of school, children who have been involved in crime, and show that almost all of these children come from homes that do not have same-gender parents. "This is a child . . . this is a child on heterosexual parents." Something along those lines.

Good one Steve! One of our major strengths was not utilized at all. Our humor. There are very funny ways of getting serious points across and we seem to have abandoned that completely.

Like Heath Ledger said in The Dark Knight: "Why so serious?"

I like Rolling Stone's take on this issue. Their basic view is that the "No on 8" was outgunned, plain and simple. The "yes on 8" people had more money, better advertising, and more man-power. Ironically, the "Yes on 8" group were the ones who took the ground game strategy to heart:

So, yes, get better advertising, but also get people out and involved in the campaign early on. (Hey, I read about all the protests. Surely they could have volunteered to help before the vote, if only the campaign organizers had asked.)

erinys
I agree with all you said. And also find it more than a bit sad that some of our citizens could wake up and find their rights stripped for the lack of better advertising

What this will take is straight people talking to their friends about human rights and the separation of church and state. You folks are more likely to have access to those who are willing to listen than most gay people are. You have their trust and confidence so when you say something, it may get listened to.

The civil rights movement may have been led and inspired by Rev. King and other black men and women, but it gained power when whites joined them and used their influence and power.

I am tired of being told how we should do this or that. If you truly believe this is a human rights issue it is just as much your issue as mine.

I hadn't noticed that folks were doing that. All along, I've felt it was a failure of the opponents of Prop 8, whether gay or straight. Has there been much opinion expressed that it was a failure of "y'all gay people"?

Because what you say about the Civil Rights movement is totally an appropriate analogy. Whenever discrimination occurs, it is ultimately up to the dominant groups to give in to the rights of the other, simply and entirely because they have the power to withhold them.

Jeffro and I have expressed our opinions that the failure lies with gays who were the primary opposition to Prop 8.

(...but then again, Jeffro and I are close in age )

Don't you advocate Native American "story" telling? Is it not the repsonsibilty of older gays to pass on to younger gays our history and what works and what doesn't work politically?

Why does the wheel need to be reinvented every generation - only to have older gays then say: Been there, done that, girlfriend (then give a "Z" snap).

Since, presumably, heterosexuality is the predominant condition, say, 90% of the population (rough guess, that), it follows that it will take a majority of the majority to win this issue. I would be willing to bet that if the vote were held today, the result would be different. I, for one, am a strong, vocal, and insistent advocate for full equality, including full equality based upon sexual orientation. I am also a strong proponent of separation of church and state. Unfortunately, I am not a California voter.

NWP, I appreciate your stance and that of virtually everyone here. As you say, however, it will take a healthy portion of the 90% to speak out and vote for equality.

I did not mean to imply that you or anyone here should do anything. But I do say that it will take heteros being outspoken and probably a bit uncomfortable by raising the issue even when it doesn't seem natural.

Somehow my parents managed to imbue that principle in me as a child. I take it for many here the same happened or that you have learned and adopted that stance about your role as a responsible citizen.

I just want to shoot down the implied notion of some that this is an issue of concern exclusively or even primarily to gays and lesbians. It is not. It is an issue for all. All.

Truthfully, if the straight people on this site thought it was only a gay issue, do you think the discussion would have been so active, and so supportive, for so many pages?

I think I already indicated my answer, Mellow. And I would bet many here also speak out to the world around you. I accuse no one of anything. I appreciate everyone who has voiced support.

Reader Rant is a bubble - it does not represent reality or the real world. As we all know, the real world is mean, cruel and unkind.

Phil - truthfully, I didn't think you were attacking anyone. I intended my post as a gentle & supportive reminder, not in any way as a rebuke.

I very much agree with what you said here, Phil.
An analogy (as in not a derailment) is the health care crisis. Until the comfortably insured, medically taken care of populace jumps in to help us, it's a slow go, maybe even a no go.

I do my part every chance I get.
I think I'm making progress with my sister and my brothers too.
A large portion of my world is gay and lesbian. I always do all I can.

A truth that escapes many: Networld is a place where logic and fact are often suspended and where what should be tends to isomorphically replace what is.

I'm sorry, how does that make Networld different from the "real" world? We have many alternative realities outside the Net as well. And we've had more of those for a longer period. I think it is just normal human behavior moved to a new, more immediately available and more broadly distributable medium. Insanity on line.

A gentle reminder to all to stay on topic in this thread.

Alternate realities might make an interesting thread on it's own. ...

Thank you,
SkyHawk, Admin

Not meaning to quibble, but much of the opposition to equal rights for all, including the segment most directly affected in this thread, is itself an exercise in the very kind of alternative reality being broached here. There is no "there" in their bugaboo bag but they have fashioned a reality in which they think the whole matter of preference for others is something on which they need to legislate.

No quibble at all. I agree with your statement, logan.

My point which began the thread drift is that here at RR - you're basically preaching to the choir. To pat onself on the back for pages of supportive prose doesn't change the minds of the voters who voted for legal discrimination and to change to the California Constitution.

Simply becuase support is on-going here at RR doesn't make it so "in the real world" nor at the ballot box. Support here doesn't translate to support outside of RR.

It is somewhat reflective of it though. Prop 8 did not win in a landslide - it was about 50/50. Support is obviously higher than that among those posting, though there may be just as many RR members who disagree and have not posted. That is in "real life" too. You don't hear a lot of people proudly proclaiming that they voted "Yes" on 8 now that they've won. They are the ones who want to forget about it.

I would like to believe it is because they know what they've done is indefensible (that's my fantasy and I'm sticking to it).

I think the results were closer to 48/52% Jeffro

A study came out today that analyzed those who voted yes. Turns out, they were not college educated AND they made less than 40K a year.

Of the religions:

89% of Evangelicals voted yes
66% of Prostetants
60% of Catholics

Where do the Mormans fall in line - with the Evangelicals?


Here is the link.

Some of us haven't had a legal question to vote on. I have no "real-world" support regarding the California constitution, as I can't vote in California.

My earlier post was a good-will gesture, yes. As a non-California resident, emotional/moral support and good will is what I have to offer in the Prop 8 fight -- that, and whatever I choose to write on the web.

That post was also intended as a direct response to the statement that "it's an issue for all of us." Phil sounded tired and angry, and I was trying to respond to that, as a friend.

Of course an offer of support doesn't change anything. Wishing Ag a fast recovery doesn't change anything either, but that wouldn't stop me from doing it.

According to the study linked above, poor dumbf^cks voted yes. Figures.

Support winning attitude

That's pretty mean, rick.

The article you linked is very interesting, though. Among the findings reported:
And apropos to your comment:
Not everyone who lacks a college education is a "poor dumbf#ck". The study also showed a much larger percentage of Latinos favored Prop 8 than originally reported - another population with less access to higher education, for a variety of reasons.

Bottom line: the sooner we elect a President like Dennis Kucinich, who alone among candidates campaigned on a promise to make college education accessible to all young people, the sooner discrimination like that perpetuated by Prop 8 will end.

right on, Steve!

Wait, what did I say? I didn't intend to criticize anyone. The point I was trying to make was that I don't think RR is as much a 'bubble' as Rick thinks it is. I believe we have more support than we ever have.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I should never try to post when I'm at work.

At the risk of unending repetition, I wish I could vote in CA, but I cannot. I am very much a supporter of equality for all and do what I can, including contributions to Lambda legal, when I can. I have posted frequently here on RR on the subject and follow it ardently. I think that the longer reality continues to confront the ideological cocoon that the Prop 8 supporting population inhabits, the more their illogical fantasy world will continue to crumble. I truly believe that the homophobic order is crumbling in the United States, but like the Bush administration "burrowing in" like-minded ideologues into the infrastructure of government before being ousted, there are dozens of State laws that will have to be repealed, or overturned in order to achieve the goal. My fantasy - Jeffro started it! - is that the SCOTUS will rule that such laws are constitutionally impermissible and overturn them all as unconstitutional - achieving in one fell swoop the return to constitutional balance that these enactments have set askance, akimbo, off-kilter. Obama is the one to make that a reality.

No, Jeffro, damn, I did it again. My post followed yours but did not refer directly to yours. Why do I keep doing that?

Sorry for the confusion.

But he needs a vacancy among the Gang of Four or Kennedy to tip the balance back toward reason.

Phew! I was trying to do several things at once, and all I could think was "I pissed Julia off, and I don't even know what I said".

I've done that too though, let's blame it on the system (I'm a database guy at work, and that excuse usually works ).

Despite RR being currently a hotbed of open minded, right thinking people, twas not always so. And, raise your hand if the conversations here about gay matters have been more frequent and provided more information than in other areas of your life. Not for all, i realize, but I venture for some at least.

If that were true, Prop 8 would have lost. The fight for 'gay rights' presses on...

Actually Jeffro is correct, Rick. The polls on this issue today are the highest numbers ever for equal rights to marry.

Rick, you mentioned that you thought RR is a bubble. I don't completely agree with that. If you read as many different sites as I do you will find many of the same discussions and the same ideas expressed. In the early days, even coming out anonymously online, seemed like an act of courage.

I remember a particularly foul troll on Yahoo! back in the late 90s, whose screen name was "lopshisarmsoff" (nice, huh?) He used to post the most disgusting gay bashing messages on every gay forum. He would post in explicit detail what he would do (or claimed to have done) to gays. It made me physically ill. He would be banned and then pop up again with another alias (all with the word "lops" in the name - he was really into dismemberment fantasies, apparently). There were straight people on many of the forums that were there to ask sincere questions. I would engage people, then lops would show up and the whole thing would degenerate into horror. Today, lops would not last very long anywhere, and it wouldn't be just gays driving him out. A lot of times I'll see an anti-gay themed thread somewhere and think "I better jump on here" only to find that there are already dozens of defensive posts from self-proclaimed straight people.

Despite the (narrow) passage of Prop 8 and a lot of ugly rhetoric out there, gays are not the social pariahs we once were (even 10 years ago).

The 1988 Republican National Convention was a nightmare if you were a gay American. I watched that year with my father and couldn't believe the openly hateful speeches from Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan. To a young gay man, they were calling for all but my death on a National platform. That convention could not exist today without major criticism.

Today, people are up in arms that both Biden and Obama said they did not support gay marriage but supported equal rights for gays and lesbians. I see that as progress. We were even included in Obama's acceptance speech. Clinton was the first time in my life I remember hearing anything positive toward gay people from the President (of course The DOMA and DADT were both implemented under Clinton, so... take that for what it's worth). The point is that we really are much more accepted now than ever in my life. We are embraced and supported by our straight friends and family members and defended more strongly than ever before and not just here on RR, but most everywhere I look. Prop 8 was a disaster, but it has really opened up the dialog on a National level and probably for the first time in my life, there is more vocal support than I've heard before on any gay issue.

The people who still hate and bash gays are dinosaurs, they will be on the wrong side of history. The people who supported Prop 6 thirty years ago were wrong and they are STILL wrong AND they are using the same arguments that were not true then and still aren't today.

Trust me, things really are a LOT better than they used to be.

I, for one, have really benefited from this conversation, beginning to end, and learned a lot from everyone involved.

...it doesn't matter what the poll numbers are today - poll numbers only counted on November 4th - and we lost. Str8 people said "No!" to Gay Marriage in California.

We now have to wait until the Courts rectify that vote - once again.

So why was Prop 8 voted in then?

Do you think the population identified in the Mercury News study has time to spend all day discussing hoity-toity ideas on the 'Net?

No. They're working their two, three jobs to earn less than $40K a year and raising their four, five, six children because "biological events happen."

...and when they finally put the kids to bed and the sit on their porches and discuss with their like neighbors the events of the day - they all agree that homosexuality is deviant and to vote Yes on Prop 8 - plus their pastors/fathers told them to...

Yeah...well...you know... (I've never won a Mr. Congeniality Award )

College is accessable to all young people - in California.

My parents never went to college. I did. My parents never paid one penny for me to attend - and I still have the Citibank loan to show for my efforts.

There are loans and grants and scholarships out there - there's no excuse not to obtain a higher education - unless one is dumb and get someone preggers and then have to support three people on a minimum wage job or stupid to rob some place or senseless enough to murder someone and end up in prison.

Rick, I am glad to see you getting worked up about this, it heartens me. I believe you have previously described yourself as one who doesn't make a point of being gay unless it seems appropriate in the setting. Catch me if I am wrong.

Maybe it is the heat you feel now that will lead all of us to talk to more people, even in situations we may not have previously, so we make sure that more of those hard working straight people get to know how truly fabulous we gay people really are; that they have nothing to fear regarding us and that we really are after all is said and done, humans just like them.

Again, glad to see you fired up.

One slightly off topic point to Rick's view on access to college education. Loans aren't hard to get just for mortgages and Big Three Auto companies My girlfriend has a kid in college right now. The loan was fairly easy to get a year ago, but even then the credit was tightening. I don't have much hope that it won't tighten more this year and next. And even without being able to add my income to the various forms (hey, MO voted a gay marriage ban into our state constitution in 2004), my girlfriend still makes too much for many grant programs.

Back on topic, I believe gay issues in general are gaining traction and will continue to. I remember back in the nineties when the Hawaiian gay-marriage/union cases hit my radar. At that time there were many(maybe even a majority) in the gay community who weren't convinced that the battle for gay-marriage was worth fighting. Even as recently as 2004, polls indicated a narrow nationwide support for gay marriage bans. How many swing-states had amendments on the ballots that year? I know it was more than just Missouri - and most of them passed, if I recall correctly, by significant margins. So, we have gone from ambivalence in the community and majorities of "straights" opposing gay marriage to an increasing acceptance of gay marriage and even more acceptance of civil-unions. It's happening, slowly maybe, but it is happening.

This just in:
How did this happen?


You sound like my Dad, rick. Who, BTW I spoke to on the phone last night (alert the media!). He has no clue what life is like for people beneath him because he refuses to look down. They are, after all, beneath him.

I'll never forget sitting in the emergency room at two in the morning with him, the night my brother got his back broken in a car accident. Bro was getting tractioned, I was virtually in shock, and Dad was carrying on a tirade about fat people. "Look at that woman" he said loudly enough for that woman to hear. "It's disGUSSting. There's no excuse for that kind of fatness."

Some people are indeed beneath you. They're not as smart as you, not as industrious, not as good-looking, they don't speak as well . . . Though you may not immediately think of it this way - these are all handicaps. They will never succeed if we insist on setting the bar insurmountably high. We have to lower our expectations.

If you're having trouble figuring out how they fit into your world, then surely you can understand why so many str8 people have trouble figuring out how you fit into theirs.

Yikes Rick. The anger can be a positive, but the bashing isn't. The fact that Prop 8 passed does not negate the fact that gays are much more accepted in society than they ever have been. Let's remember that we are a minority within every other minority. We come in every age, color, shape and size and even within our own racial groups we are the minority (we are the minorities minority). I think we have explored nearly every possible reason why Prop 8 passed. I'm not sure that picking poor, uneducated, fertile straight people as the next enemy is the the best choice of target for our anger.

The real enemies are the leaders of the groups that get their followers to support their ideas AND the ignorance that allows that to happen. It seems that most everyone now knows or is related to an openly gay person. I can just as easily see the people in your example sitting on the porch talking about how it just seems wrong to tell Uncle Ray or Mike and Tom down the block (the ones with the beautiful lawn) that they can't get married.

There are still closeted gays out there too. They may have secretly voted 'no' in the booth but the reason they are closeted is that they likely know people who hate gays and I'm sure their conversations with those people never include supporting equal rights. I have already mentioned the gay guy I met election night who voted "yes". We won't really understand the reason until we actually talk to the people who voted yes, but, like I said, I'm not hearing anyone admit that they did.

This may be heresy but I also think that some members of the gay community have started to believe the glowing statistics about us. Not all of us are more educated, nice, creative, rich and loving people. So, even if everyone knows someone who is gay, they don't necessarily like or value them, in fact, the gay person they know may reinforce all the negatives they already feel toward the community.

Despite all the time and energy we've spent trying to pinpoint who to blame, I don't think we will ever have a cut and dried answer. One thing I'm realizing is that, the more time we spend pointing fingers, the less time we spend educating. The more time we spend digging into this, the more we discover that everyone could be perceived as our enemy. We've already pinned this on Mormons, Catholics, Blacks, Latinos, Asians and even some gays. We are not going to find THE ENEMY. We need to progess and work on making people understand why this was wrong - there are some we will never persuade, we have to accept that, and move on to the people who we can.

Having said all that, I stick to my guns that, in my experience, I, as an openly gay man, am much more accepted now than any other time in my life.

Wow Steve, I think your dad is my cousin! We're related and didn't even know it!

Jeffro - had I a hat, I would doff it.

I'm going to juxtapose these two sentences and allow them to stand on their own merit:

That's good rick. Now look at the difference between the two statements. In the first, the enemy is identified as a condition. In the second, we are admonished not to personify that condition.

It wasn't that long ago that sexual predation was endemic to Negroes. And, isn't AIDS the "Gay" disease?

Uh, okay. Ignorance does not always equal uneducated, and I have always put the responsibility on the religious leaders. I have said it before and I will say it again, gay issues would not be the issues they are without religion. I,am, in fact, pointing my finger at religion and the leaders as a root cause (I don't think that makes my statements contradictory or hypocritical). Religion is a good target for the anger, but the followers are not a good place to attack. We will likely not change the opinion of the preachers who have made bazillions of dollars by denigrating gay people - I'm not convinced that even they believe what they say half the time, they just know it works. They count on it.

I am saying we need to educate not attack.

You're good stereoman.

How many trophies did you win for your high school debate team?

Why isn't it a "good place" to "attack" "the followers." Can not "they" think for themselves?

I really don't see the difference:

Give yourself some credit too, rick, for being willing to think about what someone else has to say even when it runs counter to your ingrained attitudes.

Rick, attacking anyone has never seemed to me to win converts to a cause or a position. It can, as with the yes on 8 ads, excite those already committed to a cause or position, but that is not what we need.

We need to cause people to rethink (or maybe think) what they "know" about gay life and gay marriage as well as the principle of equal rights. I fail to see how attacking anyone or even any institution will bring that about.

I urge you to give people the space to make the changes themselves, albeit with your help and inspiration. Have you ever been "attacked" for being gay? How well did that work?

You beat me to it Phil. Key word: attack.

I LOVE that image Rick. I've had it in my cube at work since you first posted it a few years ago.

Good point Phil, I will heed your wisdom.

(Don't let on that I recycle my material ) ***sheeesh***

From EQ California:

Link to website

On CNN's site

I'm curious as to whether or not Warren is being reimbursed in any way for his invocation. Why is there an invocation at all at a govt function? Seems to be a violation of separation of church and state.

Amen, Skyhawk

wondering the same thing.

uneasy here

What happened to supporting Obama because he promissed to bring people together?

Sure, I don't agree with the viewes of that Pastor but he has the right to have those views. It is up to the Courts to make sure that no discriminatory laws are passed either by congress or voted in by the people.

Your bone to pick is not with the people that think gays should not be married... Your bone to pick should be with the California Supreme Court for allowing the proposition on the ballot in the first place.

I think Obama is showing that you can disagree with the views of a person and still work together with that person for the good of everyone.

Rubbish! It is up to each citizen, the legislature AND the courts to adhere to the Constitution. It is pure laziness to pass it off to the courts.

The California supreme Court had no legal basis for keeping the measure off the ballot. Can you provide one?

If this were anti-miscegenation law instead would you say the same thing? I would hope not.

There are thousands of preachers who could have been chosen. Why this one? Politics doesn't trump what is right. .. or does it.

Nope... The constitution is there to protect the rights of the minorities and the Courts are there to make sure that happens.

Remember that democracy is the rule of the majority and the majority has spoken clearly on Nov 4th.

Inaugurals always begin with an incantation invocation. I think Billy Graham did it at least once. Let me see what I can find.

*Billy Graham did the inaugural prayer for '41 and both Clinton inaugurals, but was too sick to do '43 so his son did it.

I don't think anyone can possibly show that, for the simple reason that it's absolutely impossible to work together for anything that is "for the good of everyone". In a country as big and diverse as ours, nothing is "for the good of everyone".

Now let's get on the Wayback Machine here and see if we can recall another instance where Mr. Obama dared to appear with Pastor Rick, shall we? Let's remind ourselves of what Mr. Obama had to say on that occasion about Proposition 8:
Why, then, is there such an outrage about Obama picking his friend Pastor Rick, who refused to condemn Obama from the pulpit unlike so many of his fellow "men of the cloth", when Obama's own opposition to same-gender marriage should have been clear all along? Why wasn't the outrage directed at Obama when it counted? I would suggest that those who threw their whole-hearted support behind Obama in the election should instead examine their own hearts, and look at their own hypocrisy, or ignorance in the case of those who did not listen or were not listening when Obama made his position clear all those months ago.

Obama's supporters should have known what they were getting when they were out there campaigning for his election. They should have known they were getting a candidate whose own convictions would have led him to vote YES on Proposition 8.

Wow, lots to catch up on. Briefly:
1) California Supreme Court could not act prior to passage of Prop 8. Now they can, and will.
2) I don't like invocations at public events either, but it is traditional.
3) Rick Warren may be one of the most reasonable of the evangelicals and agrees with many of the other policies that Obama supports, including the environment, etc.
4) It is not, as Steve pointed out, inconsistent with Obama's views previously expressed.
5) I don't like "one issue" voters or campaigns, nor does the President-elect, so condemning Obama over one issue is inconsistent with his previously expressed message.
6) GLBT leaders can be upset and express that, and I kind of like Obama's response.
7) Obama is the first President to appoint an openly-gay individual to a top post. First openly LGBT person named to Obama's cabinet Which action is more important - appointing someone who will serve for years, or allowing someone to make a 2 minute invocation?

"Apparently" evangelical pastor Rick Warren, from Orange County, CA was the guy who helped evangelicals get over the "is he a Muslim" and showed them that Barack Obama is in deed a born-again Christian.

...sometimes these things are more than meets the eye.

Walking in other person's moccasins may give different views

Los Angeles Times

AG Brown also stated on KGO 810 a.m. San Francisco that the will of the People can not supercede the interpretations of the California constitution by the Supreme Court of California.

AG Brown stated that the Supreme Court HAD the final say in the matter last May and said the right to deny gays marriage had to be a compelling interest for the government to deny such marriages and that there is no compelling interest by the government from barring gays the right to marry.

The Court ruled on the Prop 22 statute in May 2008 and now the Court has to rule on an Admendment which does the same thing as the statute of Prop 22 passed in 2004 - which the Court struck down in May 2008 as I just stated.

AG Brown also stated that the California Supreme Court has the duty to protect individual rights.

Given these legal facts, it doesn't look good for the "Yes" side.

Oh Great Supreme Court of California - please protect us gays from the "tyranny of the majority."

CNN

Given what AG Brown stated on the bottom of the previous page, Andrew Pugno, attorney for the "Yes" side must be a total fool and a really crappy lawyer to think that he will prevail in Court.

I'm very elated about AG Brown's statements and position today.