KJ

The outcome of the election in Maine is proof positive that we should not be making decisions regarding people's civil rights at the ballot box.

Take it away, Melissa McEwan:

Historically, we have depended on the courts to make decisions about the application of constitutional guarantees in spite of popular opinion, and they have repeatedly secured protections for marginalised groups decades before Congress and state legislatures, which more closely track public opinion, would have done. John Rogers once noted that "when the supreme court struck down the bans against interracial marriage in 1968 through Virginia v Loving, 72% of Americans were against interracial marriage. As a matter of fact, approval of interracial marriage in the US didn't cross the positive threshold until – sweet God – 1991".

That's exactly 30 years after our current president was born to an interracial couple.[1]

Waiting for the whole of society to be on board with granting equal rights to everyone is simply not in our collective best interest.

[1] And now, almost 20 years later, we have a justice of the peace who resigned rather than perform interracial marriages. Which just goes to show that prejudice against interracial couples is hardly dead. It isn't even hiding very well.

Attitudes do change. I have even seen them changing over my adulthood, to the point where a Washington state initiative legalizing strong civil unions is barely a blip on the national news radar. Remember when Vermont created civil unions and threw the entire nation into a tizzy? That was in 2000. Not even 10 years ago. So the tide will turn, eventually. We're seeing them in motion now. But (to switch metaphors) would the door even have started to open if judges -- first in Vermont, then in Massachusetts -- hadn't forced it a few cracks? Would Jim Crow laws ever have been defeated by popular vote? Guaranteeing our rights is what the court system is for. We should let it do its job.

Edit: This brief and clear analysis of the court case is very important, and you should all read it.

The CA Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but the existing marriages will be allowed to stand.

This is pretty much what everyone was expecting and planning for, so I'm not crushed, but I am definitely disappointed.

On the other hand, since Proposition 8 was legal, that means it can be repealed by a simple proposition as well, right? So onward to 2010 (or 2012, depending on what they decide to do). And more lawsuits, I'm sure. More once substantial reactions start coming down.

It's Proposition 8: The Musical!



A not-to-be-missed bit of political satire with an A-list cast, even if you usually hate musicals.

Really awesome write-ups and photos from all around the country:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/11/15/6302
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=20EB36801D27B2D54BC3555301B53515?diaryId=8237

And now, for my contribution. First of all, today was gorgeous. Perfectly clear blue sky, temperatures easily in the 70s, a light breeze. Literally, I don't think we could have asked for better weather. So that was a plus, although the minus is that I didn't bring a hat. I did wear sunblock, at least.

A, who was in town for work this week, and SB came from from Sunnyvale to join us; we left the house around 10am and arrived a little before 10:30. R & S met us there, and we walked over to the Civic Center, where the protesters had gathered in front of City Hall. We hadn't gotten our act together to make signs, so we were mostly there to add our voices and our headcount. Speakers included current State Senator Carole Migden, her recently-elected replacement Mark Leno (who sponsored the two bills legalizing same-sex marriage that the CA Legislature passed but the Governator vetoed), the Rev. Amos Brown (who was easily the most inspiring and charismatic of the lot -- no surprise, since he was taught by Dr. King himself), and many local community members and organizers. Unfortunately, it was hard to hear much and impossible to see at all, because they spoke on the steps of City Hall, not a raised platform, and the sound system was really inadequate. The chant we heard most frequently wasn't any particular call for equal rights, but rather the word "Louder!" But what I could hear was mostly energizing and hopeful, and it was nice to be part of a crowd. As we were walking from the subway to the plaza, we were all trying to remember the last time we had been part of a group action like this, and I decided it was probably my freshman year of college, when A and I went down to Washington DC with a bunch of other BMC folks for the March for Women's Lives. There's something exhilarating about being surrounded by people who feel strongly enough to get up early on a Saturday to lend their voices to a cause.

So the rally held in place for about an hour and a half, and then a group of folks broke off into a march. After about half the crowd had left, a speaker told us that the march was unofficial, but anyone was welcome to join. So we consulted, and then decided to follow. We marched down Polk Street to Market, then turned right to head for Castro. Clearly this march had not been planned, because except for Polk, none of the streets were officially closed, although there were cops around and they did direct traffic for us. Anyway, our turn toward the Castro led to some debate as to whether that neighborhood was really the best place to demonstrate in favor of gay marriage -- I think I said something about coals to Newcastle -- but then we reached Van Ness, and a large group had switched directions, shouting "Turn around, go downtown!" And we saw the effectiveness of chants and mob rule as the majority of walkers did indeed follow. We discussed our options; hunger beat out curiosity, and so we headed to Hayes Valley for lunch.

So it wasn't the best organized event ever. But it was satisfying, and I continue to be energized enough to stay involved. I don't know that there's much to do while the various cases wind their way through court, but I will keep my ears open for opportunities to lend my voice and my time.

Some more of T's photos here.

Many of you have probably already heard about the nationwide protests against the passage of Proposition 8 on Saturday. At least one protest somewhere every state at 2:30 Eastern Time, Saturday, November 15th. The San Francisco event is at City Hall (of course), and I'm thinking really seriously about going. (Any locals interested in joining: ping me ASAP!)

I do wonder, though, about why now. Where was this outpouring of emotion and support two weeks ago, when it could have made a much more immediate difference? Dan Savage has a good take on why the reaction was delayed, but I still wonder. Of course, that raises the question of whether it would have made a difference. I think it would have, but who can say, really?

And I have to admit, late as it may be, it does me good to see how many other people are outraged by what happened to gay rights on November 4th. Momentum is shifting, and visibility can only help with that. Which is the main reason I am moved to join in on Saturday.

Barring some miracle in the absentee ballot count, Proposition 8 is going to pass with 52% of the vote. This percentage has held pretty steady since midnight, within a few tenths of a point (why yes, I did keep waking up in the middle of the night to check), so I think any extreme movement in that number is unlikely. In all likelihood, it's over.

This is a setback. It is, in fact, crushingly disappointing (but not as crushing as I was afraid it might be -- I think unconsciously I've been bracing myself for this for awhile, and of course Obama's win helps to cushion the blow). But it's not really a surprise, given the sheer amounts of poison poured into the ears of California voters by the Yes on 8 forces over the last month. Sure, they may have triumphed today, but look what it took for them to do it. Millions and millions of dollars of out of state money. Lies and exploitation of children in their campaign ads. Outright tricking people into voting for their hateful amendment.

Okay, I'm in tears now, so maybe I'm not as resigned as I thought I was.

So the forces of hate and fear won the day. There's no getting around that. But they've only won the battle. They haven't won the war. And this war, they will lose. I still have no doubt of that. In 2000, California passed the first law banning same-sex marriage by a vote of 61%. That's a 10% change in less than 10 years, which is huge progress. If we'd had a little more time between the Supreme Court decision and the vote for people to get used to the idea, I'm sure we would have defeated this. We will see marriage equality California again, and we will see it across the United States. It's coming, and nothing can stop it.

So today I take a few minutes to mourn. And then I'll pick myself up and start fighting again. Because I thought I was determined before, but now I know what true determination is.

So I went to the No on 8 office tonight, as planned, and I ended up on the phones after all, calling people who had volunteered for Get Out the Vote efforts tomorrow, making sure that marriage equality supporters know how to vote and answering any last-minute questions from undecided or unsure voters. I was a little nervous about it at first, but it helped a lot to know that I wasn't cold-calling, and every person I talked to seemed glad to hear from me. Every person confirmed their shift but one, and she was double-booked doing Get Out the Vote for the Democratic party. But she promised to do her part against Proposition 8 at the same time, and it's hard to ask for more than that.

I feel pretty good about it, overall. It was nice to talk to a bunch of like-minded folks, even if I did spend more time talking to voice mail than to people. I even got one person who was standing on a street corner with a "No on 8" sign at that exact minute! And I do feel like I made a little bit of a difference. Probably not much. But a little.

Damm I hope it's enough.

I continue to follow this story really closely and collect lots of links. Some recent interesting ones:

• The celebrity endorsements are starting to roll in. Two notable ones: Project Runway's Tim Gunn and Ellen DeGeneres.


• Interesting blog post on the "Yes on 8" campaign's tactics. It includes some of the most thoughtful commentary I've seen on the charge that teachers will be "forced" to teach about same-sex marriage in schools. A claim, by the way, that the CA state superintendent of schools has gone on record to refute.


• Speaking of campaign tactics, I didn't think it was possible for Yes on 8 to go lower than the blackmail attempt I posted about earlier (which, on reflection, was not only despicable, but stupid -- I suspect these companies will get way more good publicity than bad from their donations, because history has shown that pro-gay-rights boycotts have been far more effective than anti-gay-rights ones), but I was wrong:
  
  

  My husband is a phone banking coach for the local No on 8 campaign. Tonight, at an update meeting, they confirmed a rumor that was circulating around the phone banking session last week: Yes on 8 supporters are calling members of gay and lesbian communities and telling them that if they support same-sex marriage, they should vote yes.

  
  
  It's been clear all along that this is a campaign based on lies, but this... I don't even know what to say.


• This is one of the most fascinating videos on the subject I've seen: a Morman man talking about his church's involvement in the effort to pass Proposition 8.
  
  
  
  
  It's part of a small YouTube channel devoted to Mormon's speaking against Prop 8. Some of the other videos there are also thought-provoking, even if I'm not really the intended audience.


• Election polling maven Nate Silver (of fivethirtyeight.com) wrote about the polling on Prop 8 yesterday. He analyses most of the polls he can find on the subject (excluding internal polling -- he finds them untrustworthy because campaigns tend to cherry-pick the polls that they will tell the world about) and concludes that the proposition has about a 45% chance of passing. Which is far too close to my comfort, and so...


• Jed posts information on volunteering for the No on Prop 8 campaign. And I think I'm going to do it. I've never volunteered for a political campaign before, but then I don't know that I've ever felt this strongly about a campaign issue before, either. Strongly enough that I'm willing to talk to strangers on the phone? Yeah, I think I do. (So if any locals are interested in going to the SF office this weekend or next, drop me a line.)

So, the sharp-eyed among you have probably noticed that I've posted a lot about Proposition 8, and about same-sex marriage in general. This might lead you to suspect that I feel strongly about this issue. And you'd be right. Marriage equality, and gay rights in general, and tolerance and equal rights for all kinds of people across the board, are the causes that raise my passion. I may even care more about this proposition than I do the presidential election. It might seem odd to say that, when so many other states have already passed constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage. But this isn't just another "defense of marriage act". Not just because it's my state, my home, although I'm sure that factors into it. But same-sex marriage is legal in California. If Prop 8 passes, it could nullify legal marriages -- 11,000 of them at last count. Including those of friends, co-workers, family. If that's not a reason to get personally, emotionally involved, what is?

I still believe that history will prove us right, and that we will win marriage equality in the United States, probably in my lifetime. But if this measure passes, it sets the struggle back, quite significantly. And I've already been to two wedding receptions for my aunts; I'd really rather not have to make it a third. So I write, and I work, and I'll hope. And I'll cross my fingers that we'll have many reasons to celebrate on November 4th.

Props to SE for passing along the following story:

Mormon and Catholic organizations attack California gay marriage laws with lies

The separation of church and state also protects religious beliefs, including many practices that are considered discriminatory under civil law--such as only allowing males to be priests. If such practices were not protected, the Catholic and Mormon churches would have been forced to allow women to be priests long ago. Has this happened? No. Will churches be forced to perform gay marriages? No. It’s a lie. And that people are being persuaded by this lie is also unsettling.

Here’s the truth: the government cannot force any church to perform same-sex marriages, nor will churches lose their tax status if they refuse to do so. The churches who have funded this ad are lying.

Read the whole thing, then shout it from the rooftops. Truth is the best defense against lies; we just need to make sure the truth makes it out there in time.

Not that you all haven't heard this already, but I just had to say: Yay, Connecticut!