10 of 12: Call It Marriage?

I quite vividly remember the morning of May 9. I was on a plane from Las Vegas to Long Beach. And jeez, while I was on the plane this news broke.

8 News NOW

And that was actually just the start.

At Southern Nevada Stonewall last night, soon to be State Senator Tick Segerblom (D-Las Vegas) made more news by announcing plans to introduce a constitutional amendment to repeal Question 2. If it's passed by the next two consecutive sessions of the Legislature, then it can go to the voters for approval in 2016. State Senator David Parks (D-Paradise) also noted that marriage equality may come to The Silver State even sooner if Lambda Legal's federal law suit challenging Question 2 succeeds. Even our US Senator, Harry Reid (D), is evolving.

It's really amazing to see how we've progressed as a country... And as a state. Just twenty years ago, an anti-sodomy law targeting LGBTQ citizens were still on the books. (It was repealed in 1993.) Just three years ago, SB 283 domestic partnerships were on the verge of becoming law. Just last year, AB 211 transgender inclusive ENDA became law. And now, Nevada is closer than ever before to fully stepping into the 21st century. Oh, the places we'll go.

And it didn't even stop there. As mentioned above, Lambda Legal filed a federal law suit (Sevcik v. Sandoval) challenging Nevada's Question 2 marriage ban. And even though the district court judge ruled against marriage, Lambda Legal already has plans to appeal. And with Prop 8 & DOMA now officially in The US Supreme Court's docket for next spring, there's now a strong chance of at least a favorable precedent being set in the nation's highest court (if The Court issues a narrow Prop 8 ruling just striking down California's marriage ban, yet nonetheless ruling in favor or equality)... And perhaps even a chance of The Supreme Court bringing marriage equality to Nevada next year (if The Court issues a broad Prop 8 ruling striking down all marriage bans).

However, not all the action will be in court. As also mentioned above, the Nevada Legislature will likely consider placing a Constitutional Amendment to repeal Question 2 & enact marriage equality on the 2016 ballot. And in the mean time, a record number of Nevada elected officials (including Congressman-elect Steven Horsford, and outgoing Assembly Speaker & NV-03 candidate John Oceguera) fully embraced both Nevada's LGBTQ community and our issues. Even the number of open LGBTQ elected officials grew as 3 new state legislators were elected... With one of them specifically defeating a sitting anti-equality Democrat in the primary.

So 2012 has been a huge year for #nveq. And already, 2013 is starting to look like another big year with major federal law suits pending and proactive, pro-marriage legislation coming to Carson City. I, for one, can't wait to see what happens next here.

So Nevada Judge Ruled Against Marriage Equality... But Case Is Far from Over.

Last night, we saw even more breaking news as a federal judge here in Nevada ruled on the Sevcik v. Sandoval case. Unfortunately for LGBTQ civil rights activists, the news was not good...

A federal district court judge in Nevada has ruled against same-sex couples in Nevada seeking access to marriage. Sevcik v. Sandoval is a legal challenge to Nevada’s constitutional regime with respect to same-sex couples, filed by Lambda Legal. The state allows same-sex couples to have most of the rights and benefits associated with marriage but denies them and only them use of the word marriage. The plaintiffs in this case say that denying them marriage violates the equal protection of the laws.

The judge disagreed, writing that the 1972 summary dismissal in Baker v. Nelson forecloses the issue. He suggested a broad reading of Baker (which concerned an equal protection challenge based on gender), writing that “The equal protection claim is the same in this case as it was in Baker, i.e., whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from refusing to permit same-sex marriages. Although the judge found that the amendment does indeed draw a dividing line between two groups and that “for the purposes of an equal protection challenge, the distinction is definitely sexual-orientation based”, he applied the most lenient form of judicial review for equal protection challenges, rational basis review, where “a court does not judge the perceived wisdom or fairness of a law, nor does it examine the actual rationale for the law when adopted, but asks only whether “there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.”” Under this standard, he wrote, “[t]he protection of the traditional institution of marriage, which is a conceivable basis for the distinction drawn in this case, is a legitimate state interest.” Thus there is no violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

For now, that is. Remember that this case is far from over. Rather, Lambda Legal has already vowed to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And remember that the Ninth has already issued a pro-marriage equality ruling in the California Perry v. Brown case. Although that ruling was very narrowly tailored to California, it nonetheless was decided on the very same 14th Amendment grounds of equal protection that the Sevcik Nevada case is based upon.

That's why marriage equality advocates are surprisingly hopeful this morning as the case moves to San Francisco (where the Ninth Circuit is based).

Further, in determining the level of constitutional scrutiny to apply to the statutes in question, Judge [Robert] Jones writes that “public acceptance and legal protection from discrimination has increased enormously for homosexuals,” going so far as to argue that “any such disabilities [that is, due to discriminatory treatment] with respect to homosexual have been largely erased since 1990.” The simple existence of the Defense of Marriage Act defies this statement, for myriad reasons–let alone the other obstacles that LGBT Americans continue to face despite the great strides that our community has made in the last 20 years.

Judge Jones goes on to write that “anti-homosexual messages are rare in the national informational and entertainment media”–presumably he was fortunate enough to miss pastor Rick Warren compare same-sex attraction to other feelings that people simply shouldn’t act on, such as “get[ting] angry and … punching a guy in the nose” this very week in a conversation with CNN’s Piers Morgan. He argues that gays are not politically powerless, and makes the somewhat astonishingly claim that for any group to be regarded as such requires that their “chances of democratic success be virtually hopeless.”

Perhaps most distressingly, Judge Jones’s opinion adopts lock, stock and barrel the anti-gay canard that marriage equality would somehow scare straight couples into deciding not to get married [...]

It’s important to remember that Judge Jones had scheduled oral argument in the Sevcik case for this past Monday to allow both sides to address the merits of the case (and specifically the question of the precedence of Baker v. Nelson but abruptly and without any explanation cancelled such arguments in a late September order. As I wrote after a preliminary hearing in the case in August, Judge Jones seemed especially eager to move the case quickly to the Ninth Circuit, telling attorneys for both sides, “It makes sense to get this decided and off with the circus train.”

Although I think Judge Jones probably should have kept his initial oral argument hearing, I think he’s going to get his wish: this one’s definitely going to the Ninth Circuit, and it’s hard to believe that court (unless the case gets a very conservative panel) won’t take issue with at least some, if not a great deal, of Judge Jones’s reasoning. In a press release distributed after the decision today, Lambda Legal wrote, ”This is not the end of this fight. We will appeal and continue to fight for these loving couples, who are harmed by Nevada’s law barring marriage for same-sex couples. By forbidding same-sex couples’ access to marriage, the State brands them and their children as second-class citizens.”

In many ways, Judge Jones' ruling is downright farcical. And it's still appalling that he did not even hear oral arguments in this case. Without a doubt, the Ninth will take issue with that.

We'll just have to wait and see what the Ninth decides to do with this case. The appeals court may simply send the case back to trial court here in Nevada if judges there feel that Judge Jones did not give this case a fair trial. Or perhaps, a three judge panel may just keep the case there and weigh the larger Constitutional issues involved while simply dismissing the (lack of) findings in Judge Jones' ruling.

But without a doubt, this case is far from over. And especially considering the US Supreme Court is weighing whether to review the Perry (California Prop 8) law suit and the Ninth's ruling in favor of the plaintiff (or in favor of marriage equality), this issue isn't going away any time soon.

Another Marriage Equality Law Suit Starts... IN NEVADA??!!

Yes, you read me right. And this time, Lambda Legal is fully on board. In fact, Lambda Legal is filing the suit!

The lawsuit, Sevcik v. Sandoval, marks the first time that Lambda Legal has sought equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples in federal court, although a staff attorney with the group, Tara Borelli, notes that another case filed by Lambda Legal in state court in New Jersey includes federal claims as well.

According to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the lead plaintiffs in the new lawsuit -- Beverly Sevcik, 73, and Mary Baranovich, 76, of Carson City, Nevada -- have been together for more than 40 years. As the complaint notes, "When Beverly and Mary committed their lives to each other on October 2, 1971 and bought rings to signify their relationship, they were careful not to purchase matching rings for fear of having their relationship discovered."

The couple, nonetheless, went on to raise three children and have four grandchildren, despite the constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2000 and 2002 limiting marriage in the state's constitution to "a male and a female person." Same-sex couples have been able to receive many of the same benefits and privileges of marriage but not the status itself, however, since the legislature passed comprehensive domestic partnership benefits over the veto of then-Gov. Jim Gibbons (R) in 2009.

As Chris Geidner notes in his (DC) Metro Weekly piece, just three years ago Lambda Legal, along with almost all other national LGBTQ equality organizations, was initially hesitant to join Chad Griffin and his (then) new organization, American Foundation for Equal Rights, in their fight against California's Proposition 8 marriage equality ban in federal court. Since no federal court had ever recognized a Federal Constitutional right to marriage equality before (and many legal eagles doubted any conservative judge would do so now), they saw the move as incredibly risky. But as we've seen in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, it turns out that the risk comes with great rewards. Of course, we still have to see what the US Supreme Court does with the Prop 8 case, but at least we're now talking about a Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality as a real possibility!

And as we had discussed in February, Nevada will be ripe for the picking next if the Perry case in California ultimately succeeds. Now, Lambda Legal is interested in actually putting my theory to the test. But hey, if "The Supremes" overturn Prop 8 in California on any kind of 14th Amendment or 1st Amendment grounds, regardless of how narrow they try to tailor it, they nonetheless affirm a groundbreaking precedent that will compel them to do the same to Nevada's Question 2 marriage ban, which is just as discriminatory and violates the principle of equal protection under the law just as much.

Despite what some will claim is just an argument over "words" and "lifestyles", Nevada's marriage ban has caused real damage.

Among the plaintiffs are couples who tried to get married in Nevada, but were denied because of their same-sex status; as well as couples who were married in other states but say they’ve faced discrimination since moving to Nevada.

For instance, the suit says, couple Fletcher Whitwell, 37, and Greg Flamer, 39, live in Las Vegas and last year adopted a baby girl, Hudson Whitwell.

''Fletcher and Greg share the typical responsibilities and joys of parenting a young child: they feed, bathe, and clothe her; they teach her to walk and to recognize different shapes and colors; they play peek-a-boo with her and take her to visit her grandparents; they care for her when she’s sick; they read her bedtime stories and rock her to sleep at night,'' the suit says.

''Fletcher and Greg wish to marry for their daughter’s sake as well as for their own. Fletcher and Greg worry that, as Hudson grows older, she will be deprived of a sense of normalcy and may feel socially outcast because she will absorb the message she receives from her government that her parents are not worthy of marriage. They hope that, one day, Hudson can walk down the aisle at their wedding as their flower girl and that she will understand that the love and commitment her parents feel for one another — and for their family — is as great as that felt by other couples who currently may marry,’’ the suit says.

Sorry, but I just don't see how the present situation, even with SB 283 now in place, can be described as "equal protection under the law". The fact of the matter is that it's not. And that is why, once and for all, we will see Question 2 marriage discrimination taken to court.

What Does Prop 8 Ruling Mean for Nevada?

On Tuesday, we were delighted to see the Ninth Circuit ruling that upheld the 2010 overturning of California's Prop 8 marriage equality ban on federal constitutional grounds. And while most of the focus has been on marriage equality in California, there are also questions on what happens next here in Nevada. KNPR hosted a good discussion on marriage equality in "State of Nevada" yesterday with State Senator David Parks (D-Paradise) and Steve Sebelius. And yesterday afternoon, Sebelius wrote more about this on his blog and explained why our Question 2 marriage equality ban probably isn't going away any time soon.

So wait, what just happened? Yes, a 3 judge panel of the Ninth Circuit struck down Prop 8... But they did so on narrower grounds.

The narrow legal grounds on which the court decided to affirm Walker's decision about the constitutionality of Proposition 8 were those established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans -- referenced as a possibility by Metro Weekly earlier today.

[Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen] Reinhardt introduced the discussion of Romer by noting of California's amendment, "This is not the first time the voters of a state have enacted an initiative constitutional amendment that reduces the rights of gays and lesbians under state law." In Romer, Colorado voters adopted an amendment prohibiting state and local entities from passing sexual orientation protections. The U.S. Supreme Court struck Colorado's Amendment 2 down as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause because the amendment's aim was "not to further a proper legislative end but to make [LGB people] unequal to everyone else."

Reinhardt then wrote: "Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2."

So what does this mean? Well, the bad news here is that this new ruling applies exclusively to California for now, and that the court wasn't interested in addressing other state marriage equality bans, such as Question 2 here in Nevada (despite Nevada also being in the Ninth's jurisdiction). And moving forward, it's not incredibly likely for the full Ninth Circuit or The US Supreme Court to take a broader view of marriage equality nationwide with this case (though it's far from impossible, as some legal experts think "The Supremes" may be inclined to take a broader view if they decide to take the case).

However, the good news here is that the narrower scope placed by the Ninth may lead The Supreme Court to decline an appeal and let this ruling stand. If that happens along with the full Ninth Circuit upholding this ruling, then same-sex weddings will resume in California sooner rather than later.

And regardless of the narrow scope of this ruling, this Ninth Circuit panel nonetheless set an important legal precedent. On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unequivocally stated that discrimination against LGBTQ families is unconstitutional. The court also used strong language to explain how important marriage is as an American institution, and that it's unconstitutional to demote LGBTQ families to a type of relationship recognition that's less than civil marriage. So despite this ruling being narrowly tailored to California, it was nonetheless decided on critical federal grounds, chiefly the 14th Amendment and equal protection, that paves the way for a future federal legal challenge to Nevada's Question 2.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As Steve Sebelius noted yesterday, replace the ruling's references to "Proposition 8" and "California" with "Question 2" and "Nevada", and the very same legal reasoning can be used to declare our marriage equality ban unconstitutional. All that needs to be done is to wait and make sure that Tuesday's Ninth Circuit ruling stands, then find someone here in Nevada willing to sue in federal court and make a case on Question 2.

Or of course, there's the other route still available to Nevadans. The State of Washington is set to become the next state to allow for full civil marriage equality (and hey, don't forget to thank WA Governor Chris Gregoire here!). And while they were able to do what we can't do (just pass a bill), they may have to go back to the ballot box to defend this win... Which we can do. Now amending our state's Constitution can also be a long and grueling process, but it may also be an attractive option as the political tide turns in favor of equality. In addition to Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, Maine, and possibly even California may also be voting on marriage equality this year. And if pro-equality advocates finally see major ballot box victories this year, perhaps we'll see more willingness to ask Nevada voters to reconsider Question 2 soon.

So unfortunately, Nevada's LGBTQ families will have to wait a little longer before they can start rushing to wedding chapels from Lake Tahoe to the Las Vegas Strip. However, hope remains on the horizon. With the federal legality of Prop 8 questioned, and with the political momentum for equality building throughout the country, the days of marriage discrimination here in Nevada may indeed be numbered.

(In the mean time, don't forget to thank Washington's Governor for standing up for equality!)

Another Step Forward for Equality

OMG...

A federal judge on Tuesday refused to invalidate last year's ruling against Proposition 8, deciding the gay jurist who overturned the same-sex marriage ban had no obligation to step aside because of a possible conflict of interest.

The decision by Chief Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco left the ruling by retired Judge Vaughn R. Walker in place. Walker’s decision remains on hold pending a separate appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Proponents of Proposition 8 argued that Walker's conflict was not his sexual orientation, but the fact that he was in a serious same-sex relationship that could conceivably lead to marriage.

Walker, a Republican appointee, has never said publicly whether he wished to marry his partner. But he told reporters that he never considered his sexual orientation grounds for declining to preside over the Proposition 8 challenge.

"It is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings," Ware wrote in his ruling.

The judge said all Californians share an interest in having the the Constitution enforced. The "single interest" Walker shared with the same-sex couples who challenged Proposition 8 "gave him no greater interest in a proper decision on the merits that would exist for any other judge or citizen," Ware wrote.

So Judge Walker's ruling was supposed to be invalidated because he's gay, according to the defenders of bigotry? Shouldn't they also then argue that straight folks shouldn't rule on marriage equality, either? So I guess that would leave us with either "Judge Lassie" or "Judge Flipper".

It's nice to see the courts recognize the obvious. Let's hope Judge Walker's ruling continues to stand and we'll one day see the end of this kind of hurtful discrimination.

Marriage Equality Coming Soon... To Nevada?

So we all know about the ongoing Prop H8 saga in California... But will we also feel the effects here in Nevada? Most likely, in one way or another.

There was outrage and celebration in California this month when a federal judge overturned the state’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. But as the case is appealed, first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and then, almost inevitably, to the U.S. Supreme Court, there’s a strong likelihood that higher court rulings could affect other states’ prohibitions.

Nevada voters in 2000 and 2002 voted to change the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

That represents the argument that the state’s top attorney should defend the state’s constitution.

But on the other side are those who say California’s Proposition 8 and bans such as Nevada’s, violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Really?

Lee Rowland, northern coordinator of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, noted that elected officials have to uphold both the state and federal constitutions.

“Sometimes they conflict,” she said.

In this case, the ACLU says the federal constitution should trump the provision passed by Nevada voters.

“The purpose of the constitution is to protect unpopular minorities from having their rights taken away by a popular vote,” Rowland said. “That’s precisely what the Proposition 8 decision did.”

Right now, marriage equality is on hold in California pending decision(s) from The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However if The Ninth and The Supreme Court ultimately agree with Judge Walker's decision, marriage equality returns for good to California...

But that may not be all. Depending on how far-reaching the final decision, all state marriage bans may be found in violation of the 14th Amendment, and more specifically the equal protection clause and the due process clause. If this happens, then Question 2 is gone immediately.

However even if the higher courts just narrowly apply the 14th Amendment to strike down just Prop H8 in California in this case, it still puts Question 2 into major jeopardy here. After all, we're no longer just dealing with California or Nevada state law. Remember that federal constitutional law trumps it all, so any final decision striking down Prop H8 on federal constitutional grounds at the very least sets strong precedent for a future federal legal challenge to Question 2 here in Nevada, as well as all other state marriage bans.

So now, we wait for The Ninth... Then it's on to The Supremes. And as long as Judge Walker's ruling stands, there's good reason to hope for full equality to come here in our lifetime.

BREAKING: Judge Walker LIFTS Stay on Prop H8 Ruling... For August 18

Now we have some more details of what's to come...

Because proponents fail to
satisfy any of the factors necessary to warrant a stay, the court
denies a stay except for a limited time solely in order to permit
the court of appeals to consider the issue in an orderly manner. [...]

Proponents replied that they have an interest in defending Proposition 8 but failed to articulate even one specific harm they may suffer as a consequence of the injunction.

So far, good news... Except that marriages are still on hold until August 18. Now the case heads to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where Prop H8 proponents have already filed a challenge asking the Ninth to overturn Judge Walker's ruling (both in reinstating the stay and Prop H8 itself). Judge Walker essentially put marriage equality on hold for another week to give Prop H8 proponents time to file exactly this challenge.

Here's some more legal analysis on where we stand (via DKos):

The important part of Judge Walker's order -- even beyond allowing marriages to resume within the week so long as the Ninth Circuit doesn't intervene -- is what it portends regarding the standing issue on anyappeal of his opinion.

The court provided proponents with an opportunity to identify a harm they would face “if an injunction against Proposition 8 is issued.”  Proponents replied that they have an interest in defending Proposition 8 but failed to articulate even one specific harm they may suffer as a consequence of the injunction….

If [] no state defendant appeals, proponents will need to show standing in the court of appeals. See Arizonans for Official English, 520 US at 67. Proponents’ intervention in the district court does not provide them with standing to appeal. Diamond, 476 US at 68 (holding that “Diamond’s status as an intervenor below, whether permissive or as of right, does not confer standing to keep the case alive in the absence of the State on this appeal”); see also Associated Builders & Contractors v Perry, 16 F3d 688, 690 (6th Cir 1994) (“The standing requirement * * * may bar an appeal even though a litigant had standing before the district court.”). The Supreme Court has expressed “grave doubts” whether initiative proponents have independent Article III standing to defend the constitutionality of the initiative. Arizonans for Official English, 520 US at 67.

Nor do the Prop 8 proponents suffer any harms in the interim, because none of them "seek to wed a same-sex spouse," and "the court considers only whether the party seeking a stay faces harm, yet proponents do not identify a harm to them that would result from denial of their motion to stay."  Finally, that neither Governor Schwarzenegger nor Attorney General Brown (the actual defendants) requested a stay weighed heavily on the Court.

So no marriages until next Wednesday at the earliest, pending ruling from the Ninth Circuit on whether Judge Walker's ruling should be stayed as the case heads to their court... And of course, we'll have to see how soon the US Supreme Court jumps into the case (again).

From Prop 8 to Sharron Angle's Hate: Can a Gay Progressive Nevadan Still Hope?

(Also at DKos and The Blend)

This week has been a doozy for me. I was up. I was down. I was right. I was wrong. I was elated with joy. I was horrified and filled with fear.

And in the end, I just have to keep on chugging and do what needs to be done to move forward and achieve the full equality we so badly need and fully deserve.

I still have painful memories from 2008.

The yard signs that were stolen from my front yard. The homophobic insults coming from my own family. The belligerent Yes on H8 paid canvassers trying to bully my dad into taking away my civil rights. The "urine yellow" Yes on H8 signs being sprinkled all over my neighborhood by the anti-equality churches. These are my memories from the campaign.

The married couples wondering if their marriages were still "legally valid". The couples that waited too long and missed the chance to get a "limited edition marriage". The kids who were bullied in school before and after the election. These are still memories I have from the first days after Prop H8 passed.

Beating myself up constantly about why I didn't do more to stop this oncoming tragedy. This is the guilt I still have over my failure to do enough to stop Prop H8 from passing.

I still remember the drive home with my dad on the day after the election. (We were actually here in Nevada to help Obama win.) As soon as I heard on the radio that Prop 8 passed in California, I broke into tears... And cried all the way home. For the next two weeks, I was deeply depressed.

Am I sub-human? Are gay couples just inferior to straight couples? How could this happen here? Is this all my fault? These were the questions swirling around my head.

This week, I finally felt some closure. Prop 8 was overturned in federal court... And while marriage equality is still on hold in California, it was nice to see a glimpse of that "liberty and justice for all" I've heard about in this country.

I know we've all been frustrated by what may seem sometimes like a stunning lack of progress on attaining even the most basic of human rights for LGBTQ Americans. I know I have been. But this week, my hope was renewed. For once, the politics of hate and fear and bigotry was trumped by the possibility of a better America, an America that isn't ashamed to treat all her citizens equally.

Yes, I was feeling so great on Wednesday...

Then reality slapped me in the face yet again.

You see, last year I moved to Nevada. Yes, my dears, Nevada. I live smack dab in the middle of Henderson, which feels like the heart of that mythical "Middle America" I heard about when I was safe in the confines of "Left Coast California".

And believe it or not, this crazy lady is actually running for US Senate here.

Among her positions, outlined in answers to 36 yes-or-no questions, [Sharron] Angle would oppose making sexual orientation a protected minority in civil rights laws. In a section on school prayer, she affirms that students and teachers should be able to talk openly about religion in schools, including the right to "publicly acknowledge the Creator." [...]

In the questionnaire, submitted to the Washington-based Government is not God political committee, Angle said she would vote in Congress to prohibit abortion "in all cases," and considers a fetus a person under the Constitution.

The Washington-based group's website says it supports candidates who oppose abortion rights and "stand firmly against the unbiblical welfare state that is destroying the spiritual and economic greatness of our nation."

And if you think that's all, think again. Sharron Angle is supported by "Christian Reconstructionist" religious right extremists who want to impose THE DEATH PENALTY on "homosexual sodomites".

An organization calling itself Vision to America sent out a recent fundraising appeal sponsored by U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) on behalf of Nevada Republican senatorial candidate Sharron Angle. "I have put together a plan to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Nevada Senate race — along with several others like it — to achieve conservative victory. This plan includes running statewide television and radio ads, sending direct mail to targeted voters, and operating phone banks — all geared toward defeating Harry Reid in November."

What is American Vision, and why do they love Sharron Angle? American Vision has a goal: "The goal is to return America to its Biblical foundations “from Genesis to Revelation” (a postmillennial reading of Revelation, which holds that the Second Coming will occur after an era of Christian dominance). American Vision is a non-profit, tax exempt, educational organization. Like many of these groups, DeMar also has a companion organization that can raise money and promote candidates for elected office: Vision to America." [link ...]

The Bible is clear on moral issues that are culture-killers: homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and abortion," says DeMar, who is closely allied with D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, where he frequently speaks.

While DeMar insists that homosexuals wouldn't be rounded up and systematically executed under a "reconstructed" government, he does believe that the occasional execution of "sodomites" would serve society well, because "the law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back into the closet."

Another "long-term goal," he writes elsewhere, should be "the execution of abortionists and parents who hire them." [...]

In 1993, American Vision helped county commissioners in Cobb County, Ga., pass an anti-gay resolution so strongly worded that it sparked a national controversy. Cobb County Commissioner Gordon Wysong spoke at American Vision's annual fundraising banquet the following year, saying of gay people, "We should blame them for every social failure in America." [link]

Frightening enough, right? Wait, it gets worse. Sharron Angle herself openly advocated the complete denial of even the most basic civil rights to LGBTQ Nevadans when she helped found the openly xenophobic Independent American Party of Nevada in the early 1990s. Yep, that's right. She thinks we SHOULD be discriminated against at work, when shopping, when on the bus, when applying for disability benefits, when searching for a place to live, whenever, wherever.

Oh, and Sharron Angle won't even take money from companies that treat their LGBTQ employees fairly and equally. Yep, she's that serious about her homophobia!

So how can someone like this even be taken seriously? How can someone like this earn votes in her run for the United States Senate? What happened here?

It's still saddening to see bigotry used as a "wedge issue" in political campaigns. It broke my heart with Prop 8 in California two years ago, and now it just infuriates me to see Sharron Angle flaunt in my face her hatred of me and my extended queer family.

It just goes to show how much progress we still need to make in this country. It's great to see federal judges like the Honorable Vaughn Walker rule in our favor and rightly decide that we are citizens deserving of equal rights... And then it's terrifying to see Senate candidates like Sharron Angle vow to oppose any and all remedies to wrongful discrimination. Of course, it's safe to say she doesn't agree with Judge Walker's Prop 8 ruling.

OK, I guess I should mention the elephant... No, make that donkey in the room.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not making excuses. And I'm not saying it's wrong for GetEQUAL or any other LGBTQ advocacy group to demand full equality. As a gay person myself, I'm 110% there with you! I'm just saying that Harry Reid is NOT the enemy, but rather a friend who I know wants to do the right thing. Sometimes we need to give him the extra push and "make him do it", as both he and Nancy Pelosi said on Saturday at Netroots Nation. But in the end, it's important to keep building these relationships, holding leaders like Reid and Pelosi accountable when necessary, but also remembering that these are our friends and we don't have to fight against them.

Yes, Harry Reid is my Senator. And yes, I know he's not perfect. But whenever I feel frustrated about why DOMA is still on the books or why ENDA hasn't been passed yet, I remember what's at stake here. I remember the batshit crazy tea-nut queen running against him, and I remember I have no choice but to make sure the tea-nut queen gets nowhere near the US Senate.

Sometimes, change isn't fast. Most often, change isn't easy. But in the end, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was right. Change happens. "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."

That's what gives me hope... Hope that Prop 8 will soon be another sad footnote in our history, one that we will have overcome. It's what gives me hope that one day soon (oh, it should be soon!), Harry Reid and Barack Obama will be able to herd those cats often referred to as "US Senators" and deliver on basic freedom from discrimination in the workplace. It's what gives me hope that homophobic, transphobic extremists like Sharron Angle won't be able to win elections on pure, primal hate.

So I guess the hope is still alive. It's been a long walk to freedom and equality, but I guess we'll soon make it all the way up there.

Next Steps in Prop H8 Challenge, Our Equality

So yesterday was an amazing day, wasn't it? But hey, it ain't over yet. An appeal was just filed to take the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate court that handles all federal suits in the Western region (including California AND Nevada).

And of course, we all know where this will end up. And this morning, The LA Times offered some good news on our chances with The Supremes.

At least some legal experts said his lengthy recitation of the testimony could bolster his ruling during the appeals to come. Higher courts generally defer to trial judges' rulings on factual questions that stem from a trial, although they still could determine that he was wrong on the law.

John Eastman, a conservative scholar who supported Proposition 8, said Walker's analysis and detailed references to trial evidence were likely to persuade Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a swing vote on the high court, to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.

"I think Justice Kennedy is going to side with Judge Walker," said the former dean of Chapman University Law School.

Barry McDonald, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, said Walker's findings that homosexuality was a biological status instead of a voluntary choice, that children didn't suffer harm when raised by same-sex couples and that Proposition 8 was based primarily on irrational fear of homosexuality were "going to make it more difficult for appellate courts to overturn this court's ruling."

Ultimately, it may all come down to just one person, just one judge who will one day hold the fate of LGBTQ equality in his hands.

Two decisions in the past two decades, however, have effectively reversed Bowers [v. Hardwick, the 1986 decision that upheld state anti-sodomy laws]  and could well impact the gay marriage debate as cases from Massachusetts and now California wind their way through the system.  First, the 1996 decision in Romer v. Evans invalidated Colorado's constitutional Amendment 2, a measure passed by referendum which precluded "all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the status of persons based on their "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships."

Justice Kennedy's 7-2 majority opinion recalled Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy that the Constitution "neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." (Justice Scalia, citing Bowers, of course dissented.) Citing the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, Kennedy struck down the Colorado provision and rejected the "special rights' language of its proponents:

The State's principal argument that Amendment 2 puts gays and lesbians in the same position as all other persons by denying them special rights is rejected as implausible...Even if, as the State contends, homosexuals can find protection in laws and policies of general application, Amendment 2 goes well beyond merely depriving them of special rights. It imposes a broad disability upon those persons alone, forbidding them, but no others, to seek specific legal protection from injuries caused by discrimination in a wide range of public and private transactions.

Kennedy, also citing the Equal Protection clause, similarly rejected the notion that the State had a compelling interest or legitimate legislative end in enacting Amendment 2:

In order to reconcile the Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied equal protection with the practical reality that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, the Court has stated that it will uphold a law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class so long as the legislative classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end...Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry...Amendment 2 cannot be said to be directed to an identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit.

In the 2003 Lawrence v Texas case, the Court in a 6-3 decision invalidated the prosecution of two men under a Texas sodomy statute and reversed Bowers altogether. Again writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy overturned Bowers on both privacy and due process grounds:

Bowers' rationale does not withstand careful analysis. In his dissenting opinion in Bowers Justice Stevens concluded that (1) the fact a State's governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of "liberty" protected by due process. That analysis should have controlled Bowers, and it controls here. Bowers was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby overruled.

If that language sounds familiar, it should.  Looking at Judge Walker's decision Wednesday in the California Proposition 8 case, Slate's Lithwick noted, "I count--in his opinion today--seven citations to Justice Kennedy's 1996 opinion in Romer v. Evans (striking down an anti-gay Colorado ballot initiative) and eight citations to his 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down Texas' gay-sodomy law)."

If Justice Anthony Kennedy sides with us, we win. Simple as that. That's why Boies and Olsen have presented arguments that seem to go along with Kennedy's legal reasoning, and why Judge Walker cited so many of Kennedy's opinions yesterday. They know who will be crucial to win over in the coming months.

But for now, we must wait to see what happens next in the Ninth Circuit. This will most certainly drag out through the rest of this year and into the next, and we don't even know yet when marriages will resume in California. But without a doubt, this is great news and new hope for so many of us who have felt hopeless with the otherwise lack of progress on our civil rights in DC.

And this most certainly has implications far beyond the California state line. Even if the case succeeds on a narrow basis that just strikes down Prop H8 in California, this will be the first time ever that a state marriage ban has been struck down on federal constitutional grounds. And even better, Judge Walker's ruling included another precious legal gem.

Under both the Due Process clause and the Equal Protection clause, whether a law is constitutional comes down to whether the state has a good enough reason for it. So, the core of Judge Walker's opinion today is his factual findings - the determinations he made based on the evidence presented to him at trial. Judge Walker's methodical opinion relies on the impressive and authoritative trial testimony of the Perry plaintiffs and their expert witnesses to conclusively refute every argument ever advanced against permitting same-sex couples to marry.

Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 and laws like it cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny even under the most forgiving legal standard, the "rational basis" test. But he also held that because it discriminates based on sexual orientation, Proposition 8 should be evaluated under the "strict scrutiny" standard - the highest level of constitutional scrutiny, which applies to laws that discriminate on the basis of race. Discussing the way that the law discriminates based on both sex and sexual orientation, he explained that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is "an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage." And "[t]hat time has passed."

What Shannon Minter from NCLR (National Center for Lesbian Rights) is saying is that Judge Walker wrote that Prop H8 failed both the "rational basis" test applied to most questions of discrimination, as well as the "strict scrutiny" test typically applied only to questions of the most egregious discrimination. And in this and Walker's conclusion that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right, it will allow for future challenges of other state marriage bans even if the higher courts just take down California's marriage ban with this specific case.

There's a whole lot riding on this, and I'll be keeping a close eye to see if we may finally achieve full equality sooner than I had originally thought. :-)

LATE BREAKING: Prop H8 Ruled Unconstitutional, But 48 Hour Stay Ordered (No Marriages Yet)

Here's the rundown of what's happened today:

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment," the judge wrote. "Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Vaughn added: "Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs' relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States."

Ultimately, the judge concluded that Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. … Because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

And here's some early analysis from Brian Devine at Calitics:

Judge Walker found that the "strict scrutiny" test applies. As its name implies, this is the most stringent of the three tests that can be used to applying equal protection rights. Under strict scrutiny, the State may not pass a discriminatory law unless it serves a "compelling state interest." Judge Walker found that Prop 8 does not serve a "legitimate interest" (which is the standard for the less rigorous "intermediate scrutiny" that some argue should apply to marriage) much less a compelling interest.

And here's the full decision if you'd like to read along with me:

Prop 8 Ruling FINAL

Here's what I see so far:

- Judge Vaughn Walker has ordered California to (once again) issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples requesting them. This may be halted if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals says so, but so far no stay of Judge Walker's ruling has been ordered.

- The remedies look to be California specific, so don't expect to get married here any time soon.

- However, Judge Walker's reasoning for overturning California's Prop H8 was rather broad. He went right into the 14th Amendment and equal protection. And because he said marriage discrimination does not serve a "compelling state interest", this may very well open the door to future federal law suits challenging other state marriage bans. I doubt Nevada's Question 2, which also specifically targeted LGBTQ families in denying gay & lesbian couples the right to marry, would hold the strict scrutiny test of serving "compelling state interest" any better than Prop H8.

More to come soon as I look through the decision some more...

UPDATE 2:41 PM: Judge Walker has just ordered a 48 hour stay...

ORDER granting [706] Motion to Shorten Time. Plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenor and defendants are DIRECTED to respond to Doc #705 on or before August 6, 2010. The clerk shall STAY entry of judgment herein until the motion to stay pending appeal has been decided. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2010)

UPDATE 3:11 PM: So far, it looks like the 48 hour stay is mostly procedural. Still, even if Judge Walker lifts the stay on Friday, we'll have to await what the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals says, as the case is now being appealed to them. They will likely first decide whether or not to stay Judge Walker's ruling pending hearing in their court.

The 9th Circuit has a good track record of supporting LGBTQ equality, so I'm cautiously optimistic the final ruling for them will be good news. However we never know for sure, and they may still issue a stay pending their hearing. We'll probably find out in the coming week what happens next.

So no marriages until Friday, depending on how Judge Walker rules on the motion to suspend the overturning of Prop H8. OK, so we have to wait another two days...

Prop H8: Another California Story (That May Affect Nevada)

These past few weeks and months, there's been so much happening in Nevada that it was sometimes quite difficult for me to turn my eyes elsewhere to see what's happening "in the outside world". But now that I'm actually here in California this month, I figured now would be a good chance to discuss the wrap-up of the Prop H8 federal trial... Especially with closing arguments today.

Courage Campaign, Progress Now Nevada's sister organization in California, has been covering the Prop H8 trial like crazy. The above video is a "retold scene" directly from the trial transcript.

So why am I talking about California (again) today? Well, this doesn't just affect marriage equality in California. This will have an impact on LGBTQ equality throughout the nation. The verdict, along with the subsequent appellate court rulings, will set a precedent for federal challenges on other marriage bans, including Question 2 here in Nevada.

Think about it. If the courts uphold Prop H8 and consider discrimination "constitutional", we probably won't see any challenge of Question 2 any time soon. However if the courts decide to overturn Prop H8, even if it's a narrowly tailored ruling stating that the Yes on H8 campaign's target of LGBTQ families was unconstitutional, this opens the door for us to make a move on Question 2. And especially if Judge Walker issues a broad ruling specifically declaring the entire concept of banning marriage equality unconstitutional, then Question 2 also is immediately struck down along with all the other state marriage bans.

So why does all this marriage talk really matter? As I explained last year, domestic partnership (DP) is needed progress but it's still not marriage. There are still many state and federal benefits and responsibilities given to married couples but denied to registered domestic partners. DPs were needed to provide some type of legal recognition and equal treatment under the law, but they are not full equality and we shouldn't ultimately settle for less than full equality.

So this is why I'm keeping an eye on Prop H8. Hopefully, we'll eventually see justice come from the courts. And regardless of what happens in the courts for the next few months, we need to keep organizing and keep winning hearts and minds until we build majority support for full state and federal equality.

Today's Very Special Witnesses in the Prop H8 Trial

While the rest of us are following a special election way out east and ongoing political turbulence here in Nevada, something very interesting is going on in California. On Day 6 of the federal Prop H8 trial, witnesses being called to the stand will include UMass Economics Professor M.V. Lee Badgett and "de-gay-ification" survivor Ryan Kendall. Oh yeah, and this guy will also be testifying.



Yes, Jerry Sanders is the Mayor of San Diego. Yes, he's been elected as a Republican. And yes, he now supports marriage equality.

Karen Ocamb explains some more:

I confess, I had never really heard of San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders until his name came up in conjunction with a city council resolution to have the city attorney file an amicus brief in support of the marriage equality case. I confess, too, that once I heard he was a major law enforcement Republican in that very conservative city, I didn’t hold out much hope for him agreeing to the brief – especially since he was up for re-election.

Slap my wrist and shame on me for stereotyping before investigating.

Jerry Sanders gave a news conference that surprised the hell out of the LGBT community – tearfully telling how he had to support marriage equality because he didn’t want anything less for his lesbian daughter and her girlfriend. We panted for that video which we re-played and re-played – some of us wondering with tears streaming down our faces – if our fathers would put their careers on the line to stand up for us.

He did put his career on the line and he did lose a great amount of support from his own political party, but he's gained the respect and admiration of so many equality activists who appreciate him coming around. It will be interesting at the very least to hear what he says on the stand.

Of course, it will also be interesting to hear Professor Badgett detail the legal and financial discrimination we LGBTQ folk still face without civil marriage equality, as well as Mr. Kendall to describe the emotional and physical torture he had to endure because of a few misguided people who thought they could "save" him by "changing" him. All in all, today looks to be a riveting day in the courtroom and I'll link to the coverage of the Prop H8 trial later today.

LATE BREAKING: No Cameras Allowed for Prop H8 Federal Trial

Sorry, kids, that I've gotten to this story so late. It seems we've all been so consumed with the faux Harry Reid "nothingness scandal" that it's been hard to focus on the real news of the day. But anyway, the Prop H8 trial is underway in federal court. If successful, this will mean Prop H8 will be overturned and marriage equality will be restored in California... As well as in the rest of the country, as all the state level marriage bans will likely be overturned as well (including our Question 2) if Prop H8 is struck down!

So obviously, much is at stake. This is why there was a strong push to televise this trial. Judge Vaughn Walker ultimately ruled against televising the trial live, but instead issued his own "compromise" allowing for a delayed posting on YouTube...

However even this was too much for the pro-Prop H8 forces, so they even challenged this all the way to the US Supreme Court. And unfortunately, it looks like they've succeeded in preventing the public from seeing the Prop H8 trial for themselves. Karen Ocamb, the very distinguished journalist and blogger on all things LGBTQ, has more on this late breaking development.

But in the mean time, I'm frankly disappointed that the conservative majority on SCOTUS has disenfranchised the people yet again. However one feels on Prop H8 and marriage equality, it should be a given that the people have a right to know what our courts are doing about our civil rights. And without any type of video being allowed, it will be that much harder to do so.

Best of 2009 #10: "Equality Summit, Camp Courage, Looking Back, Thinking Ahead"

OK, so today starts my series of what I think are my favorite blog stories from 2009. It's been a wild and crazy year... But hey, we need to start somewhere!

So today, I'd like for us to be goin', goin', back, back, to Cali, Cali, for this one. Back in January, there was still much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth after the Prop H8 marriage ban passed in California. I got my "restart" in activism by attending two major LGBTQ events in LA that really changed everything for me.

So to better understand the fight for LGBTQ equality today, as well as my own personal transformation from ordinary young California Democrat to rabblerousing Nevada Progressive, I'd like to take you back to this piece I wrote for OC Progressive in January.

....





(Originally posted at The Liberal OC)

In case you missed it, I had to cross "The Orange Curtain" last weekend to attend two major LGBT civil rights events in LA, Equality Summit and Camp Courage. And even though I hardly got any sleep Saturday night, I'm glad I did both. One helped me understand what went wrong with the No on H8 campaign last year, while the other helped me realize what needs to be done to make it right in 2009 and 2010.







On Saturday, I attended Equality California's Equality Summit in Downtown LA. I didn't quite know what to expect when I first stepped in the Convention Center. But once the summit began, I quickly realized what this was becoming.

When the leaders of the No on H8 campaign began speaking, anxiety was already beginning to fill the room. And when some of them didn't really want to answer the questions on what went wrong, the anxiety quickly turned into anger. The election may have been nearly three months ago, but that doesn't mean LGBT people aren't still hurting after losing fundamental rights at the ballot box. People wanted accountability, but the campiagn leaders still seemed afraid to own up to what happened.

Well, not everyone was afraid. Some, like EQCA's Geoff Kors, actually seemed open to learning from mistakes. And better yet, the folks from Marriage Equality USA seemed ready to undo the damage. However, others just preferred to shift blame to someone else. Fortunately, the lovely Eva Patterson of Equal Justice Society was able to calm the crowd after a storm of fury. She broke to us the hard fact that we'll eventually need to forgive and move on if we intend to build a strong coalition.

After the venting was done, we were then able to engage in some constructive dialogue. David Binder, one of the Obama Campaign's pollsters, gave some definitive answers on what went wrong in the Prop H8 vote. Also at the summit, I was able to meet with local leaders to talk about preparing a winning plan for OC. All in all, I found good use out of Equality Summit.

If Equality Summit was about dealing with the past, then Courage Campaign's Camp Courage seemed all about preparing for the future. I could feel something different in West Hollywood yesterday as I stepped in the auditorium. Instead of the soul searching and frustration I had witnessed the previous day, this event would be more upbeat and action oriented. But hey, what should I have expected from an event modeled after Camp Obama?

I'll be brutally honest, the "Fired Up! Ready to Go!" and "Yes We Can!" chants seemed a little creepy at first. As someone who supported Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary (before moving to Barack Obama for the general election), I was starting to feel uncomfortable. But once the program got rolling, I was blown away... In a good way.

We had "old school" civil rights activists, like Lisa Powell and SEIU's Liz Moore, train us on telling our stories and persuading voters. We also had newer activists, like Calitics blogger & Courage organizer Julia Rosen, train us on new tools like Courage's Equality Hub. All in all, I felt like I was actually being empowered to undo the damage of H8 at Camp Courage yesterday.

And ultimately, this is why I'm glad I did both. This is why the LGBT community needs to have both experiences. The marriage equality battle has been tough, and numerous mistakes have been made in the past, so we need to vent and scream and shout and forgive and understand and ultimately learn from our mistakes. And then, we need to move on and start figuring out what we must do now and in the future to succeed in the beautiful struggle for equality.

But hey, this doesn't come cheap. EQCA can't do this alone, and neither can Courage Campaign. We need to support the statewide groups that are working hard in court and on the ground to overturn H8. Oh yes, and let's not forget the local groups that are doing the same here in OC. We need to look back, look ahead, and ultimately get to work to make equality happen.

Prop H8: Cali Voters Don't Want to Vote on Marriage Next Year, But WILL Vote for Equality This Time

So I guess they're reluctantly coming around? Hey, I'll still take it!

A small majority of California voters supports the right of gay couples to marry, but a much larger portion of voters opposes efforts to place the issue back on the ballot next year, a new Los Angeles Times/USC poll has found.

Views on same-sex marriage were sharply polarized based on political party, with 66% of Democrats thinking it should be legal and 71% of Republicans in opposition. Nonpartisan voters were less enthusiastic than Democrats but still backed it, 59%-34%.

Overall, 51% of California voters favored marriage rights for same-sex couples and 43% were opposed. Strikingly, however, almost 60% of Californians did not want to revisit the issue in 2010, just one election cycle after it last hit the ballot.

So what if they don't want to vote next year! If we have a majority for marriage equality in California, I hope our friends in The Golden State just go for it! After this week's brutal disappointment in Maine, it'd be nice to FINALLY see a state break this 31-0 losing streak and show the rest of the country that growing support for full LGBT equality is real.

So hopefully, this really is a glimmer of hope that California will come around and actually be the first state after all to affirm marriage equality by popular vote. I hope they succeed. :-)

Why I Still Hope for No More H8

Those first few days were the worst. I was scared. I was depressed. I felt less than human.

Prop H8 had passed in California. And even though I didn't have any immediate marriage plans, I nonetheless felt like all my future hopes and dreams were ripped away from me. I didn't know what to do... Until I got active in working to undo the damage.

Yet even though I'm seeing progress in my new home state, I still have raw feelings about what happened in California last fall. I still have wounds that are only starting to heal.

The yard signs that were stolen from my front yard. The homophobic insults coming from my own family. The belligerent Yes on H8 paid canvassers trying to bully my dad into taking away my civil rights. The "urine yellow" Yes on H8 signs being sprinkled all over my neighborhood by the anti-equality churches. These are my memories from the campaign.

The married couples wondering if their marriages were still "legally valid". The couples that waited too long and missed the chance to get a "limited edition marriage". The kids who were bullied in school before and after the election. These are still memories I have from the first days after Prop H8 passed.

Beating myself up constantly about why I didn't do more to stop this oncoming tragedy. This is the guilt I still have over my failure to do enough to stop Prop H8 from passing.

This is why the special elections in Maine and Washington are so important. I don't want my friends in either state to feel what I felt after Prop H8's passage. I don't want their civil rights stripped away from them. I don't want to see any more Prop H8s succeed in hurting any more LGBT families.

Just like California last year, the opposition is using blatant lies to deceive people into voting for discrimination. And in fact, the very same scumbags that ran Yes on H8 in California are doing the same with Yes on 1 in Maine!

And just like California last year, real families will be seriously hurt if the anti-equality forces succeed. In Maine, LGBT families will be stripped of their marriage rights if Question 1 succeeds. In Washington, LGBT families and seniors will lose important domestic partner rights if Referendum 71 is rejected.

Family values are important. All of our families should be valued. President Obama understands this, and hopefully voters in Maine and Washington will as well. We shouldn't make them face the same fate that so many California families had to endure last fall.

This is what's motivating me now. I don't want my friends in Maine to suffer. I don't want my friends in Washington to suffer. I don't want a "deja vu experience" of seeing the same California sad story unfold all over again.

This is why I'm doing all I can to help. Will you please join me? If each of us pitches in a few spare dollars, we can stop the radical right from assaulting our families and our community any further. We can stop being victims and start turning back the tide of hatred.

Time will soon run out. We have just over a month left until the election. Please join me in giving whatever you can to help No on 1 Maine and Approve R-71 Washington have the resources necessary to win this year. Whatever your "Prop H8 story" is, remember it and do what you can to prevent it from repeating.

Ballot Language Submitted to Repeal California's Prop H8 in 2010

It looks like ballot language has finally been submitted to repeal Prop H8 in 2010 in California. If you'd like to help our next door neighbors, check out Restore Equality 2010.

H8 and CaliforniWashingMaine

It's happening...



All over again!



This pack of lies has now made its way from Massachusetts to California to Maine. Again, it's the same ol' friggin' story. And just like California, the religious right is heavily invested in stripping many thousands of Maine families of their fundamental civil rights.



Real families will be hurt if Question 1 passes in Maine...





Just like real families in California are now suffering because of Prop H8.







Fortunately, groups like Courage Campaign and the Restore Equality 2010 are working to undo the damage of H8 in California. But in the mean time, we can't let the same mistake be made again. That's why it's critical that we do whatever we can to ensure that Maine LGBT families don't suffer the same painful loss that California's families had to endure. Please give whatever you can to No on 1 so they can fight the lies.

And by the way, don't believe the radical right when they say they're only concerned about "traditional marriage". The State of Washington is not even voting on marriage this November, but they are already using many of the same ugly attacks tossed out in Maine and California to strip Washington families of domestic partner rights. Yes, you heard me right, comprehensive domestic partnerships in Washington state are under attack!

Just today, a new poll on Referendum 71 (R-71) has been released by the Approve 71 campaign. While R-71 is ahead 51-44, it's a small margin that leaves no room for error or complacency. If R-71 is rejected, then many thousands of Washington families will lose even the most basic legal protections that even California and Nevada now have with comprehensive domestic partnerships.



Now let me say this again. R-71 is not even about marriage equality, yet the radical right is out to strip many thousands of Washington families of even the most basic civil rights and legal protections. This should be a wake-up call to all of us love warriors for equality that the forces of bigotry won't be satisfied until we're all locked away in the closet again.

This is why it's critical that we get involved!



2009 is an off-year election. Most people typically don't vote in these special election. That's why we progressives must work extra hard to turn out enough votes to defeat Question 1 in Maine and approve R-71 in Washington. Failure to do so could very well set back further pro-equality legislation on the federal level. Failure to do so could very well hurt the California campaign for marriage equality in 2010. Failure to do so could jeopardize even our domestic partnerships in Nevada.

Believe me, our opponents won't give up easily. Even if you think you don't care about Washington and Maine, reconsider. Remember the pain we all felt when Prop H8 passed in California. Imagine feeling it all over again... And then do something to stop this from happening all over again! Please do whatever you can to help defeat Question 1 in Maine and/or approve R-71 in Washington. Let's defeat the same radical right forces behind Prop H8 once and for all so we can move forward in fighting for full equality.

When Visiting San Diego, Just Say No to Pro-H8 Manchester

(Also at Stonewall)

Next door in California, this man has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to take away marriage equality and set back LGBT civil rights there and nationwide. But now, he wants us in Nevada and elsewhere to forget all about it. Please don't. Please join the boycott and stand with our LGBT and union brothers and sisters in San Diego.

Dear Nevada Progressive --
It's time for unity in the face of those who seek to divide us.

Doug Manchester, owner of the second-largest Hyatt hotel in the country -- and the man who donated $125,000 in crucial early seed money to the Prop 8 campaign -- has launched a cynical public relations campaign to divide the marriage equality and labor movements.

That's why the Courage Campaign and Equality California are teaming up to reject Manchester's attempt to divide Californians. Will you join us?

http://www.SayNoToManchester.org/Pledge

Here's the story:

Doug Manchester owns the Grand Hyatt hotel in San Diego. When he gave $125,000 in early seed money to the "Yes on 8" campaign -- a critical infusion of urgent cash that paid for the signature-gathering to put Prop 8 on the ballot -- Californians Against Hate teamed up with Cleve Jones and the hotel workers' union UNITE HERE to lead a boycott of Manchester's hotels, subsequently joined by the Courage Campaign, Equality California and several other organizations concerned about equality and workers' rights.

Launched in the summer of 2008, this highly successful boycott is believed to have cost Manchester's Grand Hyatt more than $7 million in lost business. Despite the success of this growing boycott, Doug Manchester has refused to apologize, refused to meet with the organizations leading the boycott, and refused to improve conditions for hotel workers.

Instead, Manchester has tried to buy off LGBT organizations by offering $100,000 in "hotel credits" and $25,000 to any 501(c)3 organization that supports "civil unions" -- a tax write-off for Manchester that dodges full support for marriage equality and could never be used to fund a repeal of Prop 8, the passage of which Manchester made possible.

No one has accepted.

Today, the Courage Campaign and Equality California are launching the new "Say No To Manchester" web site along with UNITE HERE and Californians Against Hate and asking our members to sign a pledge to join the Manchester boycott. Please click here to add your name today:

http://www.SayNoToManchester.org/Pledge

By signing this pledge, you will increase pressure on Doug Manchester to make a public apology for his $125,000 donation to Prop 8 and negotiate an honest, fair resolution with boycott organizers.

Thank you for joining the Courage Campaign, Equality California, UNITE HERE, and Californians Against Hate. Standing together in solidarity, this growing movement for equality and fairness will win.

Rick Jacobs
Chair, Courage Campaign