I am thrilled to be going, not to watch history being made, but to watch a history finally start to be written that includes LGBT people, their lives, their stories and their achievements.
Harvey's nephew Stuart Milk will attend the ceremony on behalf of his uncle, along with family members of Mayor George Moscone, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano and Senator Mark Leno. The Hall of Fame exhibit at the California Museum will be toured by scores of California students who will finally get in touch with a key piece of LGBT history. Also, one of the winners of this year's California Dreamers Challenge, a scholarship for high school students, will be announced tonight who is a gay youth who was inspired by Harvey Milk.
EQCA worked hard to pass a bill in 2009 creating Harvey Milk Day in California to commemorate Milk's legacy across California and in our schools, but we still need you to help make it happen. Leading up to the first official Harvey Milk Day on May 22, 2010, EQCA plans to work with local groups and educators to develop educational materials and plan appropriate commemorative events across the state (May 21 and 22 in San Francisco, May 22 in Los Angeles and May 23 in Palm Springs). Every child should grow up knowing they are valuable.
Watch out for our organizing kit, prepare to attend one of our events across the state, and start talking to people you know about why Milk's legacy matters.
(I wrote about this last week, but moving beyond partisanship, this is important. I would argue that we should be looking for progressives to fill those non-partisan seats, and maybe even a centrist Republican for those seats. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Drawing our legislative districts used to be the job of elected officials, but now it's up to YOU. That's because of a voter-approved measure last year that called for the creation of a new Citizens Redistricting Commission. Last Thursday, the State Auditor launched a new website for the effort: http://WeDrawTheLines.ca.gov.
It's absolutely critical that pro-LGBT citizens apply for the commission to ensure that the new boundaries are drawn to empower our community--not gerrymandered to divide us.
We are writing to inquire about the recent fundraising activities of EQCA. In early July, it was brought to our attention that EQCA had hired a professional fundraising corporation known as Grassroots Campaigns Inc (www.grassrootscampaigns.com). Since then, we have heard numerous reports that this money was being raised with a script promoting 2010 - Several people on this list, including Stacey Simmons and Robert Polzoni can attest to this. On August 5th, Melissa Staten, a director for Grassroots Campaigns, confirmed that her organization has raised $530,000 in the San Francisco Bay Area and over $ 1 million dollars statewide for EQCA's "repeal of Prop 8 in 2010." We have a few questions as it relates to the money for 2010 and EQCA's announcement later today:
A) Should EQCA announce that they are supporting and/ or in favor of 2010, will a portion of this money be used to pay for the additional research? The Courage Campaign, along with Winner & Mandabach, have stated that we need to raise nearly $200,000 to conduct additional polling, research, and focus groups to solidify ballot language and a campaign plan.
B) On August 11th, 2009 at 2:31pm, Becky - director of the San Francisco office of Grassroots Campaigns Inc. (415-447-9396) - confirmed that money being raised is for 2010. If EQCA announces 2012, we have two questions: 1) will the money that was raised using a script for 2010 be given to support the efforts of the grassroots moving forward or 2) will this money be refunded? At the very least, people should be able to request a refund, if they wish, as numerous individuals were assured that their money was being used for 2010.
C) In addition to the million-plus dollars EQCA has raised since May, the Courage Campaign has raised over a $100,000 in a week's time. Regardless of a particular campaign date, it has become evident that significant funds can be raised at the grassroots level, despite major donor's reluctance.
Our final question: what systems are in place to assure accountable and transparent use of funds being raised? Perhaps this is a question better suited for the August 22nd campaign structuring meeting - but it is a question that the community should ask nonetheless.
If you ever chat with an LGBT activist, bumped into one on the street, or happen to sit near one on the train, you've heard about the great 2010 v 2012 debate. It's all the rage in the LGBT community. On the surface, it's a relatively simple point: do we go back to the ballot to repeal Prop 8 in 2010, 2012, or the rather fearsome "someday."
First, to borrow from one activist, let me address one point which I think is frequently ignored in this debate. The decision isn't really one between simply 2010 and 2012. It is a fight between 2010, 2012 and fear. There are some who will always argue that it is too early. There isn't enough money, people are mad right now, yada, yada, yada. To those people, and you know who you are: F you.
To me this is an argument of political strategy and civil rights. And with that, the question is can we build a campaign that can reasonably win in 2010? A campaign that has both smart leadership and a vibrant and successful grassroots. That is what I'm looking at with this question. The Courage Campaign post/letter of last week talked about some of the various strategic questions.
They touched upon one of the questions, but here's a slightly different take:
First, just the hard numbers should give us pause as we look towards the ballot in 2010. That is not to say that we cannot win in 2010, but it will be challenging. The lower turnout will skew slightly more conservative, and there is a slight advantage of just another couple of years taking their course on the electorate. If we were ONLY looking at which would be easier, it's really not that close of a call, 2012 is a better bet.
Of course, we can't look only at electoral ease. LGBT families are being denied civil rights, and that is an untenable situation. As William Gladstone reportedly said, "justice delayed is justice denied." This is certainly true, and a delay hurts not only the LGBT community, but the greater cause of civil rights in California and the nation.
Follow me over the flip, this is going to take a bit of explaining, and a bit of time mulling over the role of Equality California.
Today, Seth Hemmelgarn of the Bay Area Reporter (BAR) ran a story titled "Growing pains seen in grassroots work" which describes some of the tension in the marriage equality movement as the power begins to shift from the old guard leadership to the new generation of powerful grassroots leaders heading the charge for change.
Specifically, the story focuses on Robin McGehee, the head organizer for the large event "Meet in the Middle 4 Equality" or known as MITM. (Disclosure: Unite the Fight is the official blog covering the event.) The tension described in the story rose when Robin was informed by local community member Sandy O'Neill of Visalia, CA, that Geoff Kors, President of Equality California (EQCA), had mentioned to her at the Dinah Shore fundraising event in Palm Springs that they were supporting buses to transport people to Fresno for MITM. In fact, no monetary support from EQCA for the event had been given.
"I went [to the Dinah Shore fundraiser] to tell Geoff and Kate [Kendall, Exec. Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR)] how excited I was to see MITM on their websites, especially after their absence in the valley during the No on 8 Campaign," Sandy told Unite the Fight.
I am thrilled to report that EQCA-sponsored legislation is moving right along, with two bills passing their first key committee votes yesterday, one to establish Harvey Milk Day, and one to protect LGBT victims of domestic violence.
SB 572, the Harvey Milk Day Bill, passed the Senate Governmental Organization Committee by a 9-4 margin. Introduced last month by Senator Mark Leno (D -- San Francisco), it calls for a "day of special significance" to recognize slain civil rights leader Harvey Milk.
The far-right wants to stop this bill. The Traditional Values Coalition and Capitol Resource Institute lobbied against it in the hearing, saying it would teach youth about a “controversial lifestyle.”
Sen. Dean Florez from Bakersfield countered by asking where the opposition witnesses were from – they responded Inland Empire, Roseville and Sacramento. He then requested to become a co-author of the bill to demonstrate that people living in more conservative parts of the state also support the measure.
Debra Jones, who served alongside Cleve Jones as an intern for then Supervisor Milk in 1978, also testified: "There are some who say that Harvey's contributions to the civil rights movement should merely be acknowledged locally. With that perspective, Dr. Martin Luther King's legacy would not be known outside of Atlanta, and the legacy of Cesar Chavez would not be known outside of the Central Valley. Hope doesn't know geographic boundaries."
By now, most of us have seen the despicable ad unleashed in several key states this week in response to our two historic victories in Iowa and Vermont.
It was commissioned by the National Organization for Marriage (but only if you’re straight) whose website reveals some of their misleading tactics, thoroughly dissected on Pam’s this morning.
What strikes me most is their desperation. Turning themselves into victims is the only weapon the anti-LGBT industry has left. Yes on 8’s Frank Schubert himself has said that attacking LGBT folks directly doesn’t work anymore. We can be thankful for that, but must we must learn to effectively respond with the truth to this new tactic.
To succeed, opponents of the freedom to marry must convince moderates that loving, married same-sex couples somehow pose them a risk. They must stir up enough fear and doubt that otherwise fair-minded people will err on the side of discrimination.
They claim this is not just about marriage. They’re right.
Like clockwork, I woke up at 6 AM Pacific time, knowing the Vermont legislature would soon be voting to override Governor Jim Douglas’s veto of the marriage equality bill. I turned on my computer, went to the Burlington Free Press website, and have been glued to it since then. After the first vote--the Senate veto override vote--I left a message for Peter Shumlin, the President of the Vermont Senate who has become a good friend and tremendous ally over the past two years.
For the last year-plus, MassEquality—the organization I just left—has been working extremely closely with the other New England states to win full marriage equality. Last year, much of the focus was on protecting the court win in Connecticut. Since mid-2008, in partnership with the amazing leaders at Vermont Freedom to Marry (it is truly an amazing organization), I've worked very hard towards this day. Days of meetings in Vermont, meetings and conference calls with Senate President Peter Shumlin and the past and present House speakers, phone banks and volunteer canvasses into Vermont, and for the past couple of months, almost daily check-ins.
LGBT people face unique and severe challenges in the prison system, including serious threats to their safety.
I am thrilled to report that The LGBT Prisoner Safety Act, AB 382, came one step closer to becoming law yesterday, passing the Assembly Public Safety Committee with a unanimous 7-0 vote, winning the endorsement of the entire committee, including five Democrats and two Republicans. Sponsored by EQCA and introduced last month by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), the bill is designed to prevent violence against LGBT people in the state prison system.
The legislation promotes safety for and prevents abuse and assault against LGBT people in the prison system by including sexual orientation and gender identity on the list of factors that should be considered when classifying and housing prisoners. The current list of factors includes age, gender, type of offense, and prior time served.
If you compare theirs to ours, you’ll notice that both rate the legislators based on their performance on key votes. EQCA only endorses candidates who score 100% on our scorecard, which means they support the entire LGBT community 100% of the time—they go all the way on the freedom to marry and trans inclusivity.
Even though we refuse to compromise, we’ve still managed to get 100% scores for 61 legislators on our last scorecard. The Capitol Resource Institute only gave 18 legislators a 100% score.
Now Announcing… Capitol Resource Institute versus EQCA!!
Arch-conservative anti-LGBT lobbyist Capitol Resource Institute is all in a tizzy over EQCA-sponsored legislation. Their Legislative Scorecard is much like EQCA’s own guide.
But it’s an uncanny mirror image in terms of values and priorities, scoffing at the real needs of our community and describing LGBT people in offensive, retrograde terminology.
Their framing is really quite breathtaking in its bald defamation.
Two months ago, when Del Martin died, we all lost a beacon of light and Phyllis Lyon lost her wife and companion of 56 years.
Upon Del's death, Phyllis said, “Ever since I met Del 55 years ago, I could never imagine a day would come when she wouldn’t be by my side. I am so lucky to have known her, loved her, and been her partner in all things. I also never imagined there would be a day that we would actually be able to get married. I am devastated, but I take some solace in knowing we were able to enjoy the ultimate rite of love and commitment before she passed.”
But that's not how those who support Prop 8 saw it. This is how they saw it, as captured by the amazing photographer Bill Wilson at Del Martin's memorial service at City Hall in San Francisco.
These people who hide behind the euphemism of "family values" protested Del's memorial with signs like "MOURN FOR YOUR SINS," "DON'T WORSHIP THE DEAD," and "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL."
The public face of those who support Prop 8 is not their real face. This is who they are. Narrow minded, hateful bigots who interrupt a memorial service to tell an 83 year old widow that her wife is going to hell for having loved.
These are the people who want to tell Phyllis that she was never really married to Del. The ones who want to forcibly end my marriage to Brian. The ones who think they are wise enough to decide who other people can and can't love.
And just where do these people come from that have donated $4,499,258.05 from 10/27-10/30? It's not surprising that the vast, vast majority of the money donated to the Yes on 8 campaign is from out of state.Take a look at the donations from this week alone. Only a quarter of the donations to Yes on 8 came from California. The biggest chunk came from Utah. Texas had a sizable chunk as well. Take a look at the graph compiled my by lovely husband, Brian Leubitz.
We need to fight these out-of-state hatemongers with all of our power. Stop the lies! Stop the hatred! Walk, knock, call, e-mail, tell everyone you know that we need to protect our residents and our Constitution. NO ON 8!!!
This is very preliminary right now, and we're still working on getting all of the details. That being said, it appears that the No On 8 website has been hit with some sort of attack coordinated with an attack on website opposing the Constitutional Amendment against marriage equality in Florida, No on 2.
Obviously, if such an attack did occur, it would be illegal and highly unethical. While nothing has been proven yet, the facts surrounding this case, with the dual attacks, points toward a hack.
We'll attempt to get more details about this when we get them. If you have any information, please post in the comments.
UPDATE: The No on 2 Website is back for the time being. A similar pattern occurred with the No on 8 site as well, with the site coming online and then being attacked again. As of 11:26PM, No on 8 is still down.
UPDATE 2, 11:31: I've now received confirmation from the No on 8 campaign, that they are currently the victim of a Denial-of-Service attack. The internet folks are working on it, but these things are tough to defend against, especially when you have a dedicated opponent.
UPDATE 3, 11:46 (Lucas): Before this attack hit, No on 8 was on pace to hit its final stretch fundraising goals. It was ambitious, but it's required to go toe-to-toe through election day. Difficult to quantify how many dollars are being lost while the site is down, but this is simply where things are now. We must double down and keep this campaign rolling in spite of and to spite these attackers. Equality for All is on the Calitics ActBlue page. Throw in now (again). A November ramen diet is good for the mind, body and soul. Leave it all on the road.
A week or so ago, the legislature held a hearing regarding Proposition 8, the anti-marriage measure. These hearings are required by law to be held for every proposition, but this one, of course, was a bit more interesting. A future Assemblyman, John Perez, an openly gay community and union leader running to replace the termed out Fabian Nunez, spoke of the inherent discrimination of seperate but equal. Samuel Thoron spoke of the importance to families of marriage equality.
On the other side, you had Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse basically said, "Why do you hate the children? THink of the Children who will be forced to grow up in a loving stable home where two parents love and support them?"
Ok, maybe not so much with the second part of that quote. I've dutifully captured that video (after much labor with a corrupted DVD...let's just say I spent way too much time on this) and offer it up to you. Sincere Kudos go out to Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sac) who absolutely put Dr. Morse in her place. Exposing her argument as completely devoid of logic, and that is essentially a pretext.
Asm. Dave Jones: Would you then tell the older heterosexual couple that they should not get married.
Dr. Morse: No, no I would not say that they shouldnt get married, but what I would say is that if the only kind of couples we had in society are elderly couples who are sterile we wouldnt need an institution of marriage. You know, we wouldnt need it. So the point is, there are ways to solve--the problems that those couples face as elderly persons who arent going to have any kids
Jones: Well, why didnt you craft this legislation to allow older gay couples to marry, if kids are the only concern
Morse:Well we thought it was simpler just to go back to the old man-woman definition.
Jones: Or maybe this isnt about children after all
Morse: Right after this thereès some crazy stuff she gets into about in vitro fertilization becoming an entitlement. The Rep asks her if she would outlaw In Vitro if the child knowing the biological parent is so important, and she says no.
Jones: So let me sum this up. You wouldnt ban infertility centers even though the children there wont know who their biological parents are, you dont agree with baning adoption even though in those circumstances children are not necessarily being raised by their biological parents, youre ok with, um, the adoption of children by gays and lesbians, you dont believe in banning divorce, even though by your own arguments theres been all sorts of analogous studies that indicate that divorce is very very harmful on children. Um, its hard for me not to conclude that this isnt about protecting children... I am utterly unconvinced that thats whats going on here. What s going on here is fundamentally, I believe, an effort to discriminate against a class of people and deprive them of something that everybody else has.
But this is what Prop 8 supporters are attempting to sell both to the loyal flock of the Mormon Church and to the greater state of California. An argument only thinly veiling its real purpose: to discriminate against one group of Californians, to only exclude those whom you don't like. And the lies only continue. The proponents argue that a failure of Prop 8 will lead to churches rocking house remixes of Madonna every Sunday because they have to let the gays take over. And not the good Madonna stuff...the new stuff! Boogy-Boogy-Boogy.
In fact, the Yes on 8 Campaign has gone through and come up with 6 Whole Ways Gay Marriage Will Ruin Your Life and the Life of All Straight Couples With Children. It's basically a run down of everything you've seen in their commercials. You know, children will get taught gay marriage in schools, churches will be forced to marry teh gayz, Churches won't be able to say anything about teh gayz being evil, and it will cost you tons of money (huh?).
Well, I'm sure I could go through point by point on this ridiculous list. But fortunately, it's already been done. Morris Thurston, a lifelong Mormon, long-time partner at Latham & Watkins (a big LA-based law firm), has already gone through point by point and taken them all down. You can find a mini-post at Mormons for Marriage with the full PDF here or over the flip.
Mr. Thurston goes through each point, and completely rebuts them legally and also from a general logical standpoint. Take Reason #2, for example, churches will lose tax-exempt status if they don't do same-sex marriages. Nope, says Mr. Thurston:
2. Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
Response: This false "consequence" is based on the misrepresentation of a case in New Jersey involving an association affiliated with the Methodist Church. In considering that case, it is important to remember that New Jersey does not permit gay marriage, so that case had nothing to do with Proposition 8.
* * *(More info on the New Jersey lawsuit)* * *
The California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage cannot have any federal tax consequences, and the Court so noted explicitly in its decision. The Supreme Court also noted that its ruling would not require any priest, rabbi or minister to perform gay marriages, which should be self-evident because of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion.
I'll let you read the full smack-down of the "6 Reasons" but suffice it to say there's not much left of the "Reasons" to argue with. Which isn't to say that you won't be seeing them repeated over and over again on TV commercials and from silly talking heads like Dr. Morse, the Right isn't really known for bowing to the reality of logic.
So, on this Sunday, consider giving to Equality for All, No on Prop 8, through the Calitics ActBlue Page, where we are just $1,500 from hitting $50K. (We've also given $2,000 from the Calitics CaliPAC, and another $5K+ from other Calitics pages). You can also do so over at Big Orange, where the Hell to Pay fundraisier has now raised well over $100K to fight back Prop 8. Thanks to every who has given money to oppose Prop 8. And to everybody who hasn't, time is of the essence. If you are considering, please do it as soon as possible.
(W00t! We made the $2500 Challenge on Be_Devine's Match Page alone, with plenty of time to spare. But don't let that stop you from giving to the great campaigns on our Calitics ActBlue page. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
UPDATE by Brian Leubitz: This is working, and I don't want to cut people off. So, the Calitics CaliPAC will match up to another $1,500. You can donate on either the page below or on the Calitics ActBlue Page. Keep giving folks, we need it. And while you are at the Calitics ActBlue Page, you might want to think about dropping a few bucks for the Campaign for Teen Safety, No on Prop 4.
We need to step up the fundraising for No on Prop 8, so it's time for another weekend challenge.
I will match all contributions up to $1,000 through Sunday.
Economic times are tough, I know. But this is important. There are fewer than four weeks left before the election. We're down in the polls and the Yes Campaign is taking in bags of money from bigots in other states who think they should be allowed to decide who Californians are and are not allowed to marry.
I've been despondent since Monday morning, friends and neighbors.
That's when the new polls started coming out about California Proposition 8 - the anti-marriage equality proposition. Just as my pastor feared, the attack ads from the Mormon Church and other backers of Prop 8 have had an effect. Prop 8 is now leading in the polls by about 5 percentage points.
Tomorrow, I start phone banking against Proposition 8. Come with me over the jump for the points I plan to make.
Two new polls have emerged showing Prop 8 leading. One is a poll commissioned by the No on 8 Committee, the other is from Survey USA:
Earlier polls had shown Proposition 8, which would eradicate the right for same-sex couples to marry in California, trailing by about 5 percentage points. This week, a Lake Research poll paid for by the campaign of 1,051 likely voters showed the proposition winning, with 47 percent saying they supported the measure and 43 percent saying no. The polling period was Sept. 29-Oct. 2. That finding is reinforced by a SurveyUSA poll of 670 likely voters showing the proposition winning 47 percent to 42 percent. That poll was taken Saturday and Sunday. (Boston Edge 10/07/08)
So, can you spot the flaws in these two polls? Well, as somebody who has followed polls for a while and has taken a class or two in statistics, a couple of things jump out. On the Lake Poll, you'd generally like to see the poll completed in three days rather than four. But that's a quibble compared to SUSA taking their poll on a weekend. A weekend audience will get you a far older, and far more conservative audience.
None of that is to say that we shouldn't be worried. The article quotes the campaign as blaming two reasons here. First is the massive spending of the Yes campaign, with most of that being from the Mormon community. It seems the Mormons liked persecution so much that they want to inflict it upon others. At any rate, Yes is outraising No by about $10 million. That's Bad. Very Bad.
Which leads us to the "complacency" reason. Specifically, the No on 8 campaign is saying that queer and queer-friendly communities are now expecting to win and are not working and contributing enough to see this thing through. So people, let's get on this.
Do you want to do something? Why not Fast 4 Equality? Skip a snack for marriage equality!
The LA Times' Meghan Daum takes a crack at the "gay indoctrination in the schools" thing the right-wingers are trying to convince Californians. Funny thing here, the real world and our popular culture pretty much made that moot:
And, wait a second: If gay marriage would have to be taught, is heterosexual marriage already in the curriculum? Do teachers say "Today, boys and girls, we're going to learn about passive aggressive behavior related to laundry"? Are there workbook exercises called "Ten things I'm accusing you of that really have to do with my own insecurities"? And don't those lessons already cross over to gay marriage?
As it turns out, the only thing in the education code related to marriage has to do with teaching "the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood." Moreover, it's only a requirement for school districts seeking state funds for health education, which not every school does.
***
As for the Proposition 8 supporters who apparently fear that such discussions would be tantamount to promoting gay marriage -- how can I say this without hurting your feelings? Perhaps your invitation to the popular culture's collective and ongoing celebration of same-sex matrimony has been lost in the mail, because I don't see how you could think that kids haven't already been "indoctrinated."
As she points out, any Californian, or really any American, would have to be blind to miss the changes of the past few months. While it probably goes back to 2004 and the Massachusetts ruling, when it happened in California, the center of creativity and popular culture, it became nearly impossible to miss. You see it on daytime tv with Ellen. You see it in the aisles of the grocery store. It's not indoctrination, it's people simply living their lives.
So, at some point, these people will take their heads out of the sand. We'll be waiting for them, cocktail in hand.
In what is sure to be an important component of the campaign, No on 8 started airing a TV spot in markets across California. It is a strong commercial featuring a married couple of 46 years with three grown children, one of whom is gay. Here's the words from the commercial, video to the right:
SAMUEL THORON: Julia and I have been married for 46 years.
JULIA THORON: Together we've raised three children - who are now adults.
SAMUEL THORON: My wife and I never treated our children differently, we never loved them any differently and the law shouldn't treat them differently either.
JULIA THORON: If Prop 8 passes, our gay daughter and thousands of our fellow Californians will lose the right to marry. Please don't eliminate that right - for anyone's family."
SAMUEL THORON: Don't eliminate marriage for anyone. Vote No on Prop 8.
You can help get this commercial on television more frequently at the No on 8 Website. Here at Calitics, we're hoping to have some fun activities for you as well soon...
[UPDATE] by Julia: The Thorons signed the ballot argument against passage of Prop. 8. This is a good, solid ad carefully calibrated to move undecided voters. The more you donate, the more they can get ads up on the air. The other side had booked TV earlier than us, but with this ad we have beaten them to the punch.
Yesterday, the six most senior bishops in California announced their opposition to Proposition 8, the anti-marriage amendment.
"We believe that continued access to civil marriage for all, regardless of sexual orientation, is consistent with the best principles of our constitutional rights," said the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles.
Bruno, flanked at a news conference by fellow clergy members and gay and straight couples, added: "We do not believe that marriage of heterosexuals is threatened by same-sex marriage." (LA Times 9/11/08)
This is just another crack in the facade the Yes on 8 people are trying to put up. That somehow they own religion. Despite the fact that nearly all of their endorsements are tied to Dobson-esque quasi-religious right-wing organizations (and the Republicans that love them), they do not speak for all religious groups. These Episcopal Bishops join other religious leaders like those from the National Council of Jewish Women and the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry Action Network.
Also, the LA Times has an interesting graphic on the donations to both sides on Prop 8 and where they come from. Yes on 8 still leads, with about $14.5 million compared to about $10.5 million for the no side. Let's just hope the yes side squanders more resources.
They say history is written by the victors. Well, tonight we should all feel victorious as 
