The New York Times has a detailed article today about the role the Mormons played in passing Prop 8.  While we already knew much of the information in the article, it is a good compilation of the facts.  For example:

Jeff Flint, another strategist with Protect Marriage, estimated that Mormons made up 80 percent to 90 percent of the early volunteers who walked door-to-door in election precincts.

* * *

In the end, Protect Marriage estimates, as much as half of the nearly $40 million raised on behalf of the measure was contributed by Mormons.

The article also details how well organized the Yes on 8 and the Mormon church's wards were:

Volunteers in one ward, according to training documents written by a Protect Marriage volunteer, obtained by people opposed to Proposition 8 and shown to The New York Times, had tasks ranging from “walkers,” assigned to knock on doors; to “sellers,” who would work with undecided voters later on; and to “closers,” who would get people to the polls on Election Day.

If only the No on 8 campaign were that well organized.  Or organized at all . . . .

It also details the desperate orgigin of the deceitful advertisements that were launched against us:

But the “Yes” side also initially faced apathy from middle-of-the-road California voters who were largely unconcerned about same-sex marriage. The overall sense of the voters in the beginning of the campaign, Mr. Schubert said, was “Who cares? I’m not gay.”

To counter that, advertisements for the “Yes” campaign also used hypothetical consequences of same-sex marriage, painting the specter of churches’ losing tax exempt status or people “sued for personal beliefs” or objections to same-sex marriage, claims that were made with little explanation.

Another of the advertisements used video of an elementary school field trip to a teacher’s same-sex wedding in San Francisco to reinforce the idea that same-sex marriage would be taught to young children.

I'm on my way to the SF protest and will post some pictures later in the day.

There has been much discussion about how Jerry Brown will respond to the lawsuits challenging Prop 8.  Will he file a thorough (“full-throated”) opposition?  A very brief opposition?  Not respond at all?  

One course of action that I have not seen discussed is the possibility that he could support the lawsuits challenging Prop 8.  This would, of course, be unusual; especially since the Attorney General is named as a defendant in the lawsuits.  But I am convinced that he has the authority – and perhaps even the duty – to take the position that Prop 8 is unconstitutional and not enforceable.   

Jerry Brown does not, of course, represent the proponents of Prop 8. Instead, as Attorney General, his client is the state of California. The California Constitution (Art. V, Sec. 13) states:

It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced.

On one hand, Proposition 8 was passed by the voters and is now part of our Constitution.  But on the other hand, the Constitution (Art. XVIII) provides that while the voters may amend the constitution by initiative, they cannot – on their own – revise the Constitution.  A valid revision may only be accomplished by either: (1) calling a constitutional convention, or (2) having the revision approved by two-thirds on the Assembly and Senate and then a public vote.

Consequently, the Attorney General is faced with two laws that could conflict with one another.  If Jerry Brown reaches the legal conclusion that Proposition 8 is a “revision” and not an “amendment,” it would be his constitutional duty to enforce Article XVIII and oppose the validity of Prop 8.  This would require him to take a position in support of the lawsuits that have been filed thatchallenge the validity of Prop 8.

I have searched high and low for a case in which the Attorney General has taken the position that a state law is not valid.  I could not find one. 

I know there are plenty of minds out there that are sharper than my own, so I would appreciate some feedback on the theory that Jerry Brown could file a response to the lawsuits that agrees with their claim that Prop 8 is not valid or enforceable… 

(Now in Orange as well. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

My friend Lloyd sent me an e-mail asking what I thought about the endeavor to strip the Mormon church of its tax-exempt status because of its involvement in advocating legislation, specifically its involvement in the Yes on Prop 8 campaign.

My response: “I think it is a hopeless endeavor that focuses anger in the wrong direction.”

Just as I was about to hit send, I thought maybe I should elaborate.  I didn't realize how much I had to say on the subject.

Follow me to the flip for my full response. . . .

I am angry as anyone about the Mormon church's involvement in convincing Californians to deny rights to same sex couples.  In fact, before the election – and to the dismay of the No on 8 campaign – I wrote about the Mormon church's hypocrisy in targeting African-American people to vote Yes on 8 when it wasn't so long ago that the Mormon church carried the banner for segregation and anti-miscegenation laws.

But this endeavor is hopeless.  There is no chance in hell that the IRS will even seriously consider stripping the Mormon church of its tax-exempt status.  In order to strip the church's 501(c)(3) status, it would have to be shown that a “substantial part” of the Mormon church, as a whole, is devoted to influencing legislation. By any measure, the church's involvement here is not a “substantial part” of the church's overall operations.  For example, courts have held that when less than 5 percent of an organization's activities are devoted to lobbying, it is presumptively not a “substantial part.”  Seasongood v. Commissioner, 227 F.2d 907.  Does anyone really think that the Mormon church devoted more than 5 percent of its global activities to influencing Prop 8?

And let's take this legal argument to its logical conclusion.  The Humane Society of America is a tax-exempt organization under the same tax code section, 501(c)(3), as the Mormon church.  In the eyes of the IRS, the Humane Society and the Mormon church are the same.  The Humane Society was the critical force behing getting Prop 2 (treatment of farm animals) passed.  It donated $3.7 million, helped get the proposition on the ballot, and carried the torch in getting it passed.  Should the IRS strip the Humane Society of its tax-exempt status for advocating Prop 2?  Of course it should not.  

Legal arguments aside, any progressive should be repulsed by the ultimate goal of the campaign to strip the Mormon church of its tax-exempt status. After all, its not the tax-exempt status that we're after.  The goal here is to stifle the right of religious groups to speak (and act) as they choose.  I am as disgusted as anyone about what the church said about my community and my marriage to Brian.  I know that they used lies to play on irrational fears. But are we really willing to go so far as to say that they shouldn't be allowed to speak because we disagree or detest what they have to say? It is sophomorically cliché, but I will quote Voltaire anyway: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

A hopeless effort to strip the Mormon church of its tax-exempt status also pours salt on the wounds that we need to heal. Like any civil rights movement, ours needs to be multi-faceted. Not only do we need to stand up in court for the legal protections that we deserve, but we also need to change the hearts and minds of people who disagree with us. For the most part, those people who oppose marriage equality are deeply religious and they have been misguided by intolerant forces in their religion to believe that their God condones hatred. (This is no different than during segregation when some churches (including the Mormons) taught that it was okay to treat backs as less than whites because anyone with black skin was a descendant of Cain who was marked by God to be punished.) But the way to heal this divide is not to give religious people more reasons to hate us or to reaffirm their existing fears.

For example, the advertisements for the Yes on 8 campaign warned that if Prop 8 failed, churches could lose their tax exempt status if they did not perform same-sex marriages. This was an outright lie and our side called them on it. We had law professors explain that our Constitution protects the right of religious groups to freely practice their religion and that no religious group could be forced to agree with or participate in the “gay agenda” to keep their tax exempt status. And now where are we? We're playing right into the irrational fears that the Yes side stirred up. We're saying that by taking a public position that we disagree with, the church should lose its tax exempt status.

We need to engage people of faith in dialogue, not battle. It will not be easy and it could take a long time. But look how far we have come already. My friend Raoul Kennedy represented a group of over a hundred religious organizations that filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court supporting marriage equality. The groups he represented included people of just about every faith: Mormon, Baptist, Lutheran, Jewish, Presbyterian, Muslim, Catholic, Unitarian, and so on. By working with these churches, we have changed their minds. They have moved from fear and hatred to tolerance to celebration and now to the point where they are willing to stand with us to fight for equality.

These are the bridges that will lead to equality. Bombing these bridges with a hopeless and silly campaign to revoke a religious group's tax exempt status will only set the movement back several steps. It will force people of faith to entrench themselves in their current views rather than being open to change their views.

The ACLU, Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court today urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes.

Read their press release here.

This petition is similar to the petition that was filed in June and it argues that that Prop 8 is invalid because it is a “revision” to the Constition rather than an “amendment.” A revision cannot be passed by the initiative process alone. Instead, a Constitutional Convention must be called. The Supreme Court denied the June petition without an opinion. Likely, the Court hoped that the issue would be mooted by the election. Since it looks like the issue is not moot, the Supreme Court likely will set a briefing schedule and a hearing.

More on why this Petition should be granted later.

Not surprisingly, all of the major newspapers have come out against Proposition 8. For anyone interested, I've compiled (on the flip) a list of what the various editorial boards are saying about this hateful and mean spirited proposition.

Los Angeles Times (11/2/2008)

[Prop 8] seeks to change the state Constitution in a rare and terrible way, to impose a single moral belief on everyone and to deprive a targeted group of people of civil rights that are now guaranteed. This is something that no Californian, of any religious belief, should accept. Vote no to the bigotry of Proposition 8.

San Francisco Chronicle (10/1/2008)

Constitutions are revered, at the state and federal levels, because they so plainly and adamantly guarantee individual rights. The idea of using a ballot measure to single out a certain group of Californians for denial of individual rights – based on their sexual orientation – would represent an ugly distortion of the very purpose of a constitution.

Sacramento Bee

San Diego Union-Tribune (___)

Orange County Register

(Warning: this post contains despicable and hateful quotes that should never have been uttered.)

Today in California, fresh-faced Mormons in neatly-pressed white shirts and nametags are actively targeting African Americans. No, this isn't a lynch mob. That kind of targeting is at least a few years in the past. This time, Mormon church members are targeting African American people to vote yes on Proposition 8. Apparently the Mormons believe they can stir up enough hatred among African American people so that they will vote to take rights away from another minority group, lesbian and gay people who want to marry.

It wasn't so long ago that these fresh-faced members of the Mormon church targeted African Americans in a very different way. You guessed it: they vehemetly opposed integration and they especially opposed interracial marriage, and many of them probably still do.

Brigham Young himself said in a sermon compiled in the Journal of Discourse (Vol. 7, page 290-291):

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. 

In 1954, Mark E. Petersen delivered a speech to the Convention of Teachers of Religion at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. Mark E. Petersen was, at that time and until his death in the 1980s, a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, a governing body in the Mormon church. Follow me to the flip for some insight into this church leader's views on African Americans and marriage. . . .

Here are some quotes from his speech:

I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. 

Doesn't that sound familiar? 

The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. “No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood” (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a “Nation of Priesthood holders” 

Oh, look at that, you found some old documents that you strung together to say that interracial marriage is against the Lord's decrees.  Hmmm, that seems to sound familiar too.

God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be in sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death…. 

Some people's God sure seems to have a lot of commandments about how two people were allowed to love each other.

Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, “what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Only here we have the reverse of the thing — what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.” 

Oooh, a Cadillac!!  How come they're not offering the gays a Cadillac?  I bet if the Mormon church used all those millions it raised to buy us all Cadillacs, we would completely forget this whole thing about marriage.

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood…. This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa–if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.

Oooh, do the gays get to go to the celestial kingdom too? Perhaps we will go there as decorators, but we will get celestial glory.

Four years later, in 1958, Bruce R. McKonkie, another member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, published a book titled Mormon Doctrine.  In it, he observed:

Cain, Ham, and the whole Negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry. (Gen. 4; Moses 5.) The whole house of Israel was chosen as a peculiar people, one set apart from all other nations (Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6; 14:2); and they were forbidden to marry outside their own caste. (Ex. 34:10-17; Deut. 7:1-5.) In effect the Lamanites belonged to one caste and the Nephites to another, and a mark was put upon the Lamanites to keep the Nephites from intermixing with and marrying them. (Alma 3:6-11.) 

Ah yes, more scripture condoning discrimination.

I've made light of these hateful statements, but this is, of course, a deadly serious matter.  Our history is stained with countless instances of bigotry, hatred, and discrimination.  No group of people has been the victim of this horrible history more than African Americans and their ancestors.  It amazes me that the Mormon church assumes that it can recruit the victims of its former discrimination campaigns to be their foot soldiers in its new discrimination campaign.  I hope it is not correct in its assumption. 

I really hope that all people have a sense of history when it comes to matters of equality.  Because, you know, that person who is asking you to hate others today might be asking us to hate you tomorrow. This sentiment is best summed up in the oft-quoted poem “First they came.“

Wow, I am in awe!! Within just a few hours of making my weekend challenge to donate to No on Prop 8, we were almost at the goal of $1,000. This prompted Brian L and the Calitics CaliPAC to augment my original challenge by adding another $1,500, bringing the goal to $2,500. In the end, we blew through that goal as well.

In 48 hours, 34 people contributed a total of $2,640 to the challenge. Calitics CaliPAC delivered its check to the No on 8 SF Headquarters on Saturday, and I made my matching contribution on Act Blue this morning. Together, we raised over $5,000! Way to go!!

I know that a lot of people dug deep into their pockets to make such generous donations. As someone who will personally benefit from the defeat of this hateful proposition, I thank you all.

Don't stop now.  You can keep contributing on this page. 

Onward to victory!

Forty-five years ago today, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said:

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.

It is a new day in America and Dr. King's dream is coming true. Yesterday, the Democratic Party nominated the first African American to hold the highest office in the land. And also yesterday, new poll results show that a solid and growing majority of likely voters in California refuse to write discrimination against gay men and lesbian women into California's Constitution.  More and more people are confirming that all men and women truly are created equal.

The PPIC poll results, which were released yesterday, show that 54 percent of likely voters in California oppose Proposition 8 which would write discrimination into the California Constitution and prevent same sex marriages.  Only 40 percent of likely voters support Prop 8.

We can not rest on these good numbers.  If we know anything, we know that the hateful out-of-state operatives are spending a fortune to change the direction of these poll numbers.  We need to keep doing everything we can to make sure that on November 4th, our state, the nation, and the world knows that we are a people who truly believe in Dr. King's dream of equality.