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.

Wanna go for a spin?

Now Announcing… Capitol Resource Institute versus EQCA!!

HIGHLIGHTS:

• Laird’s Civil Rights Act of 2007 which expands existing nondiscrimination protections to include LGBT people: “Changes over 50 areas of state law to grant privileged status to homosexuals.”
• Leno’s groundbreaking marriage bill, AB 43, which made California’s the first legislature in the country to grant the freedom to marry: “Legalizes homosexual marriage. Bypasses the people's decision in 2000, via Prop 22, to preserve marriage between one man and one woman.”
• Levine’s AB 394, which prohibits discrimination and provides resources for education about LGBT people: “monitoring of student attitudes on sexual orientations.”
• Leno’s Harvey Milk Day Bill: “A resident of the infamous Castro district in San Francisco, Milk was one of the first homosexual elected officials in America, and is considered a martyr for the homosexual cause.”
• Migden’s Senior healthcare bill which helps address some of the unique concerns facing LGBT seniors: “establishes a special class of patients based on sexual choices.”
• And the granddaddy of them all, Safe Schools legislation, the target of a pending federal lawsuit, the alleged ban on “Mommy and Daddy” in public schools, Kuehl’s SB 777, which actually is a relatively minor clarification of existing laws:”normalizes homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality in public and private schools. Bans all teaching and activities that ‘promote a discriminatory bias against’ these lifestyles. Likely to impact textbooks, instructional aids, restroom use, gender-specific sports teams, and more.”

I get it, LGBT people are SICK, and public schools should let them know it. In fact, schools have no obligation to protect students from discrimination or bullying. Maybe teachers should take the first swing? Sheesh…

What this all begins to show is that for our detractors, it’s NOT just about marriage, and marriage is not where they’ll stop. They want to round it out by taking away jobs, civil rights, proper healthcare, safe schools, you name it. Know thy enemy.

Marriage is such a hot topic right now that these other sorts of bread and butter issues often get left out of the discussion. EQCA’s legislation isn’t about wheeling and dealing at the Capitol, but about problems facing real LGBT Californians.

The guide also includes some bizarre objections to sensible legislation protecting youth, saying that a ban on cell phone use by teen drivers “Suggests that the state sees itself as better equipped than parents to make family decisions” and that a bill to prevent minors from going to cancer-causing tanning salons “displaces their parents with a ‘nanny government’.”

Wingnuts. I’d love ‘em if they weren’t so dangerous.

–Reposted from The Ripple Effect

Now in Orange as well.

I already posted on one of the more interesting events of the Equality Summit from Saturday, the election/past year review.  I wrote it at the event so memory was a bit fresher.  If you haven’t had the chance to read that, it might be worth a read. If you’d like to relive the whole experience, EQCA has made everything available on Google Video. Here’s Part 1  and Part 2 of the Election Review.  You’ll find other videos along the Google sidebar from the plenary meetings. Part 2 has the very insightful Marriage Equality USA presentation and the David Binder presentation.  I think the one thing that I hope people took away from Binder’s presentation, if they took nothing else with them, is that phone calls don’t work.  It’s something that most field organizers can tell you.  But it’s cheap and easy, but sometimes you get what you pay for.

There was a bit of fun to be had afterward with Asm. Tom Ammiano’s take on the situation. After all, it’s pretty hard not to have a smile on your face after 10 minutes of his jokes. But what I got out of the review panel, and from the speeches of Ammiano and many other leaders that were outside of the campaign was something more basic.  Simply, don’t hide the ball. Marriage equality is about love.  It is about two people who want to spend their lives together. No matter how much spin you put on it, if we win an election any other way, it is a hollow victory indeed.

Follow me over the flip.

And the consensus, put tactfully by David Binder (powerpoint here) and more bluntly by the amazing Eva Paterson. (Video here) As we move forward, and the electorate shifts towards a millenial majority, equality will trump bigotry.  Paterson said it best when she said, paraphrasing here, “I’ll be more blunt than David Binder, the people who are against you are going to die.”

While it is a waiting game, there was a feeling pervading the room that it was more than just that.  This was a campaign that we could have won, that we should have won.  I won’t go into all of the mistakes, the failures to communicate, and the lack of honesty with the community, but I will say one thing.  The next time this campaign is run, this time for an affirmative statement of marriage equality, it will be the community’s campaign.  For better or for worse, the LGBT community will be visible in the next campaign.

As the day continued, I settled myself into the netroots breakout session.  I’m not sure the group itself was all that productive.  Or rather, it was productive in spite of the atmosphere. It was facilitated very old-schoolish, and it seemed that I wasn’t the only one chafing under the structured nature. Like most nerd gatherings, I think the group wanted to introduce themselves to the group and figure out what worked for them.  That didn’t happen, but I did get the chance to have a good talk with the very clever (and hilarious) Heather Gold.

After a bustling lunch trying to fight with a few hundred LGBT activists and a few thousand LA artists trying to pile into two cashier stations, LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa graced the stage with his presence.  Villaraigosa was one of the most prominent opponents of Prop 22, in fact, we have a button that says “Speaker Villaraigosa says No Knight” or something to that effect. He welcomed us to the city, and all that fun stuff.  The rest of the afternoon consisted of a few breakouts by region and a large meeting about talking about LGBT rights with people of faith and color. There were some really great ideas tossed around, and hopefully some of them will be incorporated into educational and campaign programs from some of the many groups at the meeting.

Near the close of the day, there was a meeting regarding strategy for getting marriage equality back on the ballot in case we lose the Supreme Court case.  In a room full of men (self-selected, but still worth noting that none of the many women at the summit came to the ballot proposition meeting), a few good points of consensus were made. Namely, a general election would be preferred to a primary, and that the language should be more refined than simply repeal Prop 8.  One issue that arose was the possibility of adding some language that addressed the religious concerns, something akin to what appeared in Mark Leno’s AB 43.  The propositions already submitted to the Secretary of State, while a good sentiment, present large risks. One, if we happen to qualify one of these, we either get on the primary ballot, or more dangerously, a special election. Also, for the most part, these initiatives are simple repeals without any of the religious or other beneficial language.

The event got plenty of media coverage, several short blurbs, but also a long article in the chronicle by John Wildermuth.  That appeared along with a “why do gays hate us” column by the always uninsightful Debra Saunders. It’s the same old tired refrains lamenting the disclosure rules and how the mean, mean gays are out to get all the people who just prefer to keep the gays second class citizens. She laments that people had to resign over their contributions to Prop 8.  She wants the LGBT community to be tolerant of people who are not tolerant of us. Wouldn’t that be sweet of us?  She of course misses the point by a mile. The bigots have a right to be bigoted, but our community, by the same token, has a right to not give our money to said bigots.  It’s called a boycott, and it’s used on a regular basis by Christian groups against large corporations when they dare market to the LGBT community.  Where is her outrage for that?

Finally, I think the meeting was worthwhile, which is perhaps more than I expected going in.  That being said, I think the real winner from all of this was Equality California. After the election, they were not popular amongst the community, and for good reason.  This event brought them back to the position of the lead organizer for California’s LGBT movement. I’m split on whether that’s a good thing or not.  But one thing that I’ve been telling everybody, and might soon be working on fixing, this community still needs a political arm. This is true nationally, but especially locally.  We have strong lobbying arms in DC and in Sacramento, but clearly we lack the deep bench of LGBT folks who know how to run a solid campaign, how to do large grassroots organizing, and run a field campaign in California. That must change, and perhaps some of these new groups forming might develop into something along those lines. But for the time being, we still need to work on the political side of the ledger.

Xposted on mydesert.com, the online edition of the Desert Sun

Rally this afternoon in Palm Springs and tomorrow afternoon in Beaumont to protest the unconstitutional removal of ‘fundamental right to marry’ for gays and lesbians:

More below the flip…

Rally today in Palm Springs:

Who: Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet, Palm Springs Mayor Pro-Tempore Ginny Foat, HRC, EQCA, and the Desert Pride Center

What: Rally against Proposition 8

Where: Palm Springs City Hall, 3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA

When: 5:00 p.m.

Why: Homophobes and Bigots pass Proposition 8

Rally tomorrow afternoon in Beaumont to protest the unconstitutional removal of ‘fundamental right to marry’ for gays and lesbians and to seek the censure and removal from office of homophobe and bigot Beaumont City Councilmember Roger Berg:

Who: Donald W. Grimm, Ph.D., Charles W. Conn

What: Rally against Proposition 8 and to censure Beaumont City Councilmember Roger Berg

Where: Beaumont Civic Center, 550 E. Sixth Street, Beaumont, CA

When: 12:00 p.m.

Why: Passage of Prop 8, Berg’s assault of No on Prop 8 supporter during rally

(Xposted at www.mydesert.com as BluePalmSpringsBoyz)

I just received this Press Release from Equality California regarding an effort of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and the Advocates for Faith and Freedom (AFF) to prevent the enforcement of the Students Civil Rights Act (SB 777) that protects students from discrimination, harassment, and bullying in publicly-funded schools.

As a member of the Palm Springs Unified School District board of directors whose leadership is now in question due to the possiblity that the PSUSD and the school board may face sanctions due to their inability to meet academic standards, Gary Jeandron, must make his stand known regarding the enforcement of SB 777 and regarding discrimination, harassment and bullying of students.

Jeandron is also a declared candidate for the Republican nomination for the CA 80th Assembly District.  His website indicates that as a member of the School Board of Directors, Jeandron supervises a district with 22,000 students and an annual budget of $191 million.  Unfortunately, he did not use his position as a member of the Board to help students achieve academic standards or was unable to influence the Board in order to implement any plan that he formulated.  Now, the pressure is on Jeandron to indicate where he stands regarding SB 777 and its implementation.

AFF’s website states: “WHEN YOU PUT ON YOUR JESUS GLASSES, YOU CAN SEE THE TRUTH!”  The AFF is a non-profit law firm whose goal is ‘protecting our religious liberty in the courts.”  In other words, AFF’s intent is to help to implement a theocratic state where religion, their religion, dictates school policy.  Implicit in AFF’s policy statement is also the fact that they want their religious liberty protected and not the religious liberty of those who have differing faiths.  Great, faith-based law now.

The ADF is another so-called Christian organization that purports to defend Religious Freedom, Sanctity of Human Life, and Family Values.  Again, clearly a reference to what they perceive to be religious freedom, sanctity of human life, and family values.  They presume that only their view on these issues is the correct one and should be the prevailing one.  I thought that the religious culture wars ended centuries ago in Europe!

So, will Jeandron appeal to his radical right base and support the efforts of the AFF and the ADF and their attempts to develop a theocratic state based on their views of so-called Christian principles or will Jeandron support the right of students at every grade level to attend school and to live their lives without discrimination, harassment, and bullying?  Will Jeandron take a leadership stance that protects elementary, middle, and secondary school students from discrimination, harassment, and bullying because of perceived or actual sexual orientation.

Is it a family value that an elementary school student should continue to suffer discrimination because someone perceives that he or she might be gay or lesbian in the schools?  This is not my family value or that of a majority of Palm Springs residents.  Is it a family value that a middle school student should continue to suffer harassment because he or she is gay or lesbian?  That is not my family value and it is not the family value of most Palm Springs residents.  Is it a family value that a high school student is prevented from doing well academically because he or she is bullied at school and in the school yard because he or she is gay?  That is not my family or community value. What are Jeandron’s family values and are they diametrically opposed to those of most Palm Springs residents?  Does Jeandron believe that students ought to be able to study and to achieve academically without a hostile environment?

Seems like AFF and ADF fall into the category of bullies.  I wonder what the members were like on the school playground.  Just sayin’.

What follows if the Press Release from Equality California (EQCA) and the Gay-Straight Student Alliance Network (GSA):

Equality California and GSA Network Move to Intervene in Lawsuit that Challenges Student Civil Rights Act, California Nondiscrimination Statutes

SAN DIEGO – Equality California and the Gay-Straight Alliance Network are seeking to intervene in a lawsuit filed by anti-gay organizations that would prevent enforcement of California statutes protecting students from discrimination, harassment and bullying in publicly-funded schools.

EQCA and the GSA Network today filed a motion to intervene in federal district court in San Diego to defend the California statutes that prohibit discrimination and harassment in publically-funded schools, including the newly-enacted Student Civil Rights Act (SB 777). EQCA was the official sponsor of SB 777, and both organizations actively supported the law. The two organizations are represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, the Transgender Law Center, the law firm Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP and the Law Office of David C. Codell.

“By enacting the Student Civil Rights Act, the Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger sent a clear message that California will not tolerate discrimination in our schools,” said EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors. “This law protects all youth in our public schools. It helps prevent harassment and discrimination so students can learn free from threats and physical violence.”

The Student Civil Rights Act, authored by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, reinforces existing California laws that prohibit discrimination in publicly-funded schools and activities, including discrimination based on religion, race, disability, gender and sexual orientation. California law has prohibited discrimination in public education on these bases including sexual orientation and gender – for years. SB 777 did not change the categories of discrimination prohibited by law, but merely updated the Education Code to clearly reflect current law so school administrators and teachers know their responsibilities to protect students without having to cross-reference other sections of state law.

“We’re intervening in this lawsuit because our student members advocated for SB 777 and are eager to defend it,” said GSA Network Executive Director Carolyn Laub. “Thousands of our members have endured daily harassment at school based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. It’s a shame there are adults who don’t think all students deserve to have a safe place to learn.”

According to the 2001 California Healthy Kids Survey, nearly 30 percent of California youth in grades seven to 11 report experiencing harassment or bullying based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation.

“This law protects all students, plain and simple, irrespective of their race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Lambda Legal Senior Staff Attorney Brian Chase. “With 200,000 of California’s school children every year finding themselves victims of harassment or violence, the need for this law is beyond argument.”

“Every student has the right to be safe at school,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “SB 777 simply makes this clear. The organizations bringing this suit are wasting taxpayers’ money and seeking to undermine common sense protections for all California students,” Minter said.

“The Transgender Law Center is proud of our Legislature for passing a bill that protects all of California’s students,” said Transgender Law Center Legal Director Kristina Wertz. “Education is dependant upon safe and constructive learning environments for all young people. All youth deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.”

California’s Legislature passed SB 777 in September and Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the bill into law on October 12.

The lawsuit challenging SB 777 was filed by lawyers for Advocates for Faith and Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund last month in federal district court in San Diego.