As the Prop 8 trial continues, I’ll be doing some blogging over at the Courage Campaign’s Prop 8 Trial Tracker. Check it out as the trial proceeds: http://prop8trialtracker.com/

With the New Jersey State Senate rejecting gay marriage last week, the path to equality is now back in the courts.  Lambda Legal has filed suit in the New Jersey Supreme Court, and the odds of success – based upon that state Court’s ruling in 2006 – appear favorable.  But all eyes this morning are on San Francisco – as District Court Judge Vaughn Walker hears Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, the controversial case to overturn Proposition 8 on federal grounds.  For years, civil rights groups had carefully kept the federal courts out of gay marriage fights – and the prominent lawyers in Perry filed the suit without consulting them.  But with most of marriage’s legal benefits coming under federal law, it was only a matter of time before the federal courts weighed in on this issue.  The trouble is that a wiser battle to start with would challenge the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – and in fact, there are such efforts in place.  If the federal courts uphold Prop 8, it’s not likely to affect New Jersey – but it could hurt efforts to repeal DOMA.

New Jersey Court Offers Hope for Marriage Equality

It was heartbreaking to see the New Jersey State Senate vote 20-14 on January 7th against legalizing same-sex marriage (with nine Democrats voting “no” or “abstain”), but it was smart to call for a vote anyway.  As any lawyer would advise, plaintiffs should prove they have “exhausted all remedies” before filing a suit – and this defeat now allows the LGBT community to take their case back to the state Supreme Court, where the odds look good.

In October 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court voted 4-3 that gay marriage was not a “fundamental right” – but the law must treat same-sex couples equally.  The Court said the state legislature could either pass marriage equality, or a “parallel structure” of civil unions that give gay couples all the same rights.  At the time, I explained how the ruling could inevitably lead to gay marriage – because it’s impossible to have civil unions that are “equal.”

Three years later, there is ample evidence that New Jersey’s civil unions law is inadequate.  A state commission studied the issue thoroughly, and legislators on both sides of the marriage debate have admitted on record that it’s not working.  The Court in 2006 was reluctant to call for gay marriage – and instead said the legislature “should be given a chance to address the issue.”  Now, it’s clear the legislature had their chance – and failed.

The make-up of the New Jersey Court hasn’t changed much, and the four judges who signed the majority opinion in 2006 are all still there.  But during this time three other state Supreme Courts – California, Iowa and Connecticut – not only ruled for marriage equality, but also recognized sexual orientation to be a “suspect class.”  That means any law that discriminates against gays and lesbians is presumed unconstitutional, unless the state can prove a compelling interest.  Other state rulings are not binding precedent on the New Jersey Supreme Court, but they are viewed as “persuasive” – and likely influential.

State-By-State Solution Can Still Yield Progress

New Jersey proves that a state-by-state solution can yield progress – as infuriating as the number of setbacks on the way can be.  But the recent defeat in Maine also showed how risky it is to go to the ballot.  The Right loves to take this issue to the voters, because they can use lies and fear to manipulate a slim majority of the electorate.  New York and New Jersey proved that state legislatures are not immune to this either, but it’s preferable than putting the rights of a minority on the ballot.  The courts, of course, are always an option.

Advocates should be unapologetic about focusing on states that lack an initiative process, expanding marriage rights in places where it cannot be taken away.  More states with gay marriage will also help federal courts conclude that marriage equality is a constitutional right.  When reviewing the bans on interracial marriages (1967) and sodomy (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court in both instances noted how many states had already repealed them.

Currently, there are eight states that (a) don’t have marriage equality, (b) did not amend their constitution to ban gay marriage and (c) don’t allow for an initiative process that could repeal efforts to pass it.  The states are Minnesota, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island.  Some – like Rhode Island – are liberal enough to pass it at the legislature.  Others will require court action.

But Going to Federal Court is Inevitable …

Every major lawsuit to achieve marriage equality has consciously avoided claims under the federal U.S. Constitution for a reason.  As long as the claims are kept in the confines of a state constitution, that state’s Supreme Court has final say – and the case cannot be removed or appealed to federal court.  The concern is that, while there are legitimate and arguable federal claims, any federal case can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court – in front of Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Which is why the Perry case is so controversial.  A strong legal case can be made that Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution, but it’s a myth to think judges won’t take the politics into account.  “It’s very sweet to think that we’re going to win on moral grounds, but it’s naïve,” E.J. Graff of the Brandeis Women’s Studies Research Center told the American Prospect. “[The lawyers] have no real grasp of the bias facing lesbians and gay men, or of how to make lasting social change.”

In fact, the two attorneys – Ted Olson and David Boies – are not part of the civil rights legal community, and filed the suit without consulting those who have litigated marriage equality cases for years.  “There is also the sense,” wrote the American Prospect, “that Boies and Olson stand to lose nothing.  The possible reward, on the other hand, is clear: For two attorneys who have pursued high-profile cases throughout their careers, this could be the defining win that puts them in history books.”

But it was inevitable that federal courts would eventually take up this issue.  First, over 30 states (including California) have changed their constitutions to prohibit gay marriage – which blocks the ability to pursue state court challenges.  After the state Supreme Court upheld Prop 8 last year, it was clear the only available options are: (a) the ballot box, or (b) federal courts.

Second, and more importantly, you can’t have marriage equality without challenging federal law.  Even before California voters passed Prop 8, same-sex couples never had full marriage rights.  The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prohibits gay couples from any federal benefits – such as the right to sponsor an immigrant spouse, Social Security or joint federal tax returns – and allows states to not recognize out-of-state gay marriages.

In fact, California’s civil unions law gives all the same (tangible) benefits that state law grants married couples.  While the term “marriage” carries all sorts of intangible legal implications that a civil unions law cannot contemplate, Prop 8 had less of a practical effect than DOMA.  To the extent that going to federal court carries legal and political risks, it makes more sense to challenge the constitutionality of DOMA than Prop 8.

But Perry Case Does Not Address DOMA

The complaint in Perry, however, does not mention DOMA.  Focusing on the precedent of Romer v. Evans (1996), the suit argues that Prop 8 lacked a rational basis to discriminate against homosexuals.  In Romer, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Colorado amendment that blocked any non-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation.  The sole motivation to pass the measure was animus, an “irrational basis” that violates equal protection.  The Perry case seeks to prove the same.

Meanwhile, there are cases in federal court that directly challenge DOMA.  The suit that prompted an awful brief by the Obama Administration has since been dismissed because the plaintiffs were found to lack standing.  But in Massachusetts, the civil rights group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) has filed suit on behalf of gay married couples who are being denied federal benefits.  Interestingly, their legal brief also cites the Romer precedent and appears far more targeted.

What impact would the Perry case have on the DOMA challenge?  In an amicus brief for Perry, Equality California has carefully argued that the federal courts can repeal Prop 8 based on California’s unique situation.  “In no other State,” they wrote, “have voters been led to amend their constitution to strip same-sex couples of a right to marry that the highest court of the State had previously confirmed and carried into effect.”  This could allow a lower court to overrule Prop 8 in a way that only affects California – so the U.S. Supreme Court would leave the case alone, and we don’t risk a bad ruling.

But the bigger concern would be if the Perry plaintiffs lose, and the federal courts uphold Prop 8.  If they reject the notion that – like in Romer – animus was the basis for passing Prop 8, it could jeopardize the carefully crafted DOMA challenge.  Not only would gay married couples in Massachusetts be denied federal benefits, but as the American Prospect predicted, “defeat could legitimize such discrimination against LGBT Americans, making it far more difficult to sue for parental or housing rights. The door to any federal litigation on marriage equality would be shut for decades.”

As for New Jersey, the good news is that a bad outcome in Perry would likely not affect it.  Lambda Legal’s case is based on the New Jersey state constitution, so a federal court ruling on what the U.S. Constitution says is probably not relevant.  The federal court could uphold Prop 8 by deciding there is no federal requirement for states to have gay marriage – but it would probably allow states (like New Jersey) to grant it anyway.

With Judge Vaughn Walker agreeing to televise the Perry case that will expose the other side’s bigotry, opponents of marriage equality are lowering expectations.  “We do not expect to win at the trial level,” said the National Organization for Marriage – which bankrolled over 60% of the Maine campaign to repeal gay marriage but refused to register with the Ethics Commission.  “But with God’s help, at least five members of the current Supreme Court will have the courage to defend our Constitution from this grave attack.”

In other words, the other side isn’t even putting up a fight at the trial level – because they know that the law and facts are not in their favor.  Instead, they are counting on the right-wing activist judges at the U.S. Supreme Court to bail them out – and uphold Prop 8.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

The federal trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger is supposed to start on Monday and Judge Walker has ruled to allow delayed YouTube posting of video. But earlier today the defendants (Prop 8 supporters) filed an emergency petition with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asking them to stop the trial and overturn Walkers’ ruling on YouTube. Merc:

In court papers, lawyers for the Prop. 8 campaign argue that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker did not have the legal authority to permit cameras in the trial, which is set to begin Monday in San Francisco. Prop 8 backers say that broadcasting the proceedings “is likely to negatively affect the fairness of the trial.”

The plaintiffs had until 3 PM today to respond.  This is all likely to move pretty quickly, given that the trial is supposed to start the next business day.

Meanwhile, NOM thinks they are going to lose the case.

Over the last few days they have been clearly communicating to their email list that Judge Walker is not friendly to them and now are blatantly saying they expect to lose the trial.

Brian Brown just sent out an email to NOM’s list.  Karen Occam has part of it up at LGBT POV. Brown writes:

We do not expect to win at the trial level, but with God’s help, at least five members of the current Supreme Court will have the courage to defend our Constitution from this grave attack.

Their major complaint is that Judge Walker has made this a full-blown trial, complete with witnesses and a broad set of issues under consideration.  It will be a full and complete vetting of the issues, motivations and law surrounding marriage and equality for all.

This is perhaps my favorite part of Brown’s massive missive:

That’s right, the Constitution drafted by our Founding Fathers contains a right to gay marriage–in their twisted view. This is judicial activism on steroids, and a flagrant disrespect for civility, common sense, and democracy.

Gay-marriage advocates believe they have a right to win. They think you and I don’t count. NOM will be filing an amicus brief in this litigation, and will work with Protect Marriage and the lawyers for Prop 8 in every way we are asked.

My Mr. Brown your real feelings about marriage equality supporters seems to have slipped out.  Usually you are so nice and polite, but now we are “twisted”?  Would that be your bigoted side, showing about how you really feel about LGBTs?

So a legal trial, where there is lots of structure, procedure and rules is now disrespectful, uncivil, lacks common sense and is undemocratic?  Pardon me while I laugh.

Yes, we do believe we have a right to win a court case. The judicial system  creates winners and losers, shocker I know…

It isn’t that we think you don’t count, it’s just that we think there are three branches of government with checks and balances on the other two.  The judicial system has a role to play in determining the constitutionality of both federal and state law.  That’s exactly what will happen in the courtroom (with some luck) on Monday.

This trial is going to be full of drama.  I’m very much looking forward to it.  I know I’ve been a bit of a slacker about blogging as of late, but expect some more writing from me over the next few weeks about the trial.

As you are no doubt aware, starting on Monday, a Federal Court in San Francisco will review the California Supreme Court decision to uphold the infamous Proposition 8.

This trial will be one of the most important civil rights cases in a generation, in which Bush/Gore 2000 adversaries David Boies and Ted Olson team up to defeat California’s Prop 8 ban on same-sex marriages. We don’t want to miss it.

Firedoglake wants to bring Scooter-Libby-trial style reporting to San Francisco’s Federal Courthouse.  We have a California team — David Dayen arrives from Los Angeles this weekend and I’ll provide commentary and video interviews — and will welcome Libby liveblogger Marcy Wheeler later in the week.

But we need your help to do it.

We want to bring some interpid Firedoglake bloggers and reporters to cover the Prop 8 trial, but we need your help to make it happen. Can you help us reach our goal of 3,000 people donating $1 a day or more to help us cover the Prop 8 trial?

Click here to donate $1 a day or more to fund Firedoglake and our coverage of the Prop 8 trial.

FDL has grown a lot since we covered the Scooter Libby trial in 2006, and we now have an incredible group of full time writers and reporters like Jon Walker and David Dayen, in addition to our superb editing and tech crew. But that means the cost of publishing the blog on a daily basis has also increased dramatically.

If 3,000 people donate just $1 a day, it allows us to pay our staff and our regular expenses and continue to produce independent journalism that is free from the limitations imposed by corporate, foundation or big donor funding.

Perry vs Schwarzenegger will set an important precedent in civil rights cases of this kind, and represents an opportunity to continue the same kind of unbridled, independent journalism that you can’t get from the mainstream media.

The trial starts on Monday. Can you donate $1 a day to help us bring David Dayen and Marcy Wheeler to cover this historic trial?

Help us bring the Prop 8 trial to the FDL community. Click here and pledge $1 a day or more to Firedoglake.

Donations have been instrumental in bringing us this far, and we need your help to keep the momentum going. Please join us and pledge your monthly donation to FDL today.  Thank you for your support.

Gathering signatures for any initiative is a challenge, make it a constitutional amendment with the added number of signatures, and it is even harder.  To assure qualification, you’ll need at least a million signatures, probably close to 1.2 million, as you will have a fairly substantial rate of invalid signatures.  Pointing that out isn’t meant to be a dash a cold water, but an idea of the size of the challenge in front of Love Honor Cherish.  LHC is now gathering signatures to repeal Prop 8. From a LHC press release:

SignForEquality.com today launched a groundbreaking effort to gather signatures to repeal Proposition 8 and restore equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, marking the first time that social networking technology has been used to qualify a California initiative for the ballot.

“We’re taking names,” said John Henning, who is heading the SignForEquality.com effort as Executive Director of Love Honor Cherish. “SignForEquality.com will make history by using custom social networking tools, as well as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, to support an all-volunteer signature drive to repeal Prop 8. People throughout California can now help us win marriage back by the simple act of signing and collecting signatures.”

For historical context, the last time a measure has qualified with a completely volunteer signature gathering force was 1984, 25 years and hundreds of initiatives ago. However, if there were ever motivated volunteers, this is the cause, and this is the time. Good luck to LHC and their supporters as they attempt to put the repeal measure on the ballot.

If you are interested in helping out, go to SignForEquality.com for more information.

You’ll find the text of the measure over the flip.

This amendment would amend an existing section of the California Constitution.  Existing language proposed to be deleted is printed in strikeout type.  Language proposed to be added is printed in underlined type.

Section 1.  To protect religious freedom, no court shall interpret this measure to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person authorized to perform marriages by any religious denomination, church, or other non-profit religious institution to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution.

Section 2.  To provide for fairness in the government’s issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5.  Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

This weekend’s Camp Courage in Sacramento was a good tonic for the loss in Maine and part of our collective path forward to restoring marriage equality to California.  The heart of Camp Courage is learning how to craft your “story-of-self” a personal, emotional version of who you are and why this issue matters so much to you.  The goal is to empower activists to use their personal narrative to bring about political change.  Stories-of-self can be used to recruit volunteers, to inspire a crowd or to change a persons’ vote one door at a time.

It isn’t easy to have people open up and share the most painful, scary, raw parts of their lives.  But those are the stories that are the ones that need to be told the most. The power of Camp Courage comes from people risking sharing their stories of pain thus forming community and strength.

Adam Bink over at Open Left quotes Harvey Milk’s famous “come out come out” speech and writes:

The same tactic Milk used for school employees everywhere must continue to be used in these communities. We have to encourage people in these towns to come out of the closet and say they want the right to marry. State Representative Mike Carey, who represents heavily Catholic downtown Lewiston and voted in favor of marriage equality in the legislature, pointed out to me that in these kinds of votes, the default vote is for fear, and it is a huge barrier to reach one’s conscience if they have no personal knowledge of the issue. For all the “gay marriage will be taught in schools” ads our opponents ran in Maine and will run in other states that tap that fear element, we have to counter with people who can give voters that kind of personal touch on the issue.

It isn’t just gay people that we need to come out and tell their stories, it is all of our wonderful straight allies.  No, there is no application to become a straight ally, just start telling everyone you know your personal story of why you support equality for all.

One of our amazing volunteers that helped put together Camp Courage Sacramento Chris Huack brought his parents to Camp.  He blogged about the experience at the Courage Campaign.  Here is Chris relaying the three reflections his dad had about Camp. (more on the flip)

1 – He had no idea the pain that LGBT people had felt over discrimination and losing initiatives like Proposition 8 and Question 1 until he saw people speaking about them openly and honestly at the Camp. See, I have always been a more stoic, let’s “focus on what we can do in the future” type of person, so for my Mom and Dad, they had never truly appreciated the pain this had inflicted on our community until they heard the stories of personal pain from others.

2 – My Dad shared with me his “Story of Self.” He had a gay cousin who had died of AIDS when my Dad was in his 20s. He had a lesbian sister who had come out to him and was now married with her wife. And he had me, his gay son, who was fighting for equality and who he hoped could one day get married in front of friends and family. LGBT issues had slowly intertwined their way thought his life and had always handled them decently (very supportive of me and his sister), but now realized his previous actions had been woefully inadequate and that he could no longer sit on the sidelines while people he cared about suffered and were discriminated against.

3 – He needed to get involved today. He wanted to sign up to canvass and to join California Faith for Equality, provided they had a means for him to contribute to meaningful action.

As stoic as I may be, I found myself fighting back tears as my Dad related this to me and my Mom agreed with him. Then at dinner, as my Dad related to other family members what he had learned and why it was so important for us to proactively work for change – I fully understood the importance of Camp Courage. Yes, it is a great experience for LGBT leaders and organizers. However, I missed an important opportunity in East LA, when I went to Camp but neglected to recruit my straight friends and family in LA to attend with me. This experience is not just a meaningful skills training for gay people – it is an opportunity to teach, empower and share ourselves and our struggle more fully with friends, straight allies and family. It is an opportunity to bring new faces and perspectives into the fight for equality.

One by one we are building an army to repeal Prop 8.  It is not easy, or fast, but it is absolutely critical to our success.  The best way we change hearts and minds is having everyone supportive of equality speaking from their hearts.  

We have to be vulnerable.  It is wrenching to know that as a gay person that the best path to earning the right to get married some day is if I share my most painful moments of my life with strangers in order to win their vote.  It shouldn’t be that way, but that’s what it takes and it is what I will continue to do.  Will you join me?

(full disclosure: I proudly work for the Courage Campaign)

(full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign and was on loan to No on 1)

A year ago I knew what went wrong and I knew how to fix it.

A year later, I don’t know what went wrong.  I don’t know how to fix it.

We had the money.  We had a stable campaign.  We had the a robust well-oiled field campaign.  We had a strong campaign manager.  We had the turnout we wanted.  We had great coordination between the netroots and the campaign.  We had a not particularly religious state.  We neutralized the church issue.  We had a manageable voter universe.  We had an opposition with an inferior media and field operation.  We had TV ads with gay people in them.  We responded to their attacks swiftly.  

And we still lost.

Our campaign wasn’t perfect.  But it was damn good.

And that’s why this loss is so hard.  The lessons to be learned are not as obvious.  Not knowing how to fix it makes it tempting to throw our hands up in the air and say at 0-31 we just can’t win marriage rights at the ballot box.  Or we have to wait a decade until we can.

But that would be letting them win.  That would be giving up.  That would be accepting inequality.

We can’t.  I won’t.

We need to learn how to neutralize the schools issue better than we did this time.  We must continue telling our stories, one by one, person by person, door by door.

Nate Silver as usual has some smart thoughts:

I certainly don’t think the No on 1 campaign can be blamed; by every indication, they ran a tip-top operation whereas the Yes on 1 folks were amateurish. But this may not be an issue where the campaign itself matters very much; people have pretty strong feelings about the gay marriage issue and are not typically open to persuasion. There’s going to be an effort by many on the left to blame Barack Obama for his lack of leadership on gay rights issues; I think the criticism is correct on its face, but I don’t know how much it has to do with the defeat in Maine. A more popular Democratic governor, for instance, who had been a bit quicker on the trigger in his support of gay marriage, might have helped more.

Persuading voters to change their minds about marriage equality is extremely difficult, but it is possible and it happens every single day.  It just takes a lot of resources and is most effective on a one-to-one level.  

That means we must continue to invest in grassroots organizing, training new leaders to work in their communities and supporting their efforts over time.  We need to continue to build connections and relationships with faith communities.  We can organize in churches.  We can even organize in Mormon Temples and Catholic Churches.  It has happened.  It is happening.

There are lessons to be learned out of Maine.  We know that we can build a massive GOTV operation.  We know how to build a model where a campaign invests in the netroots and reaps the rewards.  The church issue can be neutralized.  It’s possible to set aside differences and focus on a common goal.  We can build a campaign to be proud of as a community.

What we can do now is have experts in Maine politics analyze the results to understand better how we lost.  We need talk to the No on 1 campaign leadership/consultants to get their advice like they did from our Prop 8 loss.

We can win marriage back in California.  We will win marriage back in California.  We can win marriage in Maine.  We will win marriage in Maine.

I am not quitting.  You better not be either.

This weekend I am picking myself back up and getting right back to work, training hundreds of activists in Sacramento how to organize at Camp Courage.  They will and I will come in with heavy hearts, but leave empowered.  

We will leave and fight the next fight together.

John Garamendi received the endorsement of the Contra Costa Times today. It’s basically the same stuff that they said back on the September 1 election. He’s experienced, he knows his stuff, he’ll have an impact. All stuff I can agree with.

However, there is at least one thing to quibble about, specifically the part about Harmer in this quote:

Garamendi supports the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and a change in the law to allow same-sex couples to legally marry. Harmer has not taken strong positions on either.(CCT 10/28/09)

Now, if one were to peruse over to the SF Chronicle’s database of donors to Prop 8, you’d find one David Harmer of San Ramon having given $2200 to Yes on Prop 8. I’m not sure how much stronger of a position somebody could make. He literally put his money where his opinion is. He steadfastly opposes equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

This isn’t really the reason that Garamendi got the endorsement of the moderate LGBT publication the Bay Area Reporter, but it certainly must have a place in the conversation.  When it comes down to it, despite all the bizarre polling data Harmer puts out, Garamendi will make a great Congressman for the 10th District.

 

We lost Prop 8.  No matter how you want to slice and dice it now, who you blame, or what organizations were at fault, we lost Prop 8.  The fight to repeal Prop 8 will be long and arduous, whether that is next year or in 2012.

But the fight to repeal Prop 8 is always continuing.  Two ballot measures from opposite sides of the country deserve our attention at this very moment. It cannot wait.

Paul Hogarth has done a great job bringing the Maine story back to California (and Calitics) by going there to do canvassing and other campaign work. In Maine, the legislature passed a marriage equality bill, and it was signed into law by the Democratic Governor there, John Baldacci. Unfortunately, the opponents of marriage equality were able to gather enough signatures to put the law up for a vote as “Question 1.”  You might recall many of these same organizations from the Prop 8 fight.  The biggest donor to the anti-equality Yes on 1 Campaign is the “National Organization for Marriage.” NOM, as it is known, was very active in Prop 8 helping to raise money and spread lies and distortion about what exactly marriage equality was all about. And the Yes on 1 Campaign is even using the same consultant as the Prop 8 campaign, Frank Schubert. And yes, even the same ads, just replace the Pepperdine professor with a professor from Boston College.

But the No on 1 Campaign is fighting back.  They’ve launched several ads (also available over the flip) that directly respond to the lies and distortions.   However, while they’ve booked the TV time, they can still use resources to get the message out. Please consider giving to the No on 1 Campaign on our  ActBlue Page:

And in Washington state, some right-wingers are trying to repeal domestic partnership rights.  If Referendum 71 fails, we will be back at square one in our West Coast neighbor. It is imperative that this measure succeed in protecting rights for same-sex couples. Here on Calitics, Laurel has been giving us updates from Washington.

You can give to both campaigns on the Calitics ActBlue page. Alternatively, you can fly up to Seattle for $40 from SFO or $60 from LAX on Virgin America. I imagine it’s similar on other carriers. Seems like a small cost to help protect human rights from the right-wing attacks.

Check the Maine ads over the flip.