Sen. Mark Leno has a diverse legislative platform, from single payer health care to fighting against toxics in our homes.  However, it is for his work for marriage equality that he has built his name in San Francisco and Sacramento.

Today, the Senator bags two more achievements. First, after getting a veto from the governor last year, the state will now declare May 22 Harvey Milk Day (not a day-off though).  The recognition for a man who was dedicated to pushing for equal rights for himself and his community is an important marker for the fight for full equality for the LGBT community. It does not win us any additional rights, but it does give the state a chance to pause and reflect on a man who gave everything for the struggle.

On the other hand, Sen. Leno’s SB 54 does have an immediate and real impact that goes beyond symbolism. The bill would grant marriages performed outside of the state before Prop 8 was passed full marriage status, just as the same-sex marriages performed between June and November. Marriages that were performed after that Nov. 5 date will get all the rights and benefits of a California marriage save the moniker “marriage.”

Apparently Arnold saw the confusion brought about by the situation that Californians who had previously been married in, say Massachusetts, were in. They were told that they didn’t need to renew their marriage, but the law was entirely unclear on the issue.

In a signing message, Schwarzenegger said California will not recognize the couples as married but will “provide the same legal protections that would otherwise be available to couples that enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships out-of-state. In short, this measure honors the will of the People in enacting Proposition 8 while providing important protections to those unions legally entered into in other states.” (SacBee 10/12/09)

Expect SB 54 to be challenged by at least some of the right-wingers. There’s not much of a substantive legal argument against these measures given the case law as it stands, but that’s never stopped them before.

UPDATE: I forgot to point out that Arnold vetoed two transgendered focused bills, but Pam caught it. The vetoed bills would have made birth certificate records easier to handle and allowed for special protection of transgendered prisoners.

Ooh, the Prop 8 people are very witty!

In court papers filed late Friday, Proposition 8 backers argue that allowing Brown to remain as a named defendant in the case “unfairly advances” the challenge to the gay-marriage ban because, like the plaintiffs, the attorney general maintains California’s law against same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

“As matters now stand, plaintiffs have a party on the other side of this dispute who shares their ultimate goal of invalidating Proposition 8,” Proposition 8 lawyers wrote in court documents. “Plaintiffs might well turn the old adage on its head and ask: With enemies such as these, who needs friends?” (MediaNews 10/06/09)

Ooh, that’s funny, enemies like these. I think they’re ready to get into the Shakespearean game.  At any rate, the case is now heading for a summary judgment hearing, which is scheduled for next week.

Meanwhile, the fight in Maine is still going strong.  Paul Hogarth gives us an update today. If you’d like to help the campaign, you can sign up to do some virtual phonebanking or you can give them some money at the Calitics ActBlue page.

Love Honor Cherish has officially submitted ballot language for a repeal of Prop 8 in 2010.  The language still has to wind its way through the official process before signature gathering can commence.

But while Equality California opposes the measure, preferring to wait until 2012, Geoff Kors is still trying to ensure that he reigns supreme in the California LGBT land.

We helped Love Honor Cherish draft the language they have submitted, by spending hours with them on the phone for discussion and feedback. We didn’t approve the final version, as we aren’t involved in the effort to file this language, but we wanted the language to be as good as possible. Submitted language should always be shown to key stakeholders, and different options should be tested.

Good luck with that Geoff.  The LGBT community still has some serious soul searching to define who exactly our leaders really are, because I’m not sure if Geoff Kors really has the authority and respect of the community at this point. And while elected leaders are pivotal to broad progressive goals, they cannot be the leaders on a ballot fight.

At any rate, congrats to Love Honor Cherish on this.  Whether this actually has the institutional strength to get on the ballot is an open question, but no matter what happens, it must be the priority of every member of the LGBT community, and our progressive allies, to fight like hell once we get a measure on the ballot.

“Yes on 1” – the Maine campaign to repeal marriage equality – aired its first San Francisco produced ad this week, which was kind of a dud.  It was like the first “Yes on 8” ad in California – minus the Gavin Newsom footage.  Within 24 hours, the “No on 1” campaign aired a strong rebuttal – in contrast to the 12 days it took “No on 8” to respond.  Rather than simply deny the “gay marriage in public schools” charge, the ad accused outsiders of harming kids – and that schools protect “all Maine families,” allowing our side to stay on the offensive.  With 53 days to go before the election, a new poll today shows Question 1 narrowly ahead by 48-46.  Supporters of marriage equality should realize that every effort will make a difference – and that we now have an opportunity to finally defeat anti-gay bigotry at the ballot box.

Proposition 8 passed last year, because the “No on 8” campaign spent its time reacting to the opposition’s attacks – even though we’ve seen the right make the very same attacks on gay marriage in state after state.  There was no excuse for supporters of marriage equality to not have a pre-emptive strategy before the opponents launched their ads, or to be prepared with a response that kept us on message.  Instead, we saw “No on 8” flailing throughout the campaign – as attacks began to resonate with swing voters.

Probably the most effective attack we heard was that gay marriage would be “taught” in public schools.  But it took “No on 8” twelve days to respond to that charge on the air.  When they did, they had an ad with State Superintendent Jack O’Connell – a politician that most voters are not familiar with – who simply said it wasn’t true.  All it took was for one class of 1st Graders to attend their lesbian teacher’s wedding (which the SF Chronicle shamefully treated as “front-page news”) for swing voters to believe that it was our side that was lying to them.

My sister was a First Grade teacher for many years, and she made a really good point to me after Proposition 8 passed.  Gay marriage may not be “taught” in public schools, but teachers do explain to kids that families are different.  Some kids have a mom and dad, some kids have only a mom, some kids may have two sets of moms and dads because the parents are divorced, some families have foster children, and – yes – some kids have two moms or two dads.  You don’t have to use the word “gay” or go into any more detail, she explained, because it’s not about “gay marriage” – it’s about respecting diverse families.  In other words, by simply denying its existence the “No on 8” campaign fell in a trap.

Now, the “Yes on 1” campaign in Maine has launched the same attack – but we are ready.  Less than 24 hours after the opposition’s San Francisco-produced ad hit the airwaves, “No on 1” had their own rebuttal.  The ad effectively countered the schools attack for two reasons.  First, they had a real teacher (Sherri Gould, who was named Maine’s “Teacher of the Year” in 2005), as opposed to a politician.  Second, it framed the issue around protecting “all families” – and Ms. Gould said that in her classroom, “we teach respect and Maine values.”  This allowed the “No on 1” campaign to stay on message pro-actively – rather than just reacting to lies.

Will that be enough to win?  A new poll that will be released today by Research 2000 (commissioned by Daily Kos) shows Question 1 narrowly ahead by a 2-point margin.  This makes the race a statistical dead heat, so anything can happen over the next 53 days.  Only about 500,000 people are expected to vote in Maine, which makes an intensive field campaign that reaches every voter eminently winnable.  Marriage equality supporters – especially Californians who are determined not to see another Prop 8 happen – must come to Maine, and be part of an historic campaign that protects marriage equality, and stops the right’s momentum.

That’s why the “No on 1” campaign is urging supporters to take a week of vacation time in October (when the Maine fall colors are in their full glory) – and come volunteer.  And because flying from California can be expensive and challenging, local Obama activists who helped send volunteers to the swing states last year have launched “Travel for Change” – where supporters can donate money and/or airline miles to send a volunteer to Maine.  No Californian who wants to go to Maine should feel deterred by the expense of a trip – just plan to go for at least a week.

Last year, many of us did not do enough to defeat Prop 8.  For sure, a lot of people were distracted by the Presidential race.  But the truth is “No on 8” did an awful job giving volunteers useful stuff to do – like standing at a street corner in the Castro.  I tried to help, but ended up working on other campaigns because “No on 8” was making us do inane stuff that someone like myself – who has over a decade of campaign experience – could tell was pointless.  When I volunteered for David Chiu in San Francisco – or went to Wisconsin to help Obama – the campaigns were organized enough to put volunteers to good use.

Having talked with the “No on 1” campaign in Maine, I am confident that out-of-state volunteers will be put to work – placed in local field offices to execute an intelligent strategy.  Now, people in California need to start making their volunteer vacation plans.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth will be in Maine October 3-13, and will offer daily dispatches for Beyond Chron readers (where this piece was first published.)

(This appeared in the Sacramento Bee. I’m on the board of Alice, and helped a bit with this. It is an important and valuable proposition. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

After months of paralysis, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community has been unable to reconcile the different strategic perspectives for repealing Proposition 8.

A consortium of groups, spearheaded by the Courage Campaign, is moving forward with an initiative to repeal Proposition 8 in November 2010. Meanwhile, Equality California, or EQCA, the largest LGBT advocacy organization in the state, has released its plans to repeal Proposition 8 on the November 2012 ballot. Efforts to reconcile have apparently been exhausted.

Make no mistake: We will repeal Proposition 8, but the current situation is untenable. Both factions are working with one hand tied behind their backs. The 2010 proponents are moving ahead with an undeveloped, piecemeal strategy with very little fundraising support or infrastructure. While we commend their energy and commitment, this is an overly risky way of running a campaign when so much is at stake.

Conversely, the very word “EQCA” has become a lightning rod in the discourse surrounding marriage equality. EQCA has been on the ground since the beginning of this year, conducting extensive outreach to communities across the state, particularly minority and religious communities, but it has not done enough to reinvent itself and its mission since the passage of Proposition 8. Nor has it done enough to address the lack of trust with which a large portion of the community, particularly younger, grass-roots activists, views them.

So what are the solutions to this quandary? While the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club decided in July that a slightly longer timetable culminating in a 2012 election is the appropriate strategy, we do feel that there is a lot of middle ground that we are failing to acknowledge. We can, should and must build a bridge to meet in the proverbial middle by creating a governing structure that provides accountability to both camps.

Perhaps our suggestion of a supervising structure will be a difficult pill for both sides to swallow. But think about it – is there any other way? The current situation is untenable. Whether this proposal is the solution or the beginning of the conversation that moves us toward a solution, it is clear that the status quo is completely unacceptable. Accordingly, we propose that a new campaign structure be formed that will govern the longer-term aspects of both the 2010 and 2012 efforts that are compatible.

Campaign structures must be set up to govern both the 2010 and 2012 efforts anyway, and there is no time to lose.

The new organization that we propose will have two distinct branches, both responsive to a central, governing body. One branch will focus on the efforts to repeal Proposition 8 in 2010. The other unit will focus on repealing Proposition 8 in 2012 and presumably will execute the public outreach plan for the 2012 election.

A central governing structure that supervises these operations must reflect the community and be accountable to it. It should conduct and be the repository for the research that is necessary to mount a successful ballot measure. It would coordinate and build upon the political research that the Courage Campaign has begun in support of a 2010 ballot measure and expand that work should a future initiative be necessary.

This central governing structure would also maintain voter databases and voter profiles that both the 2010 and 2012 efforts will inevitably create. This overarching structure would safeguard the data collected and determine what information to release or withhold based on what’s good for the community as a whole.

Finally, each consortium, 2010 and 2012, will be responsible for its own fundraising and executing its plan. However, should either initiative wind up on the ballot, this overarching structure would transform into a single campaign committee to oversee, supervise and manage the campaign. Creation of such a structure will bring consensus and, most importantly, accountability to the divergent paths our community has taken.

The 2010 consortium is a fireball of energy, committed to repealing Proposition 8 now. An overarching structure responsible for research, education and expansion of coalitions within ethnic and religious communities would provide accountability to the community and free both the 2010 and 2012 consortiums to focus on the intense grassroots efforts necessary for the success of a ballot measure.

Regardless of how we proceed, we must establish a structure that will have the trust of the entire community and ensure the integrity of any campaign to win back marriage equality. Whether you believe in 2010 or 2012, we are fighting for the same goals and ideals. We need to mutually co-exist and flourish.

The Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, our nation’s oldest chartered LGBT Democratic organization, urges the LGBT Community to create the structure, supervision and, above all else, accountability needed to move us closer to full equality.

This article was written by Susan Belinda Christian and Charles Sheehan, Co-Chairs of the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, based in San Francisco. It was approved by the Club’s Board of Directors. For more information:  alicebtoklas.org.

Judge Vaughn Walker has set a January trial date and an October hearing for pretrial motions in the Prop 8 litigation in federal court.  Particularly of note is his opinion on who gets to intervene in the litigation. The old school gay rights groups, including the ACLU, NCLR, and a few others, were rejected, while the City of San Francisco was allowed to intervene:

But the judge allowed intervention by San Francisco, which had also challenged Prop. 8 in the state court. He said the city brings a unique perspective to the case, with its claims that denying marriage to same-sex couples leads to higher government costs in health care and social services. (SF Chronicl 8/19/09)

Judge Walker also rejected Randy Thomasson’s crazy bigots of the California Campaign For Against Families. See, they thought they should get in on the action because the Prop 8 people were too gay friendly. They wanted to ban domestic partnership.  Looking back, it’s kind of too bad that ol’ Randy didn’t win that dispute. An initiative also outlawing domestic partnership would have gone down handily.

Also of note on this case today was a New York Times Story on Ted Olson’s process to becoming an advocate of marriage equality. The whole thing is worth a read, if only to explain the enigma that is Ted Olson. Olson lines up his position on marriage equality with his position on affirmative action (he fought a long legal battle against it) and his view on civil rights. It turns out that even during his time in the Reagan and Bush II administrations, he was an advocate for civil rights for the LGBT community. Interestingly, his opponent in this case, Chuck Cooper, was Olson’s replacement at the Office of Legal Counsel in 1984.

It also gives a bit of background on his legal thinking on the case.

Mr. Olson points to two more recent Supreme Court cases.

The first is a 1996 decision in which six of the nine justices, citing equal protection grounds, struck down an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that stripped gay residents of existing civil rights protections. This, Mr. Olson argues, is similar to Proposition 8’s negating the California Supreme Court decision that recognized the rights of gay couples to marry.

The second is the court’s 6-3 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down laws criminalizing sodomy in 2003. Not only did the majority find that Texas had no rational basis to intrude into private sexual behavior protected by the Constitution’s due process clause, it also declared that gay men and lesbians should be free to enter into relationships in their homes and “still retain their dignity.”

Given Olson’s stature, this case could become more interesting than initially thought. While getting the 5 votes on the Supreme Court will be challenging, totally discounting it would be a mistake.

In just 77 days, Maine voters can set the national agenda for marriage equality.  The state legislature passed same-sex marriage earlier this year, but now the right has collected enough signatures to put a referendum (“Question One”) on the November 2009 ballot – and has hired the same political consultants who successfully passed Proposition 8.  Supporters of marriage equality, however, are determined not to repeat the same mistakes we made in California – and will run an inclusive field campaign with a pro-active and pre-emptive message that (with the right resources) can bring about victory.  It does not cost a lot to win campaigns in Maine (only $3 million), and voter turnout is expected to only be about 500,000 people.  In other words, the campaign is winnable – but has not yet received the national attention it deserves.  While Californians are divided on whether to repeal Prop 8 in 2010 or 2012, they can set aside their differences by helping us win in Maine.  If we prevail on November 3rd, it will be easier to take our rights back in California.

The fight for marriage equality has made crucial progress in the past six months – from a court victory in Iowa to legislative victories in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.  The American Taliban is scared of the inevitable trend toward justice, and views the upcoming Maine referendum as “ground zero” in this battle.  Groups like the National Organization for Marriage have already thrown massive resources into Maine, and are taking it seriously.  “The side that cares more will win,” said “No on 1” field director Monique Hoeflinger.

The LGBT community is aware that whenever marriage rights have been on the ballot, bigotry has prevailed.  Arizona rejected an anti-gay marriage amendment in 2006, but it threatened both marriage and domestic partnerships – and the campaign to defeat it focused on the latter.  Two years later, the right put another measure in Arizona that only banned marriage – and it passed by a 13-point margin.  In other words, winning a campaign in Maine at the ballot box will change the conversation – and help us repeal Proposition 8.

Everyone knows that defeating Prop 8 was winnable, but our side ran an awful campaign that – like Michael Dukakis – blew a seventeen-point lead.  It had a reactive message that did not anticipate or preempt attacks from the other side, failed to run an adequate field campaign that included California’s diverse constituencies, and suffered from an early complacency that led to its downfall.  But after meeting some leaders from Maine’s No on One campaign at the Netroots Nation conference in Pittsburgh last week, I am confident they have learned from our mistakes.

A Grassroots Campaign that is Proactive and Preemptive

Unlike in California, where gays and lesbians won marriage rights at the Supreme Court, in Maine the legislature and Governor passed it into law – less than three months ago.  It took an intense grassroots lobbying campaign to make this happen, and now the same Mainers who fought for their marriage rights are ready to defend them at the ballot box.  

On Election Day last November, marriage equality advocates stood outside polling places in Maine with pledge cards for the legislative campaign.  By the time the legislature voted six months later, they had identified 50,000 registered voters who support gay marriage – but what’s interesting is where most of them came from.  Lobbying efforts come down to persuading “swing” legislators, and most of them don’t represent liberal communities.  Most of the 50,000 identified supporters live in “swing” parts of the state, giving the campaign an advantage to make inroads in places that will decide this election.

Compare this with the “No on 8” field campaign in California, which focused almost entirely on gay neighborhoods in San Francisco and Los Angeles – while ceding the rest of the state to opponents.  Mobilizing your base is important (especially in a low-turnout election), but a winning campaign needs to have a visible presence in every part of the state.

“No on 8” also ran a reactive campaign that spent too much time responding to lies that the opposition hurled at us.  It was inexcusable to not anticipate the “gay-marriage-will-be-taught-in-public-schools” line, because it’s only been used as an attack from the right in every state that had a marriage amendment.  The “No on 1” effort has already planned a TV ad when the other side makes this argument.  And unlike in California, where we put a politician on the air (State Superintendent of Public Schools Jack O’Connell) to say it’s not true, the Maine campaign will counter that message with teachers and families.

People of faith have been part of the coalition for years – and are framing support for gay marriage in moral terms.  On the day after the California Supreme Court ruled for marriage equality, they had five press conferences throughout Maine lauding the decision.  This pro-active show of force actually put the religious right on the defensive.  If this is how they plan to run the “No on 1” campaign, it’s an effort worth giving your money to.

Not a Lot of Resources Required

At Netroots Nation, the “No on 1” campaign said they needed about $3 million to win a statewide campaign in Maine (“we’re a cheap date,” they said.)  All of us Californians laughed, because we spent $40 million last year only to have our marriage rights taken away.  But it’s not just how much money a campaign spends, but whether they use their resources wisely – and when the money comes in.  “No on 8” ultimately outspent the opposition, but too much of the funds came in late in the game – when there was a tangible fear of losing.  In Maine, it’s important to send a contribution before Labor Day – so the campaign can hire enough field directors that requires weeks of hard work.

Mainers have a “live-and-let-live” approach, but they don’t like outsiders trying to buy the election process.  Most of the “No on 1” money has come from Maine residents, in small contributions from supporters of the legislative campaign to pass marriage equality.  The opposition has already raised $343,000 – and all but $2,000 from four big donors: $160,000 from the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage, $100,000 from the Roman Catholic diocese of Portland, $50,000 from the Knights of Columbus and $31,000 from Focus on the Family Maine.  No sign yet if the Mormons are sending in their millions from Utah, but when they do I hope to see more creative YouTube spots like this one.

Finally, the “No on 1” campaign is inviting volunteers to come “vacation” in Maine – where they will put you up in the homes of supporters.  Help is especially needed during the first week of October, when early absentee ballots get mailed out.  Volunteers should go to the campaign website, and let them know when they plan to visit the state.  This will be a campaign mostly run by Maine residents, but unpaid assistance from those passionate for marriage equality are welcome.

In California, gay marriage supporters who plan to repeal Prop 8 at the ballot box are deeply divided between doing it in 2010 – or in 2012.  Equality California has endorsed 2012, in part because their donors do not feel confident winning in 2010 is possible.  But grass-roots supporters at the Courage Campaign want to try next year.  It’s a stupid internecine fight that threatens to hurt the LGBT community, when we should all be working together.

I’m undecided about 2010 or 2012, and am willing to be persuaded either way.  But there’s one thing I know for sure – defending marriage equality in Maine in 2009 will make it easier to repeal Prop 8, regardless of what year it gets on the ballot.  Californians who believe in marriage equality have a moral responsibility to help out the Maine effort.  Depending on my vacation schedule and budget, I plan to fly out there in a few weeks.

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

I waded into this conversation a few days ago, and though I might be leaning just slightly towards 2012, I am still a bit mixed on this one. But the sides are full of emotion.  There is the emotion of wanting to return to the ballot right now. To not rest and to fight right away.

On the other side, there is some strong emotion.  There is a very real fear that if we go back to the ballot, that we will move in the wrong direction. There is concern that we will not have the resources that we need to actually compete, and that we’ll have to deal with the CW-ish 3 strikes and you’re out theory of ballot measures. (Don’t tell that to the parental notification people)

Nonetheless, there is one player in this fight that is bigger than the rest: Equality California.  They are the biggest LGBT organization in the state, and while they might have lost some of their luster in the Prop 8 debacle, they are still clinging to primacy.  So, when they released their “Roadmap to Equality” today, people paid attention.

First, they start with this premise:

We also surveyed our membership prior to the Court upholding Prop 8 and new polling being released, and found that a majority of those who responded supported going back to the ballot in 2010, although the vast majority of our members either didn’t vote or were undecided.

Well, that’s all well and good, but the immediate discounting of their memebership kind of puts them in the category of an insider, rather than a grassroots organization. That’s not inherently bad, but certainly worth noting.

And in the end, they come up with a plan favoring 2012:

We have one more chance (in the near-term) to get this right and win. Though extremely tempting, we do not believe a 15-month campaign gives us the time to do all that is required to do it right. We are not operating in isolation – our opponents are ready; they are passionate; they know which messages worked for them last go-around; they know the 2010 electorate is about four percentage points better for them; and they know where to find infrequent voters who support their position (conservative churches).

On the other hand, we have a dramatically changed movement; organizations that need to figure out how to work well together; a funding environment that is extremely difficult; a stronge sense from various organizations working in communities of color that the work cannot be done effectively in their communities in 15 months; an issue that is more effectively conveyed in a cultural, rather than a political, context; and the need to do extensive work to revamp our messaging. We recommend that the LGBT and allied community get behind a 38-month campaign to win marriage back in November 2012.

But they are not the only player in this, so the more pressing concern is what happens if it qualifies in 2010? EQCA seems to discount this in their public statements to bloggers and the media, but it isn’t really that much of a longshot. They seem to take the tack that one part of the community can go one way, and the other can go another.  I’m not sure this is true; it more sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

Peep the whole report over the flip.

EQCA-WINNING_BACK_MARRIAGE_EQUALITY –