This is crossposted from the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. Today should be the last day of testimony, with the closing arguments coming in a couple of weeks as to let Judge Walker digest the evidence a bit. You can get a whole slew of information about the trial at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker.

Well, this should be the last day of testimony, and the defense’s case is looking pretty shabby so far. Unless Blankenhorn’s redirect is simply amazing, he’s also going to be a net loss for their side. But don’t worry, Pugno can tell you how it really is:

The afternoon brought the testimony of our second witness, David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, who provided his expertise on the institution of marriage, fatherhood and the family structure. He rejected the suggestion by plaintiffs that marriage is purely a private construct between two adults.  Rather, he explained, marriage between a man and woman is a globally recognized and historically public institution.  In fact, it is the only  social relationship with a “biological foundation” found in the complementary nature of man and woman and their ability to procreate.  Across all cultures and times, no other human relationship has been more closely connected to the ultimate goal of uniting the biological, social and legal dimensions of parenthood for the raising of children.

You’ll be shocked (shocked!) to know that Pugno doesn’t mention Blankenhorn’s cross examination where he goes on to say that “We would be more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage than the day before.”  Pugno argues that their definition is the correct definition, the only definition. But Ted Olson puts the lie to that:

This is the game that they’re playing. They define marriage as a man and a woman. They call that the institution of marriage. So if you let a man marry a man and a woman marry a woman, it would de-institutionalize marriage. That is the same as saying you are deinstitutionalizing the right to vote when you let women have it. It’s a game. It’s a tautology. They’re saying, ‘this is the definition. You’re going to change the definition by allowing people access that don’t have it now, and that would change it so that people who currently have access won’t want it any more because it’s changed.’ This is all nonsense. They are not proving that. This is a syllogism that falls apart. The major premise, minor premise and conclusion are empty.

Pugno responds that voting didn’t really change when women were allowed to vote. History might disagree. The effects of women voting were pronounced and dramatic. The world, and this country specifically, would be a very different place without universal suffrage. But even if we take Pugno’s point on its surface, that the definition of marriage would be changed, it doesn’t take much more than a few google searches or a little time with a history book or two to realize that the concept of marriage is and has been a hodgepodge across the nations. Pugno’s definition, while perhaps true for him, needn’t be given more weight than the definition which excluded miscegenation or the definition of marriage that viewed women as property.

Marriage itself began as a way for human, who were living in caves at the time, to be sure of paternity. In some societies, it became a virtual indentured servitude to the husband. For example, a simple Wikipedia search for marriage will net you several different definitions. The Comanches and Ancient Greeks used marriage to subjugate, the medieval Europeans saw love as antithetical to marriage, and used it as a means of sealing political bonds. In fact, early Christian rulers almost always forced their daughters and siblings into marriages for their games of political chess. The fact behind all this ranting is that you can only use tautology for so long. Eventually, you need some real facts. And throughout this entire case, all we’ve seen is more empty vessels. Even NPR remarked today that Blankenhorn was the fifth defense expert who ended up giving testimony that favored the plaintiffs.

Today, the dust should settle on the testimony, and the judge will move on to consider the evidence before him. We should get a date for closing arguments soon, but we will definitely keep you posted.

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/

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.

(Well worth a read. Leave a comment so Kerry will come blog more. – promoted by Julia Rosen)

In “A Year Later and Where are We” on Unite the Fight, Rev. Roland Stringfellow challenges our Equality Movement if we have embraced the lessons we learned during and after the No on Prop 8 campaign:

Here we are a year later and where do we find ourselves in the fight for marriage equality in California?  Two major camps debating on whether to return to the ballot in 2010 or 2012 and we have to ask ourselves the question, “Have we learned from our mistakes?”  Are egos and attitudes being altered in order for power to be shared and different voices heard?  Has a clear strategy been created and presented?  And what about our motivation – are we still angry and humiliated from our loss a year ago that we are planning to return to the polls with revenge?

While Rev. Stringfellow suggests some answers, he more importantly calls on us to self-evaluate. We are asking voters and society to recognize the dignity of LGBT people, but are we recognizing the value and dignity of those different from us? Of those who live on the East side, over the bridge or in the middle? Of those with whom we disagree about 2010 or 2012? Even of those who do not yet recognize our inherent human dignity as LGBT people?

We politicos are strategic thinkers and implementers who focus much of our energy on winning campaigns, but to achieve permanence in our victories we must ask and answer these questions.

Our campaign-driven focus helps us to win, but our Movement will ensure the effects of that win will last. Faith traditions are powerful examples of movements surviving and persevering over time, sometimes in the face of persecution. They survive because they ask the big questions and because they know the sustaining value of gathering in community. Across denominations, the core value in faith communities is relationship – relationship with one another, with their particular tradition and with something greater than themselves. It has sustained faith communities for thousands of years.

In my Jewish tradition, one of the first songs a child learns is hineh ma tov u’mah na’im shevet ahim gam yahad, loosely translated “How good it is to be together in relationship again.” Just as our Equality Movement needs campaign-driven focus, we need again to realize how good it is to be united in our purpose: Equality for ALL people.

One year later, our Equality Movement must learn this lesson in order to persevere.

On November 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th, Keeping the Faith for Equality events throughout California give us this opportunity for relationship. One year later, CA Faith for Equality, Courage Campaign, Equality California, Marriage Equality USA, and many, many other organizations and faith communities are gathering not to dwell on our loss a year ago, but to embrace the lessons we learned from that loss. Visit www.keepingthefaithforequality.org to find an event in your area.

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.

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.

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.

(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.