( – promoted by Be_Devine)

UPDATE by Brian: You can find the decision here if the court's site isn't working for you.  

Building off the earlier open thread – In a 6-1 decision, the California Supreme Court upheld the validity of Prop 8. It held that a bare majority of California's voters has the right to single out an unpopular group and strip them of fundamental rights.

The only justice on the right side of history is Justice Moreno.

The Court held that a constitutional revision occurs only when it makes “far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan.”  Anything else is an amendment an can be passed by a bare majority.  The court held that the effect of Prop 8 is “only” one of nomenclature, and thus it does not make any changes to the nature of our government plan. 

Justice Werdegar was the only justice in the majority who is intellectually honest enough to call a spade a spade.  She didn't hide behind the majority's false argument that California's law on revision/amendment distinction has always supported the decision to uphold Prop 8.  Instead, she wrote her own concurring opinion specifically to point out what the majority hides: that the California Supreme Court had to make new law in order to reach its result of upholding Prop 8:

until today the court has gone only so far as to say that “a qualitative revision includes one that involves a change in the basic plan of California government, i.e., a change in its fundamental structure or the foundational powers of its branches.” (Legislature v. Eu, supra, at p. 509, italics added.) Today, the majority changes “includes” to “is,” thus foreclosing other possibilities.

* * *

The history of our California Constitution belies any suggestion that the drafters envisioned or would have approved a rule, such as that announced today, that affords governmental structure and organization more protection from casual amendment than civil liberties.

This is judicial activism at its worst.  Today, the Supreme Court significantly narrowed the definition of what is a “revision” that has been California law since the 1894 case of Livermore v. Waite. They invented a new definition only because it would suit the result that they wanted.  And the result that the Court wanted so much that they were willing to create new law is to strip a previously protected minority of its fundamental civil rights.

Today is a sad, sad day in California's history.

While you weren’t paying attention, the LA Times got word of the Supreme Court decision on Prop 8. No, they don’t actually have any word from the court, but “some people are saying”:

The California Supreme Court is expected to uphold Proposition 8, November’s ballot measure banning same-sex marriage, with a decision coming in the next few weeks.(LAT 5/7/09)

Oh, well, if some people are saying, then it must be true.

The article goes on to talk about the broad-based, grassroots movement for repeal of Prop 8. Throughout the state, you have what we never had in the run-up to Prop 8, a true neighbor to neighbor outreach program.  We have more field efforts now, before there is even a measure filed with the AG’s office, than we ever did during the “campaign.” From established Progressive and LGBT organizations to brand new grassroots teams, this thing is bubbling up.  Just like Jaws: The Revenge, this time it’s personal, because also like Jaws: The Revenge, Prop 8 was a horrible movie.

But, this is still the first time that progressives have ever worked to put an affirmative measure before the people. The Right’s GOTV “marriage protection” measure Prop 22 got well over 60% of the vote, yet Prop 8 just barely squeaked by.  The tide is turning. But of course, the Right wants to freeze time right there:

“There’s no doubt the other side is going to try to make great hay out of Iowa and Maine . . . but none of those places are California. And California voters have now twice voted on this,” he said. “What part of ‘No’ don’t they understand?”

Well, this is just rich, coming from California’s Social Right. How many times has parental notification gone down now? Let’s see, there was Prop 73, then Prop 85, and then Prop 4. So, that would be 3, or, to be exact, 3 more times than progressives have tried to put marriage equality on the ballot.  Really, Mr. Schubert? You are going to use that line and expect to get away with brutalizing the scions of logic?

Oh, surely Socrates and Plato are spinning wildly in their graves right about now.

By now, most of us have seen the despicable ad unleashed in several key states this week in response to our two historic victories in Iowa and Vermont.

It was commissioned by the National Organization for Marriage (but only if you’re straight) whose website reveals some of their misleading tactics, thoroughly dissected on Pam’s this morning. 

What strikes me most is their desperation.  Turning themselves into victims is the only weapon the anti-LGBT industry has left.  Yes on 8’s Frank Schubert himself has said that attacking LGBT folks directly doesn’t work anymore.  We can be thankful for that, but must we must learn to effectively respond with the truth to this new tactic.     

To succeed, opponents of the freedom to marry must convince moderates that loving, married same-sex couples somehow pose them a risk.  They must stir up enough fear and doubt that otherwise fair-minded people will err on the side of discrimination. 

They claim this is not just about marriage.  They’re right. 

As their ad implies, they want to hurt LGBT people any which way they can.  This is part of a much larger anti-LGBT agenda to dismantle existing rights.

Tuesday, there will be a hearing on a suit in federal court against SB 777, a law sponsored by Equality California and authored by Senator Sheila Kuehl, requiring basic nondiscrimination protections for LGBT students in California public schools.  EQCA has joined with other civil rights groups to fight this unfair attack on youth. This has nothing to do with “redefining marriage” but the usual suspects are all over it.”

It’s easy to laugh at this ad with its hokey special effects and its saccharine melodramatics. One of the suggestions on its accompanying website was that people fight against marriage equality by eating at fast-food chain El Pollo Loco!  Yet they cry foul when Prop 8 opponents vote with their dollars. It’s indeed easy to laugh, but these extremists are not to be dismissed.  

The Yes on 8 campaign subjected the LGBT community to untold trauma, as we were forced to watch our neighbors and fellow Californians turn on us, stripping us of our rights and dignity. 

Opponents of the freedom to marry say they don’t want their children to learn about same-sex couples, yet they’re spending millions of dollars to broadcast this garbage in homes all across the country.  

Likewise, ads like this one create a toxic environment, and send homophobic and transphobic messages to our nation’s youth.  In recent years we’ve seen an increase in anti-LGBT hate crimes, and just yesterday we saw the suicide by hanging of an eleven-year-old-boy who had been relentlessly bullied and taunted at school—just because other students perceived him as gay.  

This isn’t just about marriage.  This is about our very lives.  

—Geoff Kors, Equality California

Reposted from the California Ripple Effect.

How do you get voters in a supposedly tolerant state like California to vote to take away rights from people without making yourself look like a hateful bigot in the process? Simple – you cast yourself as a victim of hate, even though you’re the one trying to take rights away from people.

One of the most powerful weapons in the Yes on Prop 8 campaign’s arsenal was the argument that same-sex marriage rights would somehow limit religious or parental freedoms. The No on 8 campaign never effectively countered this, and this conservative victimology helped insulate Prop 8 supporters from being called to account for their bigotry.

As the marriage equality movement racks up victory after victory – Iowa, Vermont, and soon New Hampshire – the opponents of equal rights are plotting their counterattack. The National Organization for Marriage is running this creepy ad shown at right arguing that a “storm” is coming – that the “rights” of religious people and parents to teach hate and inequality are under attack by those damn liberals who want to turn all your children gay.

Their arguments are based on lies, and always have been – marriage equality in California wouldn’t have changed how preachers preach or how teachers teach, and Vermont’s new marriage law makes clear that religious freedom is still respected.

But these arguments are also powerful. Conservative victimology has been one of the key methods by which Prop 8 supporters have escaped responsibility for their actions or even acknowledging what Prop 8 was – an attack on the legal equality of thousands of Californians merely for their sexual orientation. When framed this way the Yes on 8 position becomes almost unassailable, immune to criticism. “They’re just protecting their freedoms,” we’re supposed to think, and not be allowed to ask them to face the realities of what they have done, not be allowed to criticize them for voting to take away equal rights and destroy existing marriages, and not be allowed to act with our own conscience by demanding equal rights for everyone. Each of those acts is cast as an aggressive and hurtful act, where the oppressed are cast as oppressors.

Pam Spaulding puts it well:

These folks have nothing left in the tool box after the Iowa ruling decimated the excuse that religious opposition should govern civil law. So now the folks at the National Organization for Marriage have decided to send out e-blasts and a new video that uses a multi-racial set of actors to portray the aggrieved heterosexuals affected by same-sex couples being allowed to marry.

You might laugh at these fundnuts, but they are crafty, and don’t mind continuing to promote outright lies and deception.

Jeremy at Good As You has an excellent video response:

We’re winning the battle for equal rights. But to ensure that equal rights prevail across the nation – and here in California – we have to push back against these lies.

UPDATED by Brian: It seems the audition videos tape was leaked, and it’s now on YouTube. Yay, fun!  Nothing makes you cynical like seeing a bunch of actors saying the same thing, because they, you know, really care about it.  Check the video (h/t CapAlert) over the flip.

(Now also in Orange – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

I’m doing my taxes today.  It’s always a fun weekend around the house. Or, well, completely devoid of fun is a better description.  At any rate, you all have been there so I don’t need to describe the emotions of the tax weekend.

But guess what? I get extra super duper fun! As one of the lucky 18,000 or so couples that got married in California, we get to also prepare a phony federal tax form that will not actually be filed.  Because somehow the federal government doesn’t really need to give full faith and credit to the marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples.

I posted the news on the book of faces today that I’d be doing the glorious chore of taxes, and friend of Calitics, Chad Jones, spoke up:

We paid an extra Gay Tax not being able to file our federal return jointly. It’s a total pain in the ass to have to do a phony federal return to base your state taxes on (which makes the Gay Tax glaringly obvious). And the FTB can’t handle electronic filing from same-sex couples so you have to mail it in and wait for your refund.

Like Chad, we too will be paying the gay tax. There is simply no other reason than our sexuality that we are paying this tax. I’m not going all anti-tax here, it’s just that I don’t see the reason that one couple should be treated differently than another for tax purposes.

Just as a reminder to all any judges who happen across the issue, this is actually in the constitution:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. (U.S. Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 1)

But, really the failure of courts to enforce the full faith and credit is a bigger issue than taxes, it has a larger effect on our system of property generally.  In a very real way, that we don’t apply this clause allows people to escape valid obligations. It is a crack in the greater “Rule of Law.” Or, well, Harvard Law Professor Joseph William Singer said it a lot better just after the Massachusetts marriages were performed:

Now that same sex marriages have been occurring in Massachusetts for almost a year, the issue of interstate recognition is no longer merely a theoretical issue. Most scholars have either argued that the full faith and credit clause does not mandate recognition of same sex marriages or that it does so for limited purposes or for marriages of Massachusetts residents but not nonresidents seeking to evade their restrictive home state marriage laws. This article argues that the full faith and credit clause should be interpreted to require interstate recognition of same sex marriages validly celebrated in Massachusetts and that Congress does not have the power to deny such recognition under the “effects thereof” language of the full faith and credit clause. Rather than focusing on the rights of same sex couples to have their valid Massachusetts marriages recognized elsewhere, we should focus on the obligations inherent in the marriage relationship. Both Congress and the majority of states have passed so-called Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs). If these laws are constitutional, they effectively authorize partners in same sex marriages to relocate to other states and evade their obligations as spouses and parents under Massachusetts law. Those states have made themselves havens for fleeing debtors. Using traditional and modern choice-of-law analysis, as well as analogies to the law of divorce and corporate governance, this article argues that the full faith and credit clause should be interpreted to require recognition of marriages that are valid where celebrated to avoid inconsistent obligations, to allow free interstate travel and commerce, and to prevent the states from authorizing married partners to walk away from their concededly valid and persisting obligations under Massachusetts law. (Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties)

Eventually, the issue of marriage equality will all get sorted out.  After all, the arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice. But in the interim, there is no “tax fairness” and the rule of law itself bends as the tortured logic of bigotry pushes it to its limits.

And so we wait on that arc to continue its bend.

We haven’t had a funny Prop 8 video here for a while, so here’s a really good one:

The Mormon Church went to great lengths to hide their invovlement in the Prop 8 campaign.  Sure, we all know that they were deeply engaged, but Fred Karger, of Californians Against Hate, alleges that they deliberately obfuscated their activities, in violation of California’s Political Reform Act.  Karger previously filed a complaint alleging unreported contributions, which the Mormon church later admitted and filed an amended report.

This one takes a slightly different angle. Karger argues that the Mormon Church set up an organization, the National Organization for Marriage, with the express purpose of passing Prop 8, and then funded that without properly reporting. While complete records aren’t available, it is believed that over $2 Million passed through NOM, with little reporting on where that money came from.

The pattern follows, almost eerily, the pattern that the Mormons used to pass a marriage amendment in Hawaii in the late 90s.  If you are interested in the Mormon Church’s involvement in the Prop 8 campaign, I recommend you check out the full letter detailing the NOM organization at the Californians Against Hate blog.

Bill Clinton must make a choice.  He must decide whether a speech for big bucks is more important than honoring a labor and activist boycott. On Feb. 15, the former President is scheduled to make a speech at the Manchester Hyatt.  

As a refresher, Mr. Manchester gave some of the initial seed money to get Proposition 8 on the ballot, $125,000 to be exact.  Since then, a coalition of labor, LGBT, and grassroots organizations has promoted a boycott against the hotel.  And it has been quite successful, with groups such as the American Assoc. of Law Schools moving their events.

But our former Democratic president still seems intent on breaking the boycott. That’s why a diverse coalition of leaders has taken an ad out in the New York Daily News to ask him not to break the boycott.  You can check the ad to the right, and in context at the Daily News politics blog. Also, read the full letter at their site, moveclintonspeech.info. It’s signed by leaders like San Diego city councilman Todd Gloria, Unite-HERE Local 30 president Brigette Browning, San Diego Dem. County Chair  and DNC member Jess Durfee, and the Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs.

Rest assured that if Clinton plans on busting the boycott, he’ll have to pretend he doesn’t notice the rally outside.  Activists from around the region are planning on protesting the speech.  Clinton should move the speech or just not give it.  Together, we will bend the arc of history for justice.  But we must be united.

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.

I’m now sitting in a rather large ballroom type venue in the LA Convention Center.  All around me is an amazing collection of LGBT (and allies) leaders.  In some respects, no matter the forum, it has to be a positive thing just to get these people all in one room. I’m ready to play the name game or something with all these cool people.

After an inspiring invocation, the meeting actually began with a panel discussing what happened.  The panel sounded great, like it was the Obama team calling down from on high about their great victories.  The only problem, of course, is that we didn’t win.  The field team discussed their goals and what actually happened.  And as somebody who did some volunteering on the campaign, I can affirmatively say there were some big ol’ rose colored glasses going on here.

There was glorification of the Let California Ring program.  Don’t get me wrong, it was an enormously successful education campaign, but that’s where the successes ended.  When the transition to the campaign occurred, it seemed like we lost our way.  But yet, we learned of the goals  of the campaign, and their numbers.  They reached 180K voters, but volunteerism could have been so much stronger.  Their best laid plans either never came to fruition or suffered from poor execution.

I appreciated the information, but the problem is still the same.  This is a top-down lecture, with little interaction.  That is, until Mollie McKay and the Marriage Equality USA Team came on to point out what went wrong with the campaign.  Mollie went on to provide a real-world look at what happened.  What we heard for the next 15 minutes was the best summary of the failures of the campaign.  They had a great powerpoint presentation, that I hope to get a digital copy to post online soon. I don’t know that I’ve seen an applause like that on a speech regarding Prop 8 since, well, the election.  Their main points:

* Clergy leaders were underutilized by the campaign

* Leaders of color were underutilitzed by the campaign

* No on 8 ads lacked heart and LGBT people

* Prop 8 creates dangerous situations for children and families

* No on 8 field plan lacked visibility and missed potential volunteers

* The No on 8 Campaign abandoned the Central Valley

You can also find their reports at http://marriageequality.org  

More to come.