Leadership Summit Held Day After Meet in the Middle, Shown Live on Unite The Fight

Sunday, May 31st, the day after Meet in the Middle, a statewide Leadership Conference is being held in Fresno, CA discuss the next steps of the equality movement.

This will be a neutrally hosted Sunday brunch by the organizers of Meet in the Middle to discuss different organizations' future work, possible cross-promotion opportunities, and the need for a Prop 8 repeal campaign collaboration. This is simply a "get-to-know our organizations" meeting.

The No on 8 campaign will NOT be repeated.

BIG NEWS: Unite the Fight and SheWired just got clearance to broadcast the meeting live.

The Leadership Summit can be viewed here at Unite the Fight starting tomorrow at 10am PST, or on Unite the Fight's Qik Channel.

Equality California Joins Grassroots in Fight for Marriage Equality

Equality California (EQCA) announced yesterday its new campaign Win Marriage Back. Make It Real!, their first public step in joining the grassroots in laying the groundwork for a new campaign to repeal Prop 8 if the California Supreme Court rules to uphold it.

Just this past weekend, the Courage Campaign announced its support for a 2010 initiative, and now with the EQCA joining in on the call, these two organizations among many other grassroots groups have given a solid signal to California that marriage equality will beckoning the state once again. And soon.

On a phone call with donors today, EQCA's new Marriage Director Marc Solomon and Executive Director Geoff Kors said their new campaign push will be two-fold. First, joining in the grassroots efforts in community organizing, and second, telling the stories of LGBT families who were adversely affected by Prop 8, the lack of which was a major criticism of the No on 8 campaign in which EQCA was major player.

The first point will be met by hiring 25 field organizers in all parts of the state to reach out to their communities and neighborhoods. In the call, a reference was made to Courage Campaign's amazing Camp Courage, a two-day training event designed to teach the principals and skills of community organizing to activists working to restore marriage equality in California. Courage Campaign has invested over a $100,000 in these camps, raised by on-line matching grant donations from the Dolby Family among others.

EQCA will be relying heavily on the hundreds of camp graduates. The camps have so far been held in Los Angeles, Fresno, San Diego, Oakland and coming up soon in Sacramento and East LA, all areas that EQCA plans to do outreach.

Graduates of the camps have set up successful Equality Teams throughout the state that engage the electorate in phonebanking, canvassing and more, with voter information provided to them through the Courage Campaign's Equality Hub. This giving away of information has been hailed as unprecedented because it gives anyone who wants to make a difference for equality in their own area the chance to succeed.

EQCA plans to contribute to the canvassing efforts starting this weekend with a goal of reaching 45,000 doors in 100 days. With the resulting information that is gathered, it will be used alongside other grassroots organizations, such as canvassing experts Marriage Equality USA, to build a stronger campaign.

The second point of the new push are two new tv ads that feature LGBT families. Having heard the sharp criticisms of the No on 8 campaign's refusal to show the faces of the LGBT population and its variety, and seeing how successful the Courage Campaign's record-breaking video, "Fidelity, Don't Divorce Us" has been, EQCA will be releasing their own ads on TV this weekend.



See the second ad here.

EQCA working alongside grassroots is a remarkable change since the No on 8 campaign during which the grassroots felt shut out. The failure of the campaign woke a sleeping giant throughout the nation, but particularly in California, displayed prominently in the massive rallies and protests that followed.

Even more remarkable is that EQCA, along with Courage Campaign, Marriage Equality USA, FAIR, Equal Roots and more, have all chipped in together on the costs of polling, and with the resulting information, all groups will be armed to work together on the new initiative campaign if needed.

Since the November election, the grassroots has grown stronger and more organized, its full force to be seen on the Saturday following the Supreme Court's ruling on Prop 8. Win or lose, thousands will Meet in the Middle in Fresno, CA, the heart of Yes on 8 territory, not only to show numbers, but to stand in solidarity for equality for all.

Just recently, academy award winning actress Charlize Theron issued a letter through the Courage Campaign, urging everyone, especially straight allies, to show support by meeting in Fresno.

EQCA has taken its cue from such organizing. Despite some growing pains in working alongside the grassroots, they will be showing their support by appearing at Meet in the Middle, an event that is sure to launch either a statewide effort to repeal Prop 8 if its upheld, or a nationwide movement for LGBT equality if Prop 8 is thrown out.

Beautiful Video of Testimonies for and Against Prop 8

These testimonies for and against Prop 8 were given in front of the California Assembly Judiciary Committee for HR5, a committee representing the California legislature to decide whether or not they would support overturning Prop 8. This decision would then be given to the California Supreme Court as a recommendation.

No on Prop 8 Campaign Didn't Use Obama Letter

The No on Prop 8 Campaign had a letter from, at the time, presidential candidate Barack Obama, citing that he did not support Prop 8. But they didn't use it. It makes one scratch one's head. Again.

"That was a close call,” says Steve Smith, No on 8 Campaign consultant. “Maybe we should have used it.”

Maybe? With the Yes on 8 blasting ads that construed that the candidate did in fact support Prop 8, what was there to think about? But thankfully, they have released the letter.

Here it is:

Dear Friends,

Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pridc Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

For too long. issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

It hurts to read, knowing that it wasn't used. However, it's encouraging to know how much our president is behind us. Let's look forward!

Marriage Equality USA's Equality Summit Presentation

Many people, both those who attended the Equality Summit and those who didn't, have asked to see the roof-raising report that Molly McKay and Pamela Brown of Marriage Equality USA presented at the meeting, which was greeted with a standing ovation.

Thanks to Pamela Brown, I now have a copy for you to view. I wish I could equally portray the fervor and passion that Pamela and Molly gave to the presentation, but if you get a chance to see them speak again, I'd advise you not to miss it.

NOTE: Appears the host for the document is having issues. It does lead you to a download link. You can find the presentation there.

UPDATE: Op-Ed: Prop 8 - Ours to Lose? Nope.

UPDATE: Matt Foreman's Op-Ed has caused quite a stir. This is always good because it forces people to see the campaign from a different perspective, possibly learning something along the way. But it's also caused sharp criticism of Matt's argument. Terry Leftgoff, whose original review of the campaign motivated Matt's breakdown, is working on a counter response. Stay tuned.

Matt Foreman program director of The Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, has written an op-ed piece on the No on 8 Campaign. Instead of focusing on where it went wrong, he focuses on the near insurmountable obstacles of changing views on marriage in 90 days. (This is an indirect response to Terry Leftgoff's evaluation of the No on 8 campaign.

California's Proposition 8--Ours to Lose? Nope. It was always an Uphill Climb.

A lot of people have been saying that Prop 8 was our side's to lose and that missteps by the No on 8 Campaign snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Those analyses ignore hard core obstacles and fundamentals underlying the contest, including how hard it is to hold and move opinions on marriage in the narrow confines of a campaign.

I need to start by saying that I had nothing to do with the No on 8 Campaign. Because the Evelyn & Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, where I work, has been so deeply involved in public education work in support of marriage equality, the law literally precluded any contact or coordination with the electoral campaign. So, as a purely armchair quarterback it's pretty easy for me to catalogue things I -- in my infinite wisdom -- would have done differently. But I also know that even if everything -- every single thing -- had gone our way, it still would have been incredibly hard to win by anything more than a tiny margin. Here's why.

Putting Minority Rights Up to a Popular Vote: the Difficulty of Winning

First off, it's nearly impossible for minorities to win or defend their rights at the ballot box. Californians have demonstrated that time and again, voting to outlaw affirmative action, to deny grade school education and non-emergency medical care to undocumented children, and to specifically permit race discrimination in housing. This profound disadvantage was exacerbated by the fact that marriage is in a class by itself as an issue. Everyone has an intimate, personal relationship with marriage and has an opinion -- usually visceral -- about it. True, over time people are moving toward marriage -- we've quite amazingly gained about one point per year since 2000. But within the narrow time constraints of a campaign -- under 90 days -- it is pure fancy to think there's a "movable middle" on marriage. At best there was movable sliver.

More on that in a bit.

Our Opponents' Base -- Huge, Solid, Energized

Second, the other side had a huge, largely unmovable, energized base. We didn't. No surprise but they had older people all sewn up. While we won among all voters under 65, more than two-thirds (67%) of voters 65 or older voted for Prop 8. That alone -- yes, alone -- was enough to override our majority support among all younger age groups. Anyone who thinks a 90-day campaign -- even a flawless one -- is going to overcome the imprint of homophobia on those born before World War II needs to think again.

More...

In addition to older people, the other side also had a stranglehold on regular churchgoers. More than two-thirds (70%) of people who worship at least once a week voted for Prop 8 and they make up nearly half (45%) of the electorate. Yes, our side got an equally large proportion of people who hardly ever attend church (70%), but they comprise only 29% of the vote. Anyone who thinks it is easy to overcome homophobia that's reinforced on a weekly basis from a person's own house of worship doesn't appreciate the role of religion in so many people's lives or its pervasive
use as a rationale for voting for Prop 8: an astonishing 94% of "Yes" voters said "religion" or the "Bible" was most influential in deciding how to vote.

What does combining older voters, frequent churchgoers and Republicans (81% of who voted for Prop 8) yield? A rock solid, close to 50% of the vote, that's what. How solid? Nearly three-quarters (73%) of those who voted for Prop 8 said nothing -- that's right, nothing -- would have changed their mind. And almost all of the rest of them couldn't really name anything real that would have changed their minds. For example, the most common answer offered by these folks was "calling same sex marriage
by another name" -- an option not on the ballot.

Does this mean we can't ever move older voters, Republicans and frequent churchgoers? Of course not. My parents -- both 76, conservative Republicans and devout Catholics -- are prime examples. While they could not be more pro-marriage now, I know in my heart that it's only because my partner (now spouse) and I have been a part of their lives for years -- we could never have moved them in the 90 days the Prop 8 campaign essentially had.

Support on Our Side -- Smaller and Squishy

Our side? Not so big and not so solid. At best, we LGBT people make up 6% of the vote and unlike the fervor from our opponents' much larger base we weren't united on marriage equality. (Two polls said 5% of the LGBT community -- or 1% of the total vote -- actually voted "Yes.") I'm still hearing the refrain "I don't know why we're fighting for marriage -- I don't believe in it" or "It's not my issue." I think this is because for years we've mainly presented marriage as a package of rights -- like a
better dental plan -- than what it's really about, recognition of equal humanity. Whatever the reasons -- they were united and energized; we weren't.

But more important, unlike our opponents, our base beyond LGBT people is squishy on its leading edge. Going into the Prop 8 contest, only a slim majority of Californians (54%) even believed that our relationships are moral. (This figure also was our high point in the superficial public pre-election polls to which so much significance was attached.) This slim majority is all our side had to work with. After all, no one who thinks we're immoral is going to vote to protect our access to the ultimate societal institution used to judge and control sex, procreation and "family values." At the same time, it's hardly a given that people who do not see us as immoral are automatically for marriage equality.

The Ick Factor

In fact, many of those people are still deeply uncomfortable with homosexuality. This "ick" is and always has been our Achilles heel, something our opponents skillfully exploit time and again. Lots of folks I respect have been saying if only the No on 8 Campaign had put up or hit back with forceful, to-the-heart ads featuring gay and lesbian families -- instead of those soft ones with parents or surrogates like Sen. Diane Feinstein -- we would have won. I desperately want to agree, but can't.

The sad reality is that our movables get all wobbly -- they blanch, they stammer, they get visibly uncomfortable -- when faced with the reality of our couples, our families, our children. I've personally seen it dozens of times in focus groups, in one-on-one interviews, and in my own life and my friends' lives. Ads, for example, that make you and me cheer don't work with them at all, they backfire.

What's this about? The short answer is that the ick factor is alive and festering even among people who want to suppress it. These are people who truly want to be fair and who don't want to hurt other people. At the same time, they remain deeply uncomfortable with homosexuality and marriage goes right to the heart of their discomfort, given that sex is central to marriage.

Ads that Move Us Don't Move those We Need to Move

In 2004, when I was at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, we -- like so many people now -- were sick of our side resorting to intellectualized arguments like "Don't write discrimination into the constitution" when the other side was going for arguments that hit the heart and emotions. We were frustrated that our side's campaigns almost never put up ads showing our families speaking in emotion-based arguments in support of marriage.

With no small amount of self-righteousness, we taped a dozen ads featuring gay and lesbian couples speaking from the heart, many with heart-wrenching stories. LGBT loved them. But when we showed them to voters who were opposed to anti-gay discrimination but weren't there on marriage (that is, the movables) all we were able to get from a few people was a hint of empathy, but absolutely no movement on marriage. It was stunning -- incredibly hard to witness. Our elaborately planned campaign had to be scrapped -- we couldn't justify spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on something that made us feel good but didn't move anyone else.

Closer to home, nearly three years ago the Haas, Jr. Fund, Gill Foundation, the David Bohnett Foundation, Ambassador Jim Hormel and others invested nearly $500,000 to understand what would move Californians to support marriage equality and how to address the deeply conflicting views the mushy middle holds about LGBT equality. Once again, ads featuring gay people -- individuals or couples or families -- just did not work. What did work were messages that pushed people to think about the issue in a
new way, namely, asking them how would they feel if they were in our shoes. But again, gay and lesbian people didn't work as the messengers.

That's where the "Garden Wedding" ad came from -- the message being delivered silently by a bride facing numerous obstacles trying to get down the aisle that ended with the tagline "What if you couldn't marry the person you love?". Did I like the ad? Absolutely not.



Did it work? Absolutely. Let California Ring conducted rigorous testing in the Santa Barbara media market last year. A baseline poll found that only 36% of people there supported marriage equality, 8-10 points below the state average. That was followed by a substantial buy for the Garden Wedding ad, coupled with field organizing. A follow-up poll showed that support for marriage equality grew significantly, including a 16% jump among younger voters (as opposed to zero growth in markets where the campaign did not run). More tellingly, on Election Day, Santa Barbara defeated Prop 8 by 10 points (compared to it passing Prop 22 by 14 points in 2000). Santa Barbara was the only county in Southern California to vote No on 8 and the only thing that was different was the Garden Wedding campaign.

Why did it work? Instead of asking viewers to accept a gay couple -- which was simply too much too much for many people -- the ad provided them a way to be empathetic that was more comfortable to them. This made the issue about who they are -- fair minded, not bigoted -- rather than about whether they approve of gay relationships. Sadly, our side was unable to raise the millions required to take the ad statewide in the years and months before Prop 8 qualified for the ballot. Part of this failing was the simple reality that it's very hard to raise money in the absence of a campaign and crisis; the other main reason was that gay donors didn't understand the power and appeal of the ad and didn't step up to fund it.

Where Gay and Lesbian People Don't Make Good Messengers and Where They Do

Here's another painful reality all this research again showed: using gay and lesbian people as messengers not only failed to move people in our direction, it actually hurt us -- driving movables against marriage equality. Over and over the same result: showing them ads with gay and lesbian individuals or couples pushed people the wrong way. And ads that included children with their gay or lesbian parents did even worse. That's why the "Yes on 8" campaign so prominently featured children in its ads.

Think about friends who tell you their relatives are OK with them being gay or lesbian so long as they don't talk about it. Why do so many of us find it so incredibly hard to bring up gay issues with co-workers or when we visit our families over the holidays? Or when we do, what about the painful silence or uncomfortable glances that so often follow? Think your Aunt Jane -- who's only recently started to be nice to your partner -- is going to see a television ad and suddenly think, "Darn, I've been wrong all along about this gay marriage thing!"? Think again.

I am not saying we shouldn't be putting our lives, stories and faces front and center over and over again or that we can't move people solidly to our side. Most of us have seen how taking our lives up close and personal to people around us does, in fact, create change. Moreover, having these direct, real conversations is the only way we're ever going to squelch the ick and inoculate voters from attacks that exploit it.

What I am saying is that we can't leave this hard work until the last minute -- which is what a campaign really is. We can't expect some brilliantly crafted ads -- coming from our collective heart -- to be the silver bullets that kill anti-marriage ballot initiatives in the heat of a campaign, when there is no time and the other side is assaulting our movables with carefully crafted messages designed to exploit every
anti-gay fear and myth. Instead, we need to move people beyond short-term political campaigns and before they get underway.

Moving Forward

Yes, I do think we could have won -- by a fraction of a point -- if everything had gone our way. But everything didn't go our way, including mistakes our side undoubtedly made and things beyond our control like the Mormon President/Prophet's ordering his faithful to fuel the "Yes" campaign. That gave our opponents a two-to-one money advantage 60 days out, something few campaigns of any sort, anywhere, are able to overcome.

As numbing, insulting and painful as our loss was, let's take real pride in the fact that we moved the needle nine points on marriage -- yes, marriage -- in less than eight years. Of course we must face up to and learn from our missteps. But rather than getting caught up in endless recriminations of our recent loss, let's focus on the long term work ahead -- how to build our social movement to win complete equality in California and across the nation.

From a big picture view that means ramping up education and organizing within churches, among younger voters, and in people of color and rural communities. But more important it is what each of us can and must do everyday: having those hard, from the heart talks with our friends, neighbors, relatives and co-workers. Time is once again on our side, let's make the most of it.

UPDATE: A Unite the Fight Report on the EQCA Summit

UPDATE: An article from the San Francisco Gate on the Summit.

Equality California's Equality Summit was defined as "a gathering of community leaders committed to winning back marriage equality in California to network, share information and resources, and plan next steps" on the organization's page, and though EQCA obviously spent a lot of time tailoring an agenda to meet this definition, the many grassroots organizations that attended had other agendas in mind. One in particular: holding the leaders accountable for the failure of the No on 8 campaign.

After a peaceful invocation by Rabbi Denise Eger and Rev. Jonipher Kwong, the latter cracking the smart joke that he didn't need to define invocation after what happened with Rick Warren, the light mood quietly turned sour as the staff and Executive Committee of the failed campaign took the stage. (Panel: Chad Griffin of Griffin-Schake; Yvette Martinez, political director; Sarah Reece of the TASK Force; Kate Kendall, Executive Director National Center for Lesbian Rights; Geoff Kors, Executive Director Equality California; Lorri L. Jean, CEO of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center; Chris Maliwat, the campaign's web strategy director who came late in the game - others listed were Julie Davis, Delores Jacobs and Marty Rouse who were not on the stage.)

After perfunctory summaries told by rote from the panel about what happened and what "might've" gone wrong, nothing that hadn't been heard before, a half hour had gone by and attendees were getting fed up and the tension was palpable. One note to mention was Chris Maliwat, who began his portion by saying he didn't begin his job until five weeks before the election and he was just a volunteer. Of course, this illicited shouted responses from the attendees as to why the committee had waited so long to put together the essential web campaign. It's no secret that the No on 8 website was a disastrous failure.

Lorri Jean responded that the campaign had essentially begun in 2005, and after the initial launch and death of the original site, by the time they really needed to relaunch, the money had dried up. They also said they used Black Rock, who they weren't happy with.

The room really began to sizzle when Marriage Equality USA's Molly McKay and Pamela Brown took the stage, issuing an in-depth report with a power point presentation on the mistakes of the campaign, citing information that their organization knew before the election and that had been ignored by the campaign's executive committee, and what needed to be done next. (The reports can be found on the organization's home page) They really drove it home and received a standing ovation afterward.

More...

Many at this point wanted to hold the Q&A, interrupting the moderator with their demands, but David Binder of David Binder Research, presented his statistics on Proposition 8 Post-Election California Survey, an in-depth report that EQCA said will be posted on their site soon.

So when a Q&A finally came up, it was pretty brutal. The event planners collected the questions on 3x5 cards and "organized them by topic." This section was moderated by Karen Ocamb, news editor of IN Los Angeles Magazine. Though she tried to begin by having each panelist member answer what went right and wrong with the campaign, and how to heal the rift between leaders and grassroots, the attendees became extremely vocal in overruling her, pressing for their questions to be answered.

With neutral questions handpicked from the submitted cards being asked (such as comparing stats on those who voted for Obama and those who voted "No"), the attendees started speaking up, asking follow-up questions and not heeding the moderator. At one point, one of the event organizers grabbed a mike and said, "These people worked long and hard on the campaign. They did the best they could!" She got a standing ovation from another part of the crowd, but many people stayed seated.

Robin Tyler, activist and one-half of one of the couples who fought in the courts for the right to marry, even had to stand up at one point and said, "Hey, we're all on the same side. We have to work together now." Lori Jean later in the session grabbed the mike said, "Hey, there were other people involved in the campaign as well. It wasn't just us!" (She was referring to Geoff Kors) She went on to mention that they had at least showed up to talk about the campaign.

Karen, the moderator, did push for answers on using gay consultants for the campaign, and not handing it off to straight, professional political consultants who didn't understand the LGBT lifestyle. Lori Jean fumbled a bit, trying to find words to answer this question, agreeing that it was a mistake to hand everything over to the consultants and trusting them for the results. She added, "There were no LGBT consultants available." Someone cracked that they didn't even know they exist, and Karen quickly mentioned David Mixner. They didn't have a response. Geoff Korrs echoed Lori Jean, saying instead of the consultants, "It should've been us because it's about our lives." He says he lies awake at night thinking about it.

Another mistake was admitted by Yvette Martinez when she said that the campaign headquarters should've been in Los Angeles. This was met with applause.

It was a feat barely accomplished by the moderators to move on. Assemblymember Tom Ammiano spoke quickly but with great humor, quipping, "Thank you for not throwing a high heel at the panel."

He was followed by Eva Paterson of the Equal Justice Society. Equally funny (she admitted to being extremely nervous about the tough crowd) but full of great insight, she talked about what it was like to be straight and black after the election. With the immediate exit polls saying that 70% of the African American community voted for Prop 8 (which was later disputed to be around 58%), she said she would get hateful glances from gays and "felt for a nanosecond what it was like to be a progressive white" after a discriminatory initiative passed against African Americans. "That quickly passed," she joked.

Her speech focused on trying to reveal why African Americans, especially church going members, voted the way they did. Reminding the crowd that a perversion of Christianity was once used to legitimize slavery, people still actually believe that gay people are going to hell, and after hearing time after time from the pulpit that gays are abominations, it's not hard to understand why they voted the way they did.

Eva opened her speech by repeating what Rev. Kwong did during his invocation - holding a minute of meditative silence to bring back the peace and calm to the group in order to focus on unity.

Unfortunately, it didn't last. Half the attendees disappeared at the lunch break.

Report on the Gloria Allred/Andy Pugno Debate

Steve Zlick of Love, Honor, Cherish has written a guest post for Unite the Fight. Steve attended the debate Wednesday night between Gloria Allred and Andy Pugno, general counsel for Protect Marriage/Yes on 8. Here is his first-hand account.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday night, the National Center for the Preservation of Democracy hosted a debate on Prop 8 between the forces of good and evil. To be specific, it was Gloria Allred, attorney for landmark plaintiffs Robin Tyler and Diane Olson (present among the roughly hundred members of the audience) in their same-sex marriage rights suit against the State of California -vs.- Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com/Yes on Prop 8. Judy Miller of ABC news served as moderator.

The debate concerned the legal issues now before the California Supreme Court in pending lawsuits seeking the repeal of Proposition 8. As passed by voters on November 4, 2008, Prop 8 amends the state constitution such that only marriage between one man and one woman is recognized in California. The three legal questions being considered by the Court, and which were the subject of last night’s debate, are: a) Is Prop 8 an Amendment to OR a revision of the California Constitution? b) Does the passage of Prop 8 violate the separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government? and c) If Prop 8 is upheld, is its effect retroactive in regards to the same-sex marriages legally performed in California?

As objective as I tried to be during the debate, it seemed to me that Gloria pretty much mopped the floor with Andy. It wasn’t merely that he was soft-spoken and tenuous in comparison to Ms. Allred’s somewhat strident confidence, but the points made by Mr. Pugno for the "Yes on 8" side seemed to rely exclusively on the omnipotent right of the Will of The People to be expressed in the California Constitution, for which he provided no legal justification. Pugno repeatedly asserted that the electorate has a right to determine what our constitution says, and dismissed as insignificant the limitations on that right when it comes to revisions versus amendments.

Indeed, both sides acknowledged the current Supreme Court case pretty much hinges on whether Prop 8 was a revision disguised as an amendment, and no one quite knows where the Supreme Court will find that line to be. Allred asserted the Proposition is a revision because its limitations on the judiciary's rights to protect citizens under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution amount to a shift in the basic framework of government. Pugno proffered that Prop 8 is a mere amendment because the people have always had an endemic right to correct the judiciary.

More...

As expected, his main legal reliance was on the 1973 voter amendment which reversed the Supreme Court’s finding that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment. It was a strikingly similar work-around to the current case (i.e, if the Court finds something unconstitutional, the voters simply change the constitution to say it’s not). But Allred adroitly pointed out the big difference: In 1973, the Supreme Court retained the power to determine death penalty matters on a case-by-case basis, but Prop 8 utterly strips the judiciary of its powers in regards to marriage rights.

Still, that voter change to the definition of cruel and unusual punishment and its limitation on the judiciary was upheld by the Supreme Court 35 years ago. The question remains where the Court will stand on the slightly different issue today.

Allred alleged Prop 8 did nothing to change the constitution’s fundamental guarantees of liberty, privacy and equal protection rights, which were the basis of the May 2008 Supreme Court ruling in favor of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. Pugno had no response to the denial of fundamental liberty and privacy rights to a protected minority group - other than to insist the will of the people can overrule such rights. When the moderator asked Pugno if the voters could by simple majority ban interracial marriage or restore the institution of slavery, he had no retort other than that the federal constitution would prohibit such things.

Pugno was similarly evasive throughout the evening. When questioned if same-sex marriages would be nullified if Prop 8 were declared retroactive, he gave an answer worthy of Bill Clinton in his technical definition of "retroactive." The marriages would simply not be recognized, he said, but it would not be as if they had never happened - and thus the effects of Prop 8 would not be "retroactive."

Andy did not score many points with the audience when he raised the issue of child molesters as an example of an area where voters had the authority to limit privacy rights (in requiring registration and neighborhood-notifications). It may have been a pertinent example, but it demonstrated an amazingly tin ear when it came to the sensitivities of his audience. I don’t think he purposely meant to insult the crowd, but it was a callous error on his part.

Likewise, he didn’t come off well in dodging the moderator’s question of whether he personally thought equal marriage rights in California were inevitable. To support his assertion that they were not, he gave examples limited to the current state of the world in which a small minority of nations now acknowledge such rights.

In fact, it was nearly ludicrous how Pugno ignored the march of progress throughout history - and Gloria Allfred took him to task for it. She used this opening to launch into a stirring oration on California's historic role as a beacon of liberty, consistently at the forefront of human rights and equality. It was a wonderful note to end the evening on.

And yet I actually left feeling disappointed with how weak the Yes on 8 arguments seemed.

Still, it’s anybody’s guess how they will seem to the Supreme Court. But the debate left me more confident than ever that Proposition 8 will be overturned by the Court, in a decision expected mid-year by the same Justices who ruled equal marriages rights fundamental to our constitution just last May.

Two Town Halls Held in LA This Past Weekend

Two town halls were held in West Hollywood, CA this past weekend, hosted by Equal Roots and Marriage Equality California consecutively.

The first, held at Plummer Park, featured speakers Robin Tyler, a pioneer in the gay civil rights, grassroots movement and is currently Executive Director of The Equality Campaign; Richard Zalvidar, President and Founder of The Wall Las Memorias Project; and Marshall Wong of API Equality.

Robin was one-half of one of the same-sex couples to sue the State of California for the right to marry, which brought about the May victory in the state. She spoke about her history in the gay rights movement, starting out when she was 16 in Canada holding up signs on streets corners that said, "Gay is good" to Manhattan, where she was beaten and accidentally arrested for being a "female impersonator." Along the way, she worked with Harvey Milk, helped organize several historical marches on Washington, and took on Anita Bryant. She called for the LGBT to flood the streets in March when the Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8 is given - either to say thank you for the repeal, or to protest Prop 8 being upheld. She spoke about handing off the torch to the younger generation, saying, "The Milk Generation and the new generation are now in sync. Welcome to the streets."

More...

Marshall Wong, a native of Silver Lake, CA, a subdivision of Los Angeles, spoke about how his father wanted to buy a plot of land there in the 50s, and was told the realtor company's policy forbid the selling to non-whites. His father fought back and won, and the family moved in despite the locals filing a petition for them to leave. Marshall asked his father why he would still want to live there, and he responded, "Overtime, as they get to know us, they will see past their fears."

Marshall related this story to the LGBT community, saying now is a critical time where marching in West Hollywood won't change anything, but one-on-one contact and conversations will. Forming API to educate the Asian community, he said history was on our side, and that the LGBT community needs to focus on building bridges, even with those who do not appear to be our allies. He ended saying, "Victory will be ours."

Richard Zalvidar spoke next, focusing his message on mobilizing the LGBT community to build coalitions with other minority and straight groups. He said, "It's a give and take." The No on 8 campaign failed to reach out to the African American and Latino communities, and as a result, they've been branded homophobic, when in fact, they are not - they were just not asked to help. He said that we will never have enough votes unless we build a coalition, and to build coalitions, we must support others. He called on LGBT leaders to march with immigrant rights groups, to support other minority initiatives, so that when we need their support, they will be there for us. He called on the community to talk, to reach out and go beyond LGBT neighborhoods.

After the speakers finished, the attendees of the town hall split up into different committees of choice, including media, outreach, and leadership. (To find out how you can be involved, visit Equal Roots website.)

The Marriage Equality town hall, held the next day at West Hollywood Auditorium, was conducted in classic town hall fashion, with many from the community given a chance to speak up from the beginning. The meeting was split into two sessions: the first half was a venting session about what went wrong with Prop 8, the second half focused on actions and the future.

Many vented in the first half, one in particular saying, "Fancy ads aren't going to convince anyone [to change their minds]. It's going to be one-on-one. They need to see us," a reference to the No on 8 campaign ads that featured no gay people.

A Log Cabin Republican faced an irate audience when he stood up before them saying that gay Republicans are essential to victory, saying that in spite of the fact that they may not vote for the candidate of choice in the gay community, many still voted No, and that future campaigns shouldn't lean so far to the left.

A quick rebuttal was given that the No on 8 campaign was too conservative, tailoring itself to make conservatives happy by not fighting back, not getting in the face of our opponents, and keeping gays out of sight.

In the second half of the session, the focus was on the future and actions that should be taken. Many spoke about the groups they were forming, actions, and how to counteract what our opponents are working on now. Issues such as No Mob Veto ad, gay adoption, boycotts, sit-ins, LGBT community indifference or complacency, volunteering and manpower, and strategy were raised.

After the meeting ended, the energy did not die. And though a Christmas play was to be performed at the auditorium after the town hall, it was difficult to get the attendees to leave, many staying behind to network, discuss issues and even broke out into smaller meetings, going to coffeeshops or standing in circles, exchanging info, forming groups and planning actual actions. Many felt this was the birth of real strategy and action, and not just marching and rallying.

A panel of grassroots leaders were in attendance, including Robin Tyler again, Terry Leftgoff, Richard D. Jacobs of the Courage Campaign, Tori Osbourne, and Dr. Sylvia Rhue of the National Black Justice Coalition.

For information on more town halls, please see the calendar at the bottom of this blog.

Rolling Stone article evaluates the No on Prop 8 campaign

The criticism of the No on 8 campaign continues in an article in the December 11th issue of Rolling Stone out today. Written by Tim Dickinson and titled "Same-Sex Setback", it comes with the tag - "Don't blame Mormons or black voters - the Californian activists who tried to stop Prop 8 ran a lousy campaign."

Ouch.

It was a difficult read for me to get through since it's a painful reminder of how we could've easily won, but the leadership of the campaign dropped the ball with their naivete.

Some damaging quotes:

"'This was political malpractice,' says a Democratic consultant who operates at the highest level of California politics. 'They fucked this up, and it was painful to watch. They shouldn't be allowed to pawn this off on the Mormons or anyone else. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and now hundreds of thousands of gay couples are going to pay the price.'"

"The No on Prop 8 campaign, meanwhile, was oblivious to the formidable field operation that the other side was mounting. Worse, its executive committee refused to include leaders of top gay and lesbian grass-roots organizations, which deprived them of an army of willing foot soldiers."

I don't know about you, but the thought of even giving my money to the same leadership to run a 2010 ballot initiative to reverse Prop 8 seems ridiculous. As a community, we need to take a moment and decide who we want to take the reigns and lead us to victory. We don't have much time. We better figure it out. And NOW.

UPDATE: The Advocate.com has posted a response from the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center's Jim Key, Chief Public Affairs Officer, to their own article criticizing the campaign. I think it's only fair that I post it to show the other side. You can read it here.

Two Different Views on the No on Prop 8 Campaign

Lorri L. Jean, CEO of the LA Gay & Lesbian Center and Exec Committee Member of the No on 8 Campaign, has posted an FAQ about the failed campaign here.

One particular question of notice for me was how they decided what ads to run. Her response:

"Steve and Celinda and their teams conducted numerous polls and focus groups to ascertain which messages were most effective with undecided voters. The polling consistently showed that about 40% of the voters were firmly in favor of Prop 8 and 40% were firmly against it. That left 20% that were either leaning or undecided. That was the population to whom the advertisements were targeted.

"The polling and focus groups showed a number of things. For example, use of the words “hate” or “discrimination” was not effective with undecided voters; in fact, it made them less inclined to support the No on 8 position. Use of the terminology “treating people differently under the law” was found to be much more effective and made undecided voters more inclined to support the No on 8 position. Our experts advised that the most effective way to win over undecided voters was to heed the lessons of the polling and focus groups. These were different messages than would have been used if we were trying to shore up our base rather than attempting to persuade undecided voters."

On the other side of the equation is Terry Leftgoff, who formerly served as the highest ranking openly gay officer of the California Democratic Party and oversaw numerous campaign efforts, and calls the No on 8 campaign "bungled" and "ineffective." You can see his guest post here.

When it came to the ads, he says:

More..."The sanitized media messages smacked of a campaign by focus group. Such an outdated orthodox approach should have been over-ridden by common sense and political savvy.

"Instead of running a diverse multi-message campaign of persuasion, the media message was emotionless, monotone and uncompelling. In short, the media messages failed to move or even educate voters about the issue and instead appealed to a single abstract principle - equality - that was not sufficiently persuasive or connected to the content of the proposition. Worse, there appeared to be no effective Black or Latino strategy."

In my honest opinion, I agree with Terry. The No on 8 campaign smacked of self-homophobia, ashamed to show our diverse face to the world that has clearly indicated, when presented with the personable face of the gay community, is receptive to us and our call for equal rights. The campaign kept us in the closet, fearful of the world that is already changing. The sad irony - it was the leadership of the campaign that was stuck in the past, unaware and out of touch of the changing world around them.

The Blue Light for Equality

Tired of displaying that No on 8 sign in your front yard? Especially now that the election is over (with horrid results)? Well, you can use a blue light to show your support for equality for all. (No, it's not a K-Mart special)

See more information at www.blue4equality.com

No on 8 Campaign Post Mortem at UCLA - first hand account

Last night, a post mortem on the No on 8 campaign was held by the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School. An associate of mine, Marc, gave a first-hand account:

"The post mortem panel included Geoffrey Kors, Executive Director of Equality California. As you know EQCA spearheaded the No on 8 campaign. The organization has done some amazing work in Sacremento and is directly responsible for getting the gay marriage bill through the state senate and assembly twice. I've admired the work they done up until this campaign. . . .

Normally, questions are taken directly from the audience at these forums, but last night due to the "huge turnout," questions were to be written down and posed by the panel's moderator.

The moderator, however, took it upon himself to group similar questions and then paraphrase each group. Needless to say, bullets were dodged and the panel was spared from answering any tough questions.

The tension in the room, however, became palpable when Kors tried to explain that it was actually the gay community's tepid response at the beginning of the campaign that played a large part in the proposition's passing. He noted that No on 8's internal polling from the start of the campaign had indicated the numbers were against us. He also added that they sent press releases to the media indicating this as the public polls from the start had us winning. He said the media (and our community) didn't pay attention to their message until the public polls reflected what No on 8 had been saying all along. He said that it wasn't until the public polls showed us losing that the gay community truly became involved in the campaigned AND THAT BY THEN IT WAS PROBABLY TOO LATE FOR US TOO WIN.

He claimed that they had been sending out fundraising emails for weeks beforehand . . . . HE THEN SAID HE BELIEVED THAT THE COMMUNITY IGNORED EQCA'S PLEAS AT THE BEGINNING BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY BELIEVED THAT EQCA'S NUMBERS WERE JUST A MARKETING PLOY TO RAISE FUNDS. At no time, however, did Equality California, communicate the urgency of their findings directly to the community at large or the gay press at a press conference or such.

This is when I finally shouted, "Why didn't you tell us?"

Kors replied, "We did."

At that point, the overly polite crowd shouted back, "No you didn't." Kors got a panicked look in his face and stammered through the rest of his answer.

Several other questions were shouted from the audience when the moderator took over and began a five-minute monologue about how things were going to be different this time around. When I shouted, "Why should we trust you?", the moderator ignored me and finished the summation and ended the post mortem panel.

Kors was nowhere to be found during social event held afterward.

. . . our "leaders" were unwilling or unable to listen to the very community they are supposed to lead. The moderator also said this was time to look forward, which indicated to me (and many others) that our leaders where unwilling to discuss the mistakes made in this campaign. (The most expensive in this country's history I might add.)

In the end, Kors seemed indifferent to the type of work we all are planning to do, chalking it up to blowing off steam.

I didn't leave the room smiling."

This is some heavy reporting. What are your thoughts? What can we, as a community, do to move forward past the mistakes we've made from the No on 8 Campaign?

No on 8 Campaign leader fesses up

We have all been a vocal critic of the No on 8 Campaign and its role in the passage of Prop 8. Finally, we hear a response: Bay Area Reporter article

Here is the critic's point of view.

Also, another article on the issue from Los Angeles Times

Your thoughts?

Our Face

Many complained that the No on 8 Campaign didn't give the gay community (and our allies) a face to the state, or for that matter, the nation. However, others did, and here's a beautiful example.



PASS IT ON!

Map of LA County shows who votes Yes, No on Prop 8

This is extremely helpful in showing where in LA county the opposition is and who we need to reach.

Map

Note: sometimes an annoying ad blocks the map from loading - click the "X" in the ad's upper right corner to get rid of it.

Town Hall Meeting development

Since last week's passing of Prop 8 and the amazing movement for change amongst both the gay and straight communities, I have been calling for a Town Hall meeting to not only support these groups and websites that have sprung up, but to coordinate our efforts.

THEY HAVE HEARD THE CALL!

Currently, there are efforts to get this done here in LA (hopefully soon to reach out to other cities to do the same). However, it's a hefty task that we're hoping to pull off, and we're making no promises. It'll take some time, but not as long as you think. Some people have asked how they can help. Once I know, I'll be sure to take you up on it.

Please stay tuned here for developments.

What now? What are our next steps?

The burning question of the hour is, "What do we do now?" We can only march and protest for so long before the nation doesn't listen anymore. In order to answer this question, we need to ask ourselves a few more questions first:

1. Who's the opposition?
2. What's our goal?
3. How do we unite?

My thoughts on the answers:

1. Who's the opposition? See my first post. Know the Opposition or my guest post on overturnprop8.com

2. What's our goal? Sounds like an easy question to answer - regain our right to same-sex marriage. But is that all? Is that the only reason we're marching and protesting? If we really think about it, no. We're fed up with years of discrimination, harassment and lack of rights. What we want is equal rights. We want the discrimination against the LGBT community to STOP. We want to be represented in our government. Obtaining the right to marriage is just one step in the right direction towards our overall goal. But this doesn't just pertain to California. This pertains to all gays in the nation. That's the overall main goal. Yes, one step at a time. But we got to keep our eyes on the goal.

3. How do we unite? We communicate. I'm hoping that this blog can help us do that. I'm reaching out to all those websites and groups that have popped up in just this past week to talk to each other, to link each other's sites, to constantly email and call each other, to continue their specific agendas but to come together as ONE for the gay community to rally behind with a single purpose. A goal. And I say we hold a town hall meeting.

So now, back to the burning question. What now?

Practically speaking: LET'S HOLD A TOWN HALL MEETING FOR LEADERS. Let's get all our leaders together, the No on 8 Campaign leaders (Dr. Delores A. Jacobs of the Center Advocacy Project, Lorri L. Jean of L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, Kate Kendell, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Geoff Kors, Equality California), Gay & Lesbian Center Directors, LA Pride leaders (Rodney Scott, and other cities' pride leaders), get our activist groups together, and discuss what's next. Create one website for different groups to update (while maintaining their own) - a one-stop-shop full of information on events and rallies, readily available, for the community. This will then activate the gay and straight communities to act as one with a single purpose.

Sounds hard? Sure. Impossible? No. Needed? DEFINITELY.

Time is of the essence. Contact these leaders (links listed on the right of this blog). Ask for a meeting. Ask them to communicate to each other. Send them my way if you want! Just . . .

ACT NOW AND UNITE!

Unite the Fight! (Mission post - it's long, sorry, but please read!)

We have a long fight ahead of us.

Not just here in California but nation-wide. Rallies and marches, though great for an initial response and getting the nation’s attention to a horrific injustice, will only get us so far. So what do we do next? How do we harness our raw emotional response to motivate us to the finish line – equal rights for all? First, we need to know who ACTUALLY voted Yes for Prop 8, our opposition. Second, we need to educate ourselves on our opposition. Last, we need to organize!

KNOW YOUR OPPOSITION!!

People use the phrase, “Know your enemy.” But these people who voted Yes for Prop 8 are not our enemies. They are our fellow citizens. However, they are our opposition. Yet, who are they?

How many Mormons actually make up the population of California? According to Wikipedia, 2.12%. (Mormon Population.)

California’s Population: 36,553,215 (2007)

Mormon Population: 773,800

Out of 773,800 Mormons living in California, how many of them were eligible to vote (that number includes kids, the unregistered, etc)? And of these, how many actually voted Yes? I can guarantee you, not all. The number gets smaller and smaller.

Here is a link of the Prop 8 exit polls from CNN. Look at them closely:

CNN Exit Polls

These people, the Yes votes, are the true opposition. So out of the roughly 5.5 million who voted Yes, that’s an awfully small amount of Mormons.

Here, I want to state my objection of the gay community’s focus on the Mormon Church and its role in the passing of Prop 8. This focus of hate needs to stop!

We are angry. We are hurt. But above all, we are motivated to speak out against this injustice. And in this trying, emotional time, we are looking for someone to blame, someone to point a finger at and yell, “Shame on you!” I don’t blame any of us for doing this because after years and years of discrimination, we have experienced an enormous injustice of having been granted rights just to have them ripped away. But is this a productive, healthy response? Will it do us more harm than good? I believe it will do harm.

I understand that the Mormon Church donated millions of dollars to the passage of Prop 8, but many of them didn’t vote. They don’t live here in California! The best we can do is report them to the IRS and shift our focus to those who actually voted. So with this in mind, look at the exit polls again. Those are the people we need to focus on peacefully and with respect, reach out to them and educate them on who we are as a community, show them who we are, something we and the No on Prop 8 campaign failed to do before the vote.

A quote from Martin Luther King, Jr. from his famous, “I Have a Dream” speech:

"The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people. For many of our white brothers as evidenced by their presence here today have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We can not walk alone."


MLK stood for non-violence. After reading the quote above, we can consider our present situation and realize, as not all “white brothers” of MLK’s time were not against the Negro community, not all Mormons are against the gay community. Though I’m not accusing us of physical violence (though it came close, having witnessed a few scuffles at the protests), I believe our words, such as “bigots” tossed at the Mormon Church expresses a hate that feels awfully close to verbal violence.

In this historic moment, with our first African American president gearing to take charge, change is in the air. I say we take advantage of this change and fight for our rights. But how do we do this? What is our next step?

WE EDUCATE OURSELVES!!

First, we educate ourselves on civil rights history and our constitution, and we educate ourselves on who our opposition is and what they believe.

Our great nation is based on freedom and democracy, statutes found in our nation’s (and state’s) constitution. And I will fight until my dying breath to protect the rights of everyone the freedom of their opinion and their religion, including those who voted Yes. However, the crux of my argument is that these same people, who made up a slim majority, should have never had the right to vote on our marriage in the first place. Nor for that matter, we should have never been forced to protect our marriages through a vote!

JFK fought for civil rights and desegregation. But did he put it up to a popular vote? No. If he had, do you think it would’ve passed? Hardly. He fought through the courts. And why? Because the constitution (both our nation’s and our state’s) was written to protect not only the majority, but the minority as well, and the law is enforced through the judicial branch, not by the majority. The constitution was written to protect the little people from majority (or Mob) rule. This is where our focus should be. This is where we learn from history. We focus our attention on the constitution and the courts and not a moral debate with the majority who don’t have the right to overrule the law.

There is a flip side to this, however. No matter how much we don’t like it, and whether all this is decided by it, this is a battle of public opinion. The nation is watching! This does, believe it or not, affect judges’ decisions. Keeping this in mind, how should we present ourselves to the nation? As one minority treating another minority (as the Mormons see themselves, or the Latino and African-American communities?) as they have treated us? Shouting slurs at them and defacing their property? No! We should rise above it. Show the nation that we are worthy of their respect. Yes, we are angry. We are frustrated. We have had enough! But use this amazing motivation to win the war and not fight battles that get us nowhere. Let us lead by example. Let us educate ourselves about our opposition and address their concerns and why they voted Yes in the first place.

How do we educate ourselves on our opposition?

• Know who the opposition is (see the exit polls) and what their concerns are about gay marriage. Don’t focus on just the Mormons! (Stop the harassment!) Many of those who voted Yes were Judeo-Christian.

• Know what they actually believe in. Study their religion! The religion’s history. Show that you respect them enough to not just toss their beliefs aside but that you have taken the time to learn and engage them. A good book to read by Christians who don’t believe homosexuality is immoral, “Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?” (Buy the Book) It’s a short read but loaded with great information, all derived from the study of the Bible.)

• Know why they voted as they did.

Then what? Engage the opposition! Inform those who voted Yes that we respect their religion, beliefs and morals, and that we are not taking away their beliefs or violating them, but we are demanding the rights that are guaranteed us. Let's show them we can have differing opinions, different religions and ideas of “morality”, and still live side-by-side with mutual respect. Yet remind them that the country that they live in also has one civil moral code. The constitution. We must abide by it.

WE ORGANIZE OURSELVES!!

It is AMAZING and wonderful that so many of us are taking action, but unless we organize as one voice and combine our strength, confusion amongst our community will cause this raging fire to burn out. We also need clear next steps!

Several websites exists about repealing Prop 8:

overturnprop8
invalidateprop8
www.petitiononline.com/seg5130/petition.html


Combine your forces! Give the community ONE place to combine our support to get rid of Prop 8!

Several groups on Facebook exist.

Californians Ready to Repeal Prop 8
Repeal the CA Ban on Marriage Equality - 2010
Repeal CA Proposition 8
1,000,000 Strong to Overturn Prop 8


Combine your forces!

MY CALL TO ACTION!

I call that as our next step, we hold a town hall meeting. We discuss our next steps. We talk about what we have learned, not only about our opposition and how to reach out to them, but what we learned from the mistakes we’ve made before the vote. Prop 8 passed! What did we do wrong?


I call out to the leaders of No on Prop 8 campaign: Lorri L. Jean, Kate Kendell, Geoff Kors, Dr. Delores A. Jacobs, and I call out to Rodney Scott, president of LA Pride, to continue to lead. Hold a town hall! Educate! Give us our next steps! Reach out to your community! Lead by example! Stop calling Mormons “bigots” and stop leading the harassment and help us respectfully reach out to those who actually voted Yes! If not, we will move on without your leadership, just as we marched on this past week without your presence. (LA Weekly Article on the Nov. 6th March)

I call out to the gay and straight community, those who have marched and those who have yet to act. Do something! This is about you and your family! The nation is watching. And amazingly, amongst all of our nation’s troubles, we have their attention. What will you do now?

Don't let the passion die. This is the perfect storm. Ride the wave. Take action. The nation is watching. Let's take it to them! Let’s take it to Washington!