Surprise, Surprise. Prop 8 Proponents Try to Wiggle Out of Surrendering Internal Campaign Documents to Court

San Francisco Gate reports:

Sponsors of California's ban on same-sex marriage asked a federal judge Thursday to suspend his order requiring them to disclose campaign strategy documents while they try to persuade an appeals court to overturn it.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued the order Oct. 1 at the request of lawyers for same-sex couples challenging Proposition 8, which amended the state Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. They say notes and e-mails between planners of last year's Prop. 8 campaign might help them prove that the ballot measure was motivated by anti-gay discrimination.

Lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign say voters were entitled to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage and that the organizers' alleged motives are irrelevant. In Thursday's filing, they asked Walker for a stay while they sought immediate review of his order in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Cooper goes on to complain that being forced to hand over such sensitive documents will not only violate their First Amendment rights, an argument which Walker originally shot down, but also would force future campaigns to curtail their speech with donors and volunteers.

Oh, and Cooper also claims that this is just a tactic by LGBT groups to review the Yes on 8 strategy in order to prepare for a future initiative campaign.

Basically, he's throwing a hissy fit because he didn't get his way.

First, this is obviously a stall tactic. They don't want to go to trial in January and so they hope this will cause a delay. But it's inevitable, so their going to look bad either way.

Second, how does this violate their First Amendment right of free speech? They can spew all the hate they want - unfortunately, that's their right. However, the First Amendment doesn't protect them from the consequences. Hence this trial.

Third, I play a tiny violin for them that this may keep them from spewing more hate in the future when then they try and delude people into volunteering and donating to their hypocritical campaigns.

And lastly, does Cooper really think that the Yes on 8 campaign strategy is a secret? They're a broken record, repeating themselves over and over in Maine what they vomited up here in California. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that their strategy is to confuse people on the marriage issue by distracting voters into thinking it's about children and schools.

Cooper just fears that the documents will be revealed in court, and even worse, possibly to the public. They're probably filled with landmines that could prove that the people behind Yes on Prop 8 couldn't care less about marriage and more about hurting LGBT citizens.

But if they have truly nothing to hide, as they claim, then what's the problem, right? Riiiight.

Image of Charles Cooper by blogger Michael Petrelis from his report on the lawsuit.

Defendant-Intervenors Motion to Stay Judge Walker's Discovery Order

Added 5:45pm PST: Proposition 8 and the Right to Marry blog has some good comments on this new development, including commenter and attorney Rick Xiao stating, "Given the clear indication that Judge Walker is proceeding expeditiously to trial, these latest filings suggest that Prop. 8 proponents are pursuing a new strategy focusing more on procedural tactics which could limit discovery available to plaintiffs and pose obstacles to the fact-track trial scheduling."

Judge Walker Demands a Redo on Federal Prop 8 Case Management Statements

After reading the federal Prop 8 Case Management Statements filed Friday from both the Olson/Boies team and the Yes on 8 crowd, including several others from interested parties, Judge Walker decided to wipe the slate clean and demanded they start over.

The AP reported that the judge, who will ultimately decide the fate of the case, said the statements "fail to get down to the specifics of how we are going to proceed in this case" and that he wants detailed information about what effects Prop 8 has on the couples suing as well as "opposite-sex couples and others not in same-sex relationships in California."

"He said wants names and titles of the witnesses expected to testify and what legal standards should be used to decide the case, among other details he said were missing from the original filings," reports the AP.

The lawyers on both sides of the case couldn't agree on anything about how to proceed, but the main crux of the conflict centers around whether or not a public bench trial was necessary, which Olson and Boies demand should occur since it has never happened in a marriage equality case before. A public trial will allow a record to be created that will be needed in the appellate courts, where this case everyone agrees will wind up.

Attorney General Jerry Brown, as well as the governor, who are supposed to defend Prop 8 but do not agree with it, also submitted their own filings but have allowed the conservative Alliance Defense Fund to take a lead on the case.

A hearing is scheduled for August 19 to decide the course of the case.

EXCLUSIVE AUDIO: Ron Prentice of Yes on 8 Holds Secret Meeting on Future Plans, Instructs Prayer for LGBT Divisiveness on 2010

In a secret meeting two weeks after Meet in the Middle, Ron Prentice, Chairman of Protect Marriage, the group responsible for the Yes on 8 campaign, spreads misinformation about the efforts of the LGBT population to gain their rights.

Introduced by Pastor Jim Franklin of Cornerstone Church of Fresno, who says that Meet in the Middle was a failure, Ron praises the LDS church's work, talks about the Prop 8 challenge, gleefully reports that the LGBT community is facing a divisive debate on when to return to the ballot, tells everyone to pray that the divisiveness continues, dismisses Harvey Milk and says the Matthew Shephard Act will protect pedophiles.

From someone who publicly confesses not to hate the LGBT population despite his efforts to strip us of our rights, he sounds pretty harsh in private. And for those who have been saying that our internal debates on 2010 vs. 2012 and beyond is giving ammunition to the opposition - well, here's your proof.

Here is an audio recording of the secret meeting in which many were turned away from attending. A source of Unite the Fight was able to attend clandestine and record.

Below is a breakdown with quotes. (Emphasis is my own.)



0:00 Pastor Jim of Cornerstone Church in Fresno, CA, talks about how Meet in the Middle wasn't a success but how his counter protest the next day was. (Remember, we're the "opposition in these recordings.) He then introduces Ron.

5:00 Ron Prentice, California Family Council and Protect Marriage
Ron starts off by saying that the main point that Protect Marriage wants to make in the meeting, it's “The battle has just begun.” He goes on to states, "As Christians, we have lots of things that take up our time. We raise families, some of us are grandparents. . ." The implication made here is that the LGBT population don't have these concerns.

“We can’t go into hiding when it comes to marriage.”

Prentice refers to a Time magazine article that gives the LDS church the credit for the passage of Prop 8, but no real credit to Roman Catholics and evangelicals.

7:00 He received a call from a Mormon board member of Protect Marriage who said he had no influence over that article and didn’t want Ron to think he was trying to hog all the credit.

“It was wonderful” that the LDS church went door-to-door with their own information about marriage during Prop 8 campaign, he says. “The Roman Catholics and evangelicals had to catch up.”

7:18 “I do believe that evangelicals have learned how to step up to the plate a little better. And we are a working coalition now. Interfaith so to speak. On this issue in particular and we will continue to do so. And there has been great cooperation and great communication between different entities.”

7:53 In regards to 2010, the “threatened date when the opposition may come back and to try to actually negate what Prop 8 just put into the constitution.”

8:09 “The other side is splintered. There is a group called the Courage Campaign which is more activist oriented. They polled their membership, their constituency and found out that 85% of their constituency thinks they should move forward in 2010 with an amendment. Equality California polled their constituency and that group said 69% of them said, 'yes, we should move forward in 2010'".

“Well regardless of the poll, the research suggests that wouldn’t be wise on their part. So as you pray, continue to pray for divisiveness on the other side. [laughter] Continue to pray that there will be splintered relationships on the other side because that precisely what’s going to keep them in a confused state. Which sounds typical, doesn’t it?"

9:25 Ron gets to the “subject at hand”: Proposition 8. “We want to try to prepare you as best we can.” He refers to Jennifer of Advocate for Faith and Freedom, a religious liberty organization, who will speak after who will give the attendees more details, “…Ways in which you might be better able protect your churches from what might be forthcoming now that there are same-sex couples in this state who may want to show up at your next marriage ritual, for example.”

9:50 Ron says they’ll talk about Protect Marriage’s game plan and strategic plan, but “we obviously can’t get into that in-depth."

“There will be an ongoing broad educational effort from the Protect Marriage group.”

10:14 Ron brings up the subject of the 2004 penal code change “which defined gender not as biological but as either real or perceived.” He goes on to say it’s a criminal code and that it “Opened the door to a lot of sexual confusion in employment discrimination and a lot of sexual confusion on public school campuses.”

Because of this, he says, the LGBT population has incrementally, through legislation, has tried to redefine sexual orientation or gender and marriage.

11:33 Refers to Alameda city school district stand off between school board and 500 Christian about “homosexual curriculum being placed into the public school system in Alameda.” It was implemented. “School boards, city government and obviously state government choose to disregard the will of the people. And that was, unfortunately, the reason why Proposition 8 was necessary.”

12:34 He turns to the efforts to create Harvey Milk Day and informs the attendees who he was and that he has become an “icon for homosexual leadership, and they are trying to make Harvey Milk, who was the first ‘outed’ gay city council member” . . . “an icon in the public schools. So Harvey Milk Day would memorialize Harvey Milk as the first gay leader in government. It has nothing to do with his leadership abilities. It has everything to do with his sexual orientation.” Naturally, they hope the governor will veto this.

More...

13:40 Refers to lawsuit in New Jersey about the Methodist church that had public facility for 100 years that has been rented used for marriages from all sorts of people, but denied a lesbian couple to have a civil union service. They filed suit. Church lost and lost its tax exempted status for that piece of property. “Those are the kinds of things that are forthcoming.”

14:39 Refers to southern pastor Jack Gibbs who was to speak in Canada to Christian pastors and had to sign a disclaimer according to Canadian law that he would not say “anything negative about homosexuality regardless of whether it were biblical or not or in addition, anything negative about Islam.”

15:03 “Those are the issues of the day and in our churches and what is forthcoming and that’s why it’s very beneficial for you to have some legal assistance here today." He refers to European countries, saying that “several of those have same-sex marriages and the rest have same-sex civil unions, and the church is being forced into silence in those countries.”

15:31 “…same-sex marriage is now legal in six other states, never by the will of the people, always either by the legislature or the courts. And those are the kind of things that will be pressuring us as pastors.” Ron refers to their efforts to counter federal case against Prop 8. They did in fact get the motion to intervene since state government of California is against Prop 8.

16:27 “Even the opposition didn’t want to see the issue of marriage go to the federal courts now,” he says. “They think it’s too soon.” He goes on to discuss the opposition within LGBT organizations to federal case. Since this is old information, it’s now not relevant in that these legal, LGBT organizations plus the ACLU have now voiced support.

“If you would continue to pray for divisiveness among our opposition, but also for different constituencies of promoting gay marriage would continue to fight about whether or not to move this forward and that they would use their money against each other instead of (garbled) across the nation.”

17:26 Ron speaks about ENDA and the fear of employers, churches pastors having to hiring LGBT, especially transgender people. “There are now sets of protections, laws for the transgendered, which is a generic term, means if they’re crossdressers, if they are in the process of changing their gender . . .”

“Churches who employ, will need to identify bylaws and alter them perhaps to make sure that you don’t have transgendered people using the opposite restroom of their biological sex.

“There are those conditions taking place in public schools now where if a child comes to school one day biologically male for example and says, “I’m a female,” according to the CA penal code, the law says that the school will have to honor and provide alternative restrooms and locker rooms facilities.”

Refers to case in LA where a “crossdresser” who is biologically male uses the same locker as girls at the same time as they’re using them. “Those are the things that can even take place on your church campus.”

“I’m the big wake up call. I’m here to say, ‘Hey eyes wide open folks. Because it’s really is time we cannot say that it’ll never happen to the church, because it’s happened. And the California employment law is actually against us unless we protect ourselves.”

19:14 Ron goes on to say the most ignorant things about the Matthew Shephard Act. “And any time that we, even verbally, say things negatively about homosexuality, those kinds of laws are expanding and they will come after you as pastors, and those bills in particular protect pedophiles. So, for example, if a pedophile were to attack, I say attack, approach, a child in a church or an employment situation or a public school situation, and you or I were to pull that pedophile off the child and say something to that pedophile about his poor behavior, that pedophile could actually file a suite against you for having committed a hate crime against them . . . (indistinct.) So those are the kinds of protections that are now in place, and we have to fight against them…Are you scared? Actually we don’t operate out of fear, we operate out of being prepared and being educated.”

20:25 Ron says that helping the attendees, the pastors, those who oppose LGBT rights, to be prepared and educated is why they are having the meeting. He says that Protect Marriage has “an opportunity now to educate the masses through you all. Through pastors who will continue to grow the pastor coalition and the pastor network will provide curriculum for you for your churches. And we are beginning to ask at the grassroots level that you create councils will regionally, as well as grassroots networks of activists regionally, to begin thinking of message of marriage’s ultimate meaning and purpose, door-to-door.”

21:17 Ron goes on to state they have a year to three years before we, their opposition, “tries to get Prop 8 out of the constitution. It going to be a very, very difficult task on their part and very expensive. But we’re ready and we have a game plan, and we thank you for your participation.”

I will continue to work on transcribing the rest of the meeting in which Jennifer M. of Advocate for Faith and Freedom gives advice to the pastors and attendees on how to avoid discrimination lawsuits.

Yes on 8 Organization Canvassing Same Areas as LGBT Organizations, Actively Countering Our Efforts

Protect Marriage, the group behind Proposition 8, have been out canvassing in the same areas that many LGBT organizations have begun going door-to-door, holding conversations with those who voted in favor of Prop 8. They will be focusing their teams in the Bay Area, Los Angeles and the Central Valley.

It comes as no surprise that they will be mirroring our efforts to counter any progress we may be making. Luckily, groups such as Equality California and Courage Campaign have had teams going out for awhile changing hearts and minds, as this report from Fresno, CA shows.



ACTION: Get involved! Help change hearts and minds. Join one of the organizations below in canvassing your neighborhood weekly. Many offer training sessions before going out and speaking with people, so you'll be fully prepared. Sure, you'll be nervous (everyone is), but it's the best feeling ever knowing you're making a difference and helping win back our rights person by person, one door at a time.

These links will take you directly to their canvassing information.

Equality California: Win Marriage Back (Get the most recent news from the field!)

Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center: Vote For Equality

Courage Campaign: Equality Teams

Another MAJOR opportunity to learn how to engage those who oppose marriage equality is attending Courage Campaign's Camp Courage, where you'll cover canvassing, phone banking, fund raising and more. The next Camp Courage will take place in East Los Angeles August 1-2. Check it 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.

Mormon Church Reimbursed Members for Time Spent Working on Prop 8

In yet another eye-opening scandal surrounding the Latter Day Saints Church and Proposition 8, it has been revealed that the church actually reimbursed members for their time and effort spent working on the anti-gay initiative.

Some of them include Gary Lawrence of Lawrence Research ($528,877.35); Glen Greener, former Salt Lake City Police Commissioner ($50,236.42); and
Sonja Brown, Protectmarriage.com communications director ($41,844.00) among others.

To see more, visit the CA Secretary of State.

Why is all this now just coming to light? Only now are some new reports on campaign expenditures coming in and being disclosed, as the law dictates. So stay tuned for the continued drama that the LDS Church keeps providing.

American Family Assocation Boycotting, But Says We Can't

The American Family Association, whose name let's you know it's a US organization, is still obsessing over what they call the homosexual agenda and are now targeting their homophobia at the UK and Pespi's ad that's playing only there.

UK Pepsi Ad:



The AFA is now organizing a boycott against Pepsi (and many other gay friendly companies - more on that below). This is the same organization closely tied to Protect Marriage.com, who led the Yes on 8 Campaign and gave them over half a million dollars to fight gay marriage in California.

What's extremely hypocritical is that the Protect Marriage people recently sued the state of California because of its campaign donor full disclosure law which makes it mandatory that donors' information for any campaign be made public. The reason why they sued? Because they said they were being harassed for their "support of traditional marriage," and by harassed they mainly meant that their businesses were being "boycotted." (Thankfully the state disregarded their complaint and said the LGBT had a right to boycott and was protected under free speech.) To put it simply, the AFA thinks it's swell for them to boycott, but that it's completely wrong for us to do so, going as far as suing a state to stop us. Didn't Jesus say something about hypocrisy? Mark 7:6 - “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.’”

The LGBT community must, at all costs, protect our allies from such hypocrisy. PepsiCo has been a staunch ally for LGBT people, donating $500,000 to the Human Rights Campaign and another $500,000 to Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). After the AFA threatened to boycott them if they didn't stop supporting the LGBT, PepsiCo flatly told them, in other nicer words, to shut up.

To thank PepsiCo for its support, contact them at (914) 253-2000 or email. And be sure to keep buying their products.

Another company on the AFA's target list is Campbell's Soup. And why? Because the company issued a print ad for one of its soups portraying two mothers and their son. Even though they felt pressure of a boycott from the AFA, Campbell's refused to stop running the ad.

More...

To show your support of Campbell's Soup, contact them through their website.

Unfortunately, there are companies buckling under the AFA's scrutiny and scorn. One in particular is McDonalds. After joining the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, they received scorn for "supporting the gay agenda" and, naturally, the AFA boycotted. As a result, McDonald's Vice President Richard Ellis resigned from the NGLCC, appeasing the right-wing organization and ending the boycott.

This decision is in direction contradiction to the company's core values. Here's an excerpt:

McDonald's Values

We are committed to our people
We provide opportunity, nurture talent, develop leaders and reward achievement. We believe that a team of well-trained individuals with diverse backgrounds and experiences, working together in an environment that fosters respect and drives high levels of engagement, is essential to our continued success.

We give back to our communities
We take seriously the responsibilities that come with being a leader. We help our customers build better communities, support Ronald McDonald House Charities, and leverage our size, scope and resources to help make the world a better place.

We strive continually to improve
We are a learning organization that aims to anticipate and respond to changing customer, employee and system needs through constant evolution and innovation.

McDonald's Employment Experience
Support for fundamental human rights for all people is part of our global Standards of Business Conduct. We comply with all employment laws in every market where we operate, and we will not employ underage children or forced laborers. We respect the right of employees to associate or not to associate with any group, as permitted by, and in accordance with, applicable laws and regulations.

Respect - Create a diverse and inclusive culture where everyone feels valued and respected.

Contact McDonalds and show your disapproval of their joining in on the hypocrisy. And until they change, don't buy any of their products. FYI: McDonald's no longer owns Chipotle Mexican Grill, having sold its shares in 2006.

UPDATE: NPR Report: Groups Seek To Shield Gay-Marriage Ban Donations

UPDATE: A federal judge denied the plaintiff's request to keep the donors' names of the anti-gay initiative, Prop 8, confidential. The state also noted that most of the activity the plaintiffs called harassment was actually protected free speech, such as threats of boycotts. See full report.



NPR has done a report on the Protect Marriage, Yes on 8 campaign and allies' push to change the California law that demands donor information be fully and publicly disclosed. Citing harassment as their main reason, they're asking a federal judge in Sacramento to rule.

Go here to read and hear the report.

Here is the court filing:

Prop 8

Publish at Scribd or explore others: antigay marraige don

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.

Yes on 8 Campaign Files Class Action Law Suit Against California

The unbelievable has become a reality.

The Yes on 8 Campaign has filed a federal class action law suit against California challenging the Constitutionality of its campaign finance laws. These laws require personal information of campaign donors to be disclosed, and it is these donors who claim they are now victims of threats and harassment.

"This harassment is made possible because of California's unconstitutional campaign finance disclosure rules," said Ron Prentice, Chairman of the Yes on 8 Campaign. The suit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, includes examples of threatening emails, phone calls, post cards and even death threats.

One such email stated in the lawsuit sent to "John Doe #4" reads,
“hello propagators & litagators [sic] burn in hell” and another that read "congratulations. for your support of prop 8, you have won our tampon of the year award.”

Another read “Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter. . . . I’ve also got a little surprise for Pasor [sic] Franklin and his congregation of lowlife’s [sic] in the coming future. . . . He will be meeting his maker sooner than expected. . . . If you thought 9/11 was bad, you haven’t seen anything yet.”

Not that I support any such threats, but where was the indignation when we were harassed for our orientation, our businesses boycotted for who we were, our lives not only threatened but actually taken away for being a part of the LGBT community? This lawsuit is a smack in the face to us when numerous gay and lesbians have been victims of hate crimes, some actually killed, spurred on since the passing of Prop 8, simply for who they were, not for being political, while the Yes on 8 campaign is complaining that they're getting badly spelled (with suspicious authenticity) e-mails by obvious whack jobs threatening them for stepping into the political foray. (see a blog in support of the lawsuit)

The horror of this is that we, the LGBT community, are so used to hearing about hate crimes against us that we don't react as strongly as the Yes on 8 campaign to a few threats against them. Are we as a community that hardened that we just shrug our shoulders when one of our own is killed, beaten, raped? Our hearts went out to "Richmond's Jane Doe", but honestly, that was a rare show of solidarity for one of our own.

This law suit reeks of hypocrisy, a smell our noses have gotten so used to that our leaders probably won't bother to respond, much like the NoMobeVeto.org ad debacle. The Yes on 8 supporters give a forced, petty cry from a small scratch in a fray, claiming the rules of politics are unfair (even when they've won), while we, the LGBT community, barely react when we're stabbed, repeatedly now, for hundreds of years and more. But worse, we have been lulled into an indifference because society has a whole has allowed our plight to continue as acceptable, since after all, we a marginalized minority.

So why aren't we allowed to file our own class action lawsuit against our country, claiming hundreds of years of discrimination, threats, murders and harassment? If that sounds ridiculous, then the Yes on 8 Campaign is that much more unbelievable.

The El Coyote Showdown - My Blog Report

UPDATE: Marjorie Christofferson, of the El Coyote, has tendered her resignation, and as of Saturday evening, was no longer employed as manager of the restaurant nor on its board of directors. She turned her resignation into her mother, Grace Salisbury, whose sister-in-law founded El Coyote in 1931.

Today's open brunch at the El Coyote (see post), hosted by Marjorie Christofferson, co-owner of the famous restaurant and popular hang out of the gay community, was intended for Marjorie to have a civil, open discussion with the gay community. She wanted to explain how she ended up donating to the Yes on 8 campaign, but many of the restaurant's gay regulars who attended and make up a majority of the establishment's patrons, vocally expressed their betrayal.

More...

To put Marjorie's appearance in context, the meeting opened with one of the managers pleading with the group to realize that the restaurant is a separate entity than Marjorie, that is does NOT support Prop 8 and that it's more than 89 employees, several who are gay, have families that depend on their patronage. He mentioned that he has received three days of nasty phone calls, at work and at home, and he wanted to reiterate that Marjorie's personal decision did not reflect the restaurant's nor his.

The group immediately voiced its objection. One shouted, "She took our money and used it against us." And though they recognized the 89 employees and their families, "What about the 18,000 gay families disrupted by Prop 8?"

Bill Schoeppner, General Manager, informed that the restaurant itself intended to donate to both LAMDA and the Gay & Lesbian Social Center, and though this received applause, it was quickly pointed out that this wouldn't undo the harm of what Marjorie's personal donation had caused.

I don't believe this miasma was what they were hoping to bring Marjorie into, but they couldn't delay much longer. Marjorie, normally healthy and smiling, was overwhelmed with nerves. The past few days seems to have been torture, for she appeared frail and near hyperventilation, requiring the assistance of her two daughters to enter the room. After drinking some water, she apologized for needing to read from a prepared speech.

Marjorie began saying how "emotionally taken with all this," she has been, "sick at heart if I offended anyone in the gay community." Her voice shaking, she continued to say that the gay community was a "treasure to me and has been throughout my whole life." However, she went on to say that not everyone agrees with each others viewpoints, especially her own, even within her own restaurant.

Marjorie continued to defend the employees of her restaurant, begging the community to not take its anger out on them, for their livelihood depended on their patronage. It was she who donated, not them. "I've been a part of the Mormon church all my life. I responded to their request. It was a personal donation."

She went on to say that her aunt, Blanch March, founded the El Coyote to "create a caring atmosphere" for its patrons. Early on, before it was even well-known, she was aware of the "challenge and plight of gay individuals and always responded with love and empathy." El Coyote was to be a "healing place."

At this point, I noticed one of the employees, sharply dressed in a button down and tie, began to cry. His name is Alberto and has been waiting tables at El Coyote for over twenty years. As a gay employee, he feels a lot of confliction. "I feel bad. I'm with the gay community. But I'm a homeowner and I don't want to lose my job." When I asked about Marjorie, he told how she donated $2,000 for the AIDSWalk and went on to say, "I think she made a mistake, but she has apologized."

Yet the group never heard an apology from Marjorie before being walked out by her daughters, hardly fielding any questions. They said all they heard was an explanation. And it appears that wasn't enough.

Rocio, a waitress, tried to appease the group with tears in her eyes, saying when she started working at El Coyotoe years ago, it was "where I first saw so may gay people. They were nice." She believes she was led there by God, because just a few months later, her brother came out to her and working at the restaurant made all the difference in her response to his coming out.

Though the attendees expressed a lot of empathy towards the employees, they felt what Marjorie had done couldn't be changed. Or ignored.

Regan DuCasse stood up and spoke to the group. "As the only black person in the room, I feel betrayed." She said, just as Marjorie had always come up to them at their tables while they ate, smiling and asking how they were, many white people had smiled and treated her well only later to stab her in the back. She feels what Marjorie has done is just another betrayal. This last sentiment applied to what the whole group felt at that moment.

"Marjorie was in and out," Regan continued, referring to Marjorie's quick departure after her speech. "Her actions were cowardly. She didn't want to face the serious damage" she helped create.

So will there be a boycott? Though a consensus wasn't officially reached, one of the vociferous attendees was already out in front of the restaurant, holding up a sign and chanting the sins of Marjorie Christofferson, and in effect, El Coyote, for all on Beverly Blvd. to hear. And with the KTLA cameras recording it all nearby, it looks like all of Los Angeles is going to hear, too.

What are your thoughts? Should there be a boycott? Let's discuss.

Even on a holiday . . .

. . . we're not on a holiday. While away on a small holiday get away to San Diego, I came across this SUV. It was just a reminder to me that many hold strongly to their beliefs just as strongly as I hold onto mine. No matter how irate I get over their willingness to take away my rights in the name of their beliefs, I have to accept that some won't ever change their minds. It's difficult to accept, and though it made my enjoyment of Shamu a little more difficult, I was also grateful for this Thanksgiving reminder - I needed a boost in motivation to keep up this fight.

Californians Against Hate launch new site

Check it out here.

Dedicated to drawing attention to the major donors of the Yes on 8 campaign, they're a great source of information. If you hear rumors about who donated and who didn't, you can go here to verify.

Note: this is a relaunch of the site. And by the way, check out their campaign section near the top.

Dr. Phil and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

Today, Dr. Phil taped a show centered around the same-sex marriage debate. While I'm still looking for more footage to post, I came across this post-taping segment.




More at his website and the debate rages on his forum.

UPDATE:

Found this clip about the "extortion letter" from the Yes on 8 supporters.

"Kingdom of Heaven" Brief

The posts on here are pretty serious, so I figured we could have a laugh but at a relevant topic. A brief has been filed with the California Supreme Court using the "Almighty Creator's Law" to back its argument to support Prop 8 and ban same-sex marriages. They are "Acting on behalf of the Almighty Eternal Creator." Gee, I'm sure God is so grateful to have mere humans put words in his mouth. Talk about mixing Church and State!

You have to read it to believe it. (It's a PDF download)

Kingdom of Heaven Brief

Email the leader of Yes on 8 Campaign

I received this email that's been going around from Ron V. Thought I'd share it with all of you, too.

"Protests and boycotting seems to be bothering Ron Prentice, leader of Protect Marriage. The following was taken from today's Los Angeles Times:

'No matter your opinion of Proposition 8, we should all agree that it is wrong to intimidate and harass churches, businesses and individuals for participating in the democratic process," Ron Prentice, of Protect Marriage.com, said in a statement. Boycotters were "unabashedly trampling on the rights of others," he said.

Would you help me explain to Ron Prentice a little bit about the rights we do and do not have in the Constitution of this state and this country? He's a little confused. His email is RonP@CaliforniaFamily.org

Here are some tips:

1. To get him to open you email, use a subject line that does not give away your political stance
2. Afraid that the organization has your email? Use a newly created email where you do not mind getting Protect Marriage spam.
3. Don't have much time to write an email? Use my email. See below.

Thanks. Please spread the word.


Ron P,

I'm sorry to hear that my losing the right to "marry" my partner is inconveniencing you, organizations, and businesses. It must be nice to still retain all of your rights as provided by the Constitution of this country and this state. Although the slight majority just 'REVISED" the state Constitution to take away rights, I think someone should explain to you that I still have some rights. I have the right to free speech, to protest, and to spend my money where I want. Or does your organization want to take those too? Yes, we all have the right to participate in the democratic process. NOBODY is taking ANY of your rights away, as provided by either Constitution. What we are doing is "unabashedly" inconveniencing you with our freedom of speech and our right to protest and our rights to spend money where we want.

Again, I'm sorry to inconvenience YOU.

Ron V"

Boycott El Pollo Loco?

Well, not all, just those owned by the WKS Restaurant Corporation, in turn owned by Roland Spongberg, who donated to Yes on Prop 8.

That is so Queer . . . has done a great job on reporting which ones Mr. Sponberg owns.

So do we boycott all of them? No. Just These

Here's proof he donated $6,000. Secretary of State's List of Prop 8 Donors

Thanks, Faith, founder of That's So Queer, for your great reporting!

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.

With good news comes bad news . . .

Naturally, with all of us and our allies fighting the legal battle to overturn Prop 8, there's going to be opposition. And one of my mission statements is TO KNOW YOUR OPPOSITION. Well, folks, here they are:

THE CAMPAIGN FOR CALIFORNIA FAMILIES

Here is their motion: (Lots of legalese, but important to read)

It makes me cringe to think that I have to oppose a campaign that has "California Families" in its title. If anything, isn't the No on 8 PRO-FAMILY, which protects ALL California families?

When I heard about this motion to stop our work against Prop 8, I flipped. I got so angry. Sometimes it just hits me what they are doing, and I wonder, "What is their problem? What does my right to marry and protect my family have to do with them?" My boyfriend tried to calm me down saying, "Well, actually, they DO think it has everything to do with them."

After I heard that, I tried to relax. I'm usually good at putting myself in other people's shoes, even my opposition. This was a tough one. Why do they care so much? But the thing is, they do.

We need to know the very moment they move. The very moment they decide to act in ANY capacity. And at that very moment, we communicate to our community and protest IMMEDIATELY. This is a chess game.

DO NOT GIVE THEM AN INCH! DO NOT BECOME COMPLACENT!

Folks, this is going to be a long fight. Get prepared. But stay vigilant!

To boycott or not to boycott El Coyote

There's been lots of talk circulating through the community about how one of the co-owners of El Coyote, Marjorie Christoffersen, donated to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign and that we should boycott the restaurant. Yet she's been quoted as saying that, since she's Mormon, she only gave money to the Mormon Church and didn't know how her money ended up going to the Yes campaign.

"I love you guys, I would never do anything to hurt you, I wish I hadn’t done it," she's said. Unfortunately, her name appears on the official Secretary of State's List of Yes on 8 campaign donors.

Marjorie wants a chance to speak to the gay community and explain what happened. I believe if anyone wants to engage us, especially someone who claims to love us, we should give them that opportunity and respectfully listen before jumping to any conclusions.

Majorie is holding an open brunch tomorrow, Wednesday, November 12th, 11am at El Coyote, open to anyone who is willing to go.

Map