Jon Stewart Ridicules Maine's Yes on 1 Campaign

I'm a little behind on a couple videos that I'll be posting today. But they're still very worth putting up. How could anyone pass up viewing Jon Stewart diss the homophobes?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Can't Get Queer From Here
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Californians Rebel Against 2010 Marriage Vote

Despite a slight 51% majority of Californians supporting marriage equality while 43% oppose, 60% of them do not want to revisit the issue in 2010 says the Los Angeles Times. Just last year 52% passed Prop 8 while 48% opposed it.

The findings come from a new Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California College of Letters, Arts & Sciences poll of 1,500 registered voters who were interviewed from Oct. 27 through Nov. 3. It was conducted by two nationally prominent polling firms, the Democratic firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, and the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies.

Views on same-sex marriage were sharply polarized based on political party, with 66% of Democrats thinking it should be legal and 71% of Republicans in opposition. Nonpartisan voters were less enthusiastic than Democrats but still backed it, 59%-34%.

-----

The survey showed that same-sex marriage continues to reverberate differently along race and generational lines. Just over half of whites backed it, while just under half of African Americans and Latinos did.

All three groups, however, opposed having to vote on it in 2010. (Asians were questioned by the poll and included in the overall sample, but their numbers were statistically too small to isolate.) Young voters continued to be far more supportive of gay marriage rights than their elders.

Among those ages 18-29, 71% said they supported same-sex marriage; among those 65 and older, only 37% favored it. Younger voters were also one of the few groups who backed putting it on the 2010 ballot, which will be dominated by the races for governor and U.S. Senate.

This could raise some red flags for groups like Love Honor Cherish and Equality Network who among others are leading the charge to restore marriage equality to California in 2010 and are actively involved in the statewide organizing group Restore Equality 2010. (They were also the lead organizers behind Wednesday's march in remembrance of Prop 8's passage.)

This Sunday, November 8, they will be holding a town hall meeting to discuss the signature gathering campaign to get language on the 2010 ballot to undo Prop 8.

The Facebook Event Page states:

For activists in: Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Century City, Chinatown, Culver City, Fairfax, Hollywood, Koreatown, Marina del Rey, Malibu, Mid-Wilshire, Pacific Palisades, Playa Vista, Santa Monica, Silverlake, Venice Beach, Westwood, West Hollywood, and West L.A.

√ Learn about Restore Equality 2010 and the movement to repeal Proposition 8

√ Help qualify our marriage equality initiative for the ballot by signing up as a volunteer
or Hub Coordinator

√ Get training on how to properly collect signatures

√ Meet and strategize with fellow activists

EVENT: LAvender Los Angeles Exhibit Reveals the City of Angels' Rich Pre-Stonewall LGBT History

In 1958, eleven years before Stonewall, gay men and drag queens at Cooper’s Do-nut shop in Downtown LA, rioted against abusive police. They threw donuts and took over the street.

Los Angeles has a rich history of LGBT activism and culture, which is often overlooked by those who focus on New York and San Francisco. LAvender Los Angeles aims to change that misperception by telling the story of LA’s LGBT community and the birth of the modern LGBT movement which began in Los Angeles in 1950.

LAvender Los Angeles is a two week exhibit that will run from November 8 - 20 at 114 W. 5th Street near Main Street (MAP), with a fundraising preview on November 7th at 7:00.

In addition to the exhibit itself, LAvender Los Angeles will present several discussions and special events, including discussions on LAPD relations, the Gay Press, LGBT Political Power, and a weekend walking tour. This history exhibit focuses on the history before the Stonewall Riots in NYC in 1969, and highlights how efforts here in Los Angeles led to LGBT empowerment across America.

Roots of Equality (RoE) is producing LAvender Los Angeles after noticing a lack of connection to our past in the post-Prop. 8 generation.

“We are responsible for passing on our history and our culture.” said RoE co-founder Teresa Wang. “This is not something we’re going to learn from our parents and relatives.”

As Los Angeles takes the lead in this most recent wave of the LGBT rights movement, this generation’s leaders can look to our own city’s past. “Los Angeles has just as much importance if not more than any other city in this country’s LGBT history,” explained RoE co-founder Tom De Simone, “we aim to show this city’s LGBT citizens that they have a rich history to be proud of.”

For more information, visit the Roots of Equality website.

The Scary Lesson of Maine - It Has To Be Done

In a great article examining what happened to bring about Maine's passage of Question 1, which threw out the state's new marriage equality law, the Bangor Daily News takes a look at who voted and how the two opposing campaigns convinced their supporters to vote.

The map below delineates the different parts of the state and how they voted on Question 1.

Maine Question Map

Opinions may differ on particular strategies. But the unofficial results show that, as with many other cultural issues, whether Mainers voted for or against same-sex marriage largely depended on where they call home.

Rural Maine voted heavily to overturn Maine’s law allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed.

In the most extreme example, 73 percent of the nearly 27,000 Aroostook County voters who cast ballots voted “yes” on Question 1. Roughly two-thirds of voters in Piscataquis, Somerset and Washington counties also favored repeal.

The opposite was true in many of Maine’s more populated areas.

In Cumberland County, 60 percent of voters opposed the repeal and in Portland, Maine’s largest city, that figure swelled to 73.5 percent. Roughly 54 percent of voters in Bangor and Scarborough cast votes against the repeal of the same-sex marriage law.

Gay marriage also had strong support in college towns, picking up 73 percent of voters in Orono and 63 percent in Brunswick.

One notable exception to the rural-urban divide was in the heavily Roman Catholic and Franco-American neighborhoods of Lewiston and Auburn, where 59 percent and 54 percent of voters, respectively, favored the repeal.

University of Maine political scientist Amy Fried pointed out that those returns were a change from 2005, when Lewiston voted in favor of preserving anti-discrimination laws protecting Maine’s gay and lesbian residents.

Fried was also intrigued by the partisan message — or lack thereof — in the 2009 referenda.

Two anti-tax measures failed while changes to the state’s medical marijuana laws passed — all of which Fried said could suggest a strong turnout among more liberal-minded Mainers. But the defeat of gay marriage could suggest a strong conservative presence at the polls, she said.

“That’s if you want to think of it in those terms, and maybe we shouldn’t in Maine because we are ticket-splitters,” she said.

Coastal counties were typically more evenly divided. The exceptions were Waldo County, where the Yes campaign won 54 percent, and Hancock County, where the No camp won 53 percent.

It is very puzzling that the voters chose to support medical marijuana while at the same time voting against LGBT civil rights.

Ideology, partisanship and religion are usually strong indicators of how someone will vote, and using that formula, many believed we would win in Maine, but the voting results indicate a vast sea of the unknown. You can point out that the populated areas voted in our favor, but that doesn't always happen - Los Angeles County voted in favor of Prop 8. Marriage equality has never won at the ballot, having failed 31 times. We have yet to crack the nut to victory.

The NO on 1 campaign learned a lot from California's Proposition 8, applying the most obvious lessons learned by placing gay and lesbian couples in ads to tell their stories and appeal to voters to support equality for all. They were fast to respond to the opposition (though how effective these responses were is still up to debate), outspent them, and were on the air with ads two weeks before the Yes on 1.

But it wasn't enough.

Another head scratcher is the fact that Maine is one of the most secular states in the country. Though the Catholic Church wields great power in the state, a majority of Mainers don't self-identify as very religious.

According to a report by FollowTheMoney.org, which breaks down the major contributors to both campaigns, the Yes on 1 campaign was mostly funded by the Dioecese of Maine and conservative organizations. Their fast facts:

• 58 percent of the total raised by Maine's Question 1 opponents in 2009 flowed into the state from donors around the country--the same amount proponents raised in total. Regardless, the proponents prevailed: voters repealed same-sex marriage.
• Gay-marriage advocates raised money from more than 10,000 donors--12 times more than opponents reported. Question 1 passed despite the numbers imbalance, banning same-sex marriage in Maine.
• The campaign for Question 1, the successful push to repeal gay marriage in Maine, was funded almost entirely by churches and conservative organizations.
  

This comes as no surprise, nor should it to Mainers - it was loudly proclaimed that the Catholic Church was largely behind Yes on 1. Yet despite these fast facts, Mainers still sided with the church.

So what does this tell us moving forward? That we cannot rely on the old standards that those who are liberal or secular will vote for LGBT equality. That centuries of society-approved discrimination and slander of the LGBT population is still entrenched in many minds, even those that appear open-minded or self-aware, forcing the hands of voters to choose in favor of their fear and ignorance and vote against us.

Voters are rarely open to hearing a campaign's message during an initiative battle. Most of the time they have made up their minds already (while telling pollsters that they are open-minded and will vote for equality, a "Bradley Effect" of sorts that Nate Silver explains well.) People then dig into their positions and prepare for battle.

However, people are more open to hearing other opinions and positions when there isn't a raging referendum pounding at them. That's why educational campaigns are so important and so different from initiative campaigns. They exist to inform, discuss and portray the LGBT population to those who know nothing about us, while not pushing a message that they must vote for us. In time, voters' fears of what, up to this point for them, is the "unknown" becomes known and less threatening. So when the time for a ballot initiative does roll around, they're more apt to vote in favor of LGBT rights.

This doesn't happen over night. It can take years. Equality Maine has done years of educational work, and we still lost. But only by 5.6%! The margin is narrowing. I believe that margin would have been much greater if it wasn't for their outreach.

Wayne Besen has suggested that maybe a whole new strategy should be considered and not engage in degrading ballot initiatives at all (and another post). And though I agree that these referendums are unconstitutional and that maybe we should simply focus on the courts and legislature, in the meantime, we have initiatives staring us in the face.

Here in California, Courage Campaign, Equality California and Vote For Equality are all doing educational work, laying the foundation for a future initiative. Whether we go to the ballot in 2010 or 2012, we have a lot of work to do, and not a lot of time to do it. Yes on Prop 8 did a lot of damage and a lot of Californians now believe the campaign's lies as if they were gospel. If the pattern holds of failing at the ballot, we may not succeed in time in California with our educational work by either proposed year.

But charge ahead we must.

A lot of the times, we fail to keep ads with out faces on the air, to keep the radio alive with our voices. It's hard to get these messages funded when there's no impending vote, but we have to figure it out. We have to constantly remind the populace that we are here, we aren't going away, and we're deserving of equal rights. And as I've said, voters will be more willing to listen when we're not tossing attack ads back and forth. If they're willing to listen, imagine what we can accomplish!

The old adage of changing hearts and minds by telling our stories still holds true, and that is what an educational campaign is for. We do this by either talking to our neighbors, co-workers, friends and family, or to perfect strangers by knocking on doors during canvasses, or through phone calls at a phone banks. It takes patience, especially if we know a vote isn't coming soon. And it's probably the scariest thing we'll ever have to do - allowing ourselves to be vulnerable, in the face of those who may very well vote against us, or even worse, hate us, talking to each of them . . . one at a time. This can be terrifying in fact. Yet it is key to victory.

No one said the fight for equal rights was going to be easy.

Image of NO on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly by Rex Wockner.

VIDEO: Joy Behar, Sandra Bernhard and More Cattily Discuss Carrie Prejean Sex Tape and LGBT Rights

As Andy Towle said, "Deliciously bitchy."

Prop 8 Proponents Attempt to Make CA Attorney General Plaintiff in Federal Case; Extreme Group File to Intervene as Defendants

The official Proposition 8 proponents, who are the defendants in the federal case challenging the initiative, filed a motion to realign California Attorney General Jerry Brown as a plaintiff, even though the Attorney General has been characterized as a "nominal defendant." In their opposition, plaintiffs state:

The Attorney General should remain a defendant in order to preserve this Court's ability to award Plaintiffs the full relief that they seek: an injunction immediately directing the chief legal officer of California - and every state official subject to his supervising authority - to cease enforcing Prop. 8. An injunction against the Attorney General is the most effective means of ensuring that any remedial order issued by this Court is immediately implemented on a statewide basis.

Brown has been very vocal against Proposition 8, having refused to defend it in court challenges against it. Though he hasn't officially announced it, Jerry Brown intends to run for California Governor.

The two motions involving the attorney general:

Opposition by Plaintiffs to Motion to Realign Attorney General, filed 10-28-09

Opposition by California Attorney General to Motion to Realign Attorney General, filed 10-28-09

In other news on the case, Proposition and the Right to Marry reports:

On August 19th, Judge Vaughn Walker denied a motion to intervene in Perry v. Schwarzenneger by the Campaign for California Families (CCF). Represented by Liberty Counsel founder Matthew Staver, CCF opposes not only same-sex marriages, but any legal status for same-sex couples. CCF has a history of contratemps with Yes on 8 - the official Prop. 8 proponents - who are defendant-intervenors in the Perry case. CCF previously sought to intervene in Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009), but Yes on 8 publicly opposed its intervention. And Yes on 8 opposed CCF's intervention in the Perry case. Their divisions surfaced before the November 2008 election, when CCF opposed Prop. 8 for failing to ban domestic partnerships.

CCF appealed Judge Walker's order on their intervention motion. The Recorder reports on oral arguments in the appeal before a 9th Circuit panel. On The Recorder's account, the panel's judges appeared unsympathetic to Staver's attempt to identify CCF's particular interest as a proposed Perry party. Staver contended "that the official Prop 8 forces weren't adequately litigating the case and had stipulated away far too many facts" about gays and lesbians. As an alleged result, if Prop. 8 were upheld on narrow grounds, Staver claimed that it may easier to show that gays and lesbians are a "suspect class" - that they are a minority deserving heightened constitutional scrutiny when they seek constitutional protections.

The Recorder quotes Howard Nielson Jr. of Cooper & Kirk, co-counsel for the official Prop. 8 proponents in the Perry case. Nielson tried to hedge about what facts proponents had agreed not to contest, including whether sexual orientation is immutable.

(Major H/T to Proposition 8 and the Right to Marry)

Wisconsin's Supreme Court Hears Case Challenging State's Marriage Equalty Ban

William McConkey is my hero.

As I reported earlier, he is fighting on behalf of his lesbian daugther Wisconsin's same-sex marriage ban enacted by voters at a referendum in 2006. He claims that the question on the ballot was unconstitutional because it in fact asked two questions, thus making it impossible to determine the will of Wisconsin voters.

The referendum stated, “Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?”

The state's Supreme Court heard the case Tuesday. (Watch the proceedings here)



In other Wisconsin news, the Supreme Court threw out the case by anti-LGBT group Wisconsin Family Action challenging the new domestic partnership law. They claim that it's too close to marriage which violates the same-sex marriage ban. Making matters worse, Wisconsin's attorney general had refused to defend the law.

The court gave no reason for the rejection of the case, signaling to Wisconsin Family Action that they must refile in lower courts and go through proper court procedure. So the fight isn't over.