gay newsnet

Prop. 8 battle enters new stage

2008-11-20T08:17:00.001-08:00

The long campaign, the hard-fought election and the coast-to-coast street protests are over. The fight has just begun.

Even as court challenges to Proposition 8 proceed, about 100 supporters of same-sex marriage assembled Monday at the Billy DeFrank Lesbian and Gay Community Center in San Jose to plot their next political steps. Gay rights leaders in San Francisco are organizing an even bigger "town meeting" on Thursday to spark a series of planning meetings across the state.

Opponents of same-sex marriage are not sitting pat. In the wake of Saturday's national protests, supporters of Proposition 8 are also preparing for more legal and political battles in 2010 and beyond.

With the two warring camps over same-sex marriage talking about steps as extreme as challenging the tax-exempt status of churches or a potential recall of "activist judges," Saturday's Internet-generated protests, which some have called "Stonewall 2.0" after the seminal gay rights uprising in 1969, were far from the last clash in the fight over same-sex marriage.

"What we're doing now is building a movement," said Stuart Gaffney, one of the organizers of Thursday's San Francisco meeting. "There is more excitement and energy than I've seen in a long time about people coming together and wanting to have input as to what this movement looks like."

Self-examination & more of Prop. 8 battle enters new stage

San Jose Mercury News

PFLAG Applauds Decision to Review California's Proposition 8

2008-11-20T07:58:00.001-08:00

Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) today applauded a decision by the California Supreme Court to review Proposition 8, a ban on same-sex marriage that was approved by voters on November 4. In an order issued on Wednesday, the court agreed to hear a challenge to the proposition as early as March 2009. In the interim, the court has declined to issue a stay. The court challenge was brought by a coalition of organizations working in California, including The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and The National Center for Lesbian Rights. The City of San Francisco is also challenging the measure.

"The California Supreme Court has taken a second, bold stand for families in the state and we welcome its decision to review Proposition 8," said Jody M. Huckaby, executive director of PFLAG. "The proper checks and balances role of the judiciary is to ensure that majority rule does not undermine minority rights, and the court has an important role to play in that process. Loving couples and their families should be protected, not neglected, under the law. Proposition 8 singled out a specific community of Californians for discrimination and created a category of 'separate and unequal' for same-sex couples. That is wrong, and the measure should be struck down by the court."

In May, California became the second state, following Massachusetts, to grant same-sex couples the right to marry. According to the Williams Institute at the University of California-Los Angeles, more than 102,000 same-sex couples live in the state, and more than 50,000 planned to wed in the next three years. More than 18,000 couples have already been married in the state. Following California's decision, Connecticut has also recognized marriage equality for lesbian and gay couples.

"The California Supreme Court has blessed our family," PFLAG parents Ken and Molleen Matsumura of Oakland, California, wrote shortly after the May decision. "All loving parents hope to see their child secure in the love of their chosen partner in life, if the child chooses to marry. That means someone who can visit her in the hospital, tell the doctors what to do if she can't speak for herself, share their earnings and insurance and support each other in building financial security [and] share a name if they so choose."

The court has invalidated three similar ballot measures in the past. California Attorney General Jerry Brown encouraged the court to review Proposition 8, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed strong support for the original ruling, recognizing full marriage rights for all couples.

"As the court considers the future of Proposition 8, all of us must continue to educate Americans from every state about the legal jeopardy our families face because of measures like these," said Huckaby. "Our opponents are already targeting other parts of the country for campaigns similar to the one in California. From Massachusetts to California, and right through America's heartland, there will be a coordinated effort to roll back equality. PFLAG families have a unique role to play in combating those efforts, alongside allies such as those who brought this challenge in California, and we will continue to do so."

PFLAG promotes the health and well-being of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons, their families and friends through: support, to cope with an adverse society; education, to enlighten an ill-informed public; and advocacy, to end discrimination and to secure equal civil rights. Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays provides opportunity for dialogue about sexual orientation and gender identity, and acts to create a society that is healthy and respectful of human diversity. For more information, visit www.pflag.org.

Lambda Legal Renews Vision of Justice on Transgender Remembrance Day

2008-11-20T07:23:00.001-08:00

New York, November 20, 2008) --- On Transgender Remembrance Day, Lambda Legal Executive Director Kevin Cathcart issued the following statement:

"The LGBT community is looking toward our future with tremendous hopefulness and resolve. And still, despite the vigor of our movement, too many of us are denied the most basic right: survival. On this annual Transgender Day of Remembrance, we take time to memorialize the people who died over the past year as a result of anti-transgender bigotry and hatred. When we gather at vigils, marches, and rallies around the country this Thursday, we remember Lawrence King, a 15 year old shot in the head by a classmate who took issue with Lawrence's feminine gender expression. We remember Ebony Whitaker, one of three transgender women killed in Memphis in recent months. We remember Ruby Molina, found floating in a river in Sacramento in September, and Rita Hester, whose still-unsolved 1998 murder led a grieving community to create this annual rite.

"We remember another kind of injury too often inflicted by the media in the wake of these deaths – like the newspaper headline about the February murder of Sanesha Stewart: "Fooled John Stabbed Bronx Tranny." Demeaning (or nonexistent) coverage of anti-transgender crimes adds insult to incurable injury.

"At Lambda Legal, we fight for the rights of transgender people at work, in school, and in all aspects of their daily lives. Every act of discrimination hurts, and leads to a climate where violence occurs. The fact that so many of the transgender people we have lost to violence are women of color fuels our resolve to end the racism and economic disparities that poison our society. And the fact that, year after year, we gather in late November to recite an ever-growing list of names reminds us that equality will not be ours until each one of us can be our fullest selves without fear. Our vision of justice must demand nothing less."

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT GRANTS REVIEW IN PROP 8 LEGAL CHALLENGES

2008-11-19T14:22:00.001-08:00

Court to determine constitutionality of Prop 8

(San Francisco, California, November 19, 2008)—Today the California Supreme
Court granted review in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, which passed
by a narrow margin of 52 percent on November 4. In an order issued today,
the Court agreed to hear the case and set an expedited briefing schedule.
The Court also denied an immediate stay.

On November 5, 2008, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American
Civil Liberties Union, and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit challenging the
validity of Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court on behalf of six
individuals and Equality California. The City of San Francisco, joined by
the City of Los Angeles and Santa Clara County, filed a similar challenge,
as did a private attorney in Los Angeles.

The lawsuits allege that, on its face, Proposition 8 is an improper
revision rather than an amendment of the California Constitution because,
in its very title, which was "Eliminates the right to marry for same-sex
couples," the initiative eliminated an existing right only for a targeted
minority. If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would be the first time an
initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution
to take way an existing right only for a particular group. Such a change
would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and fundamentally alter the
role of the courts in protecting minority rights. According to the
California Constitution, such a serious revision of our state Constitution
cannot be enacted through a simple majority vote, but must first be
approved by two-thirds of the Legislature.

Since the three lawsuits submitted on November 5, three other lawsuits
challenging Proposition 8 have been filed. In a petition filed on November
14, 2008, leading African American, Latino, and Asian American groups
argued that Proposition 8 threatens the equal protection rights of all
Californians.

On November 17, 2008, the California Council of Churches and other
religious leaders and faith organizations representing millions of members
statewide, also filed a petition asserting that Proposition 8 poses a
severe threat to the guarantee of equal protection for all, and was not
enacted through the constitutionally required process for such a dramatic
change to the California Constitution. On the same day, prominent
California women's rights organizations filed a petition asking the Court
to invalidate Proposition 8 because of its potentially disastrous
implications for women and other groups that face discrimination.

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that barring same-sex
couples from marriage violates the equal protection clause of the
California Constitution and violates the fundamental right to marry.
Proposition 8 would completely eliminate the right to marry only for
same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the
California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority
group.

Over the past 100 years, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases
challenging either legislative enactments or initiatives as invalid
revisions of the California Constitution. In three of those cases, the
Court invalidated those measures.

For more information on this case, go to:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm

Suit forces eHarmony to offer gay dating service

2008-11-19T14:20:00.001-08:00

Online dating service eHarmony has agreed to create a new website for gays and lesbians as part of a settlement with a gay man in New Jersey, the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General said on Wednesday.

The website will provide a dating service with "male seeking a male" or "female seeking a female" options, the Attorney General's office said in a statement.

eHarmony said it will launch the new same-sex dating site, named "Compatible Partners," by March 31. See Suit forces eHarmony to offer gay dating service

Reuters -

WATCH: Huckabee: Gays Haven't Crossed Civil Rights Violence Threshold

2008-11-19T10:34:00.001-08:00

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee was on The View Tuesday talking about same-sex marriage and declaring that gay rights are not civil rights because gays have not had violence inflicted upon them like Blacks have.

HuckabeeSaid: "People who are homosexuals should have every right in terms of their civil rights, to be employed, to do anything they want. But that's not really the issue. I know you talked about it and I think you got into it a little bit early on. But when we're talking about a redefinition of an institution, that's different than individual civil rights. We're never going to convince each other...But here is the difference. Bull Connor was hosing people down in the streets of Alabama. John Lewis got his skull cracked on the Selma bridge."

WATCH: Huckabee: Gays Haven't Crossed Civil Rights Violence Threshold

Prince's riff on gay marriage rocks the world: Purple One riffs on reining in sexual freedom

2008-11-17T22:04:00.001-08:00

Call it a sign o' the times or just another miscalculated controversy, but Prince is strumming up headlines again -- this time for allegedly speaking out against the sexual freedoms he used to champion.

In an interview with the New Yorker magazine that reflects on his continuing life as a Jehovah's Witness, Minneapolis' most famous (and famously scandal-prone) musical son reportedly tapped on a Bible as he said, "God came to Earth and saw people sticking it wherever and doing it with whatever, and he just cleared it all out. He was, like, 'Enough.'"

The interview was conducted at Prince's new mansion in Beverly Hills, Calif., where gay marriage has been an omnipresent topic surrounding the newly passed Proposition 8 ban. Prince has maintained a Los Angeles-area residence for decades and has mostly lived there full time since his divorce in 2006.

See Prince's riff on gay marriage rocks the world

Minneapolis Star Tribune - Minneapolis,MN,USA

Prince Talks Religious Conversion, Anti-Gay Marriage Stance

2008-11-17T11:14:00.001-08:00

The New Yorker has an interview with Prince at his new Los Angeles home to talk about a new book, and during it talk turned to religion.

Seven years ago, he became a Jehovah's Witness. He said that he had moved to L.A. so that he could understand the hearts and minds of the music moguls. "I wanted to be around people, connected to people, for work," he said. "You know, it's all about religion. That's what unites people here. They all have the same religion, so I wanted to sit down with them, to understand the way they see things, how they read Scripture."

Prince had his change of faith, he said, after a two-year-long debate with a musician friend, Larry Graham. "I don't see it really as a conversion," he said. "More, you know, it's a realization. It's like Morpheus and Neo in 'The Matrix.' " He attends meetings at a local Kingdom Hall, and, like his fellow-witnesses, he leaves his gated community from time to time to knock on doors and proselytize. "Sometimes people act surprised, but mostly they're really cool about it," he said.

When asked about his perspective on social issues--gay marriage, abortion--Prince tapped his Bible and said, "God came to earth and saw people sticking it wherever and doing it with whatever, and he just cleared it all out. He was, like, 'Enough.' "

See Prince Talks Religious Conversion, Anti-Gay Marriage Stance

Countries in Africa, Asia and Europe are criminalizing H.I.V. transmission and exposure

2008-11-17T09:57:00.001-08:00

A growing number of countries in Africa, Asia and Europe are criminalizing H.I.V. transmission and exposure, according to a new report by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which says criminalization undermines public health efforts to fight AIDS.

The criminal law is a blunt instrument for HIV prevention.

Yet from the UK to the USA, Mali to Mozambique, Azerbaijan to Australia, criminal laws are increasingly being used to prosecute HIV transmission or exposure.

This undermines human rights and jeopardizes hard won gains in the global response to HIV.

As we approach World AIDS Day, a new publication – Verdict on a Virus: Public Health, Human Rights and Criminal Law – shows that a simplistic 'law-and-order' response to HIV and the way in which individual court cases are reported in the media only serves to intensify a climate of denial, secrecy and fear.

This creates a fertile breeding ground for the continued and rapid spread of HIV.

While the United Kingdom provides global leadership on many HIV related issues, it has not provided a shining example in relation to criminalization.

The media coverage of HIV criminal prosecutions in the UK has generated headlines such as "AIDS Assassin", undermining decades of work to reduce the stigma associated with HIV.

A total of 16 prosecutions by the Crown Prosecution Service have taken place in the UK since 2001 – disrupting lives and damaging public health gains.

In fact, legal standards set by many European countries do not provide models for imitation.

Since 2005 a wave of laws criminalizing HIV transmission has swept across Africa. In Sierra Leone, for example, this approach led to the approval of a law that explicitly criminalizes a mother living with HIV who exposes her fetus to the virus.

In Egypt, merely living with HIV can lead to prosecution for crimes of 'debauchery'.

"For the foreseeable future we will never have an AIDS-free world, but because of that we should find new ways to live and to love – becoming wiser and richer. HIV must be embraced not feared!" - Dr Nono Simelela of the International Planned Parenthood Federation in London.

"Today one of the most pressing issues in the AIDS epidemic is the use of criminal statutes and criminal prosecutions against HIV transmission. Such laws are increasingly wide in their application and frightening in their effects. HIV is a virus, not a crime. That fact is elementary, and all-important. Too often law-makers and prosecutors overlook it." - Edwin Cameron, Justice of the Supreme Court, South Africa.

Bringing together opinion from legal experts, human rights groups, medical and health professionals and HIV activists, illustrated with case studies and mapping the spread of criminal laws relating to HIV, Verdict on a Virus will be launched on November 13 2008 at the Foreign Press Association, 11 Carlton House Terrace, London at 10.00am.

More about our work on HIV

Amendment 2 -- a futile effort to delay the inevitable in Florida

2008-11-14T08:54:00.001-08:00

Amendment 2 -- a futile effort to delay the inevitable

Howard L. Simon | November 13, 2008

The vote approving Amendment 2 -- the so-called marriage-protection amendment -- was a devastating but temporary setback for the cause of equal treatment for all.

By a 1.9 percent margin, Florida voters prohibited allowing same-sex couples the opportunity to have their relationships legally protected, denying the religious institution of their choice the authority of law "invested in the institution" to bless the relationship. Arizona and California also voted to add a ban on same-sex marriage to their state constitutions.

Despite the propaganda, gay marriage was not on the ballot. What Floridians approved was a prohibition on the legal recognition of anything "that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof." It will take years of lawsuits and countless lawyers to sort out the intended and unintended consequences of this measure.

The forces behind Amendment 2 have said that their mission is accomplished; marriage has been protected. But none of the economic and social pressures on marriage that have resulted in the terribly high divorce rate have been addressed. That would have been an honest program to "protect marriage."

It remains a mystery how the institution of marriage is "protected" by denying the right of some people the ability to enjoy its benefits.

Despite its passage, Amendment 2 does not bar health or other benefits that same-sex couples currently receive from public or private employers. Neither does the amendment prohibit hospital visitation, medical decision-making, or the right to make funeral arrangements for a deceased loved one.

But should other zealots target these benefits, or should any government agency decide -- wrongly -- that Amendment 2 prohibits these benefits, we will move this battle from the voting booth to the courtroom.

In America, change that matters always faces resistance; its path is never smooth or easy.

America is in the middle of a civil-rights revolution that is different, but shares similarities with earlier struggles to make the Constitution's promise of equality a reality for women, for racial minorities, for people with disabilities -- for everyone.

It is important to appreciate how far we have come, and how quickly. Thanks to even a very conservative U.S. Supreme Court, it is no longer a crime to be gay in America. Within 17 years (from Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 to Lawrence v. Texas in 2003), the Supreme Court reversed itself and declared that states could not criminalize sexual intimacy among same-sex couples.

The world is changing. The forces behind Amendment 2 can delay the inevitable, but they cannot stop it.

Soon, same-sex marriage will be legal and ordinary. It is already happening; Ontario, several northern Europe countries, Spain, South Africa and, as of this writing, Massachusetts and Connecticut, allow same-sex marriage. New York and Rhode Island recognize such marriages that are conferred elsewhere.

Bigotry and prejudice frequently ride in on a horse of high-sounding moral principles. Sometimes even the best leaders can convince themselves that their support for a mean-spirited proposal is based on something other than bigotry and prejudice or animus.

Religious leaders who sold Amendment 2 as "biblically based" public policy need to rethink whether that washes in America. In this nation -- the most religiously diverse on Earth -- the laws must reflect the fact that we live in different religious traditions, with different interpretations of the Bible, and, indeed, different bibles.

One day, we will look back on the idea that government could have the power to dictate whom adults can marry with as much bewilderment and embarrassment as we now, shamefully, wonder how we allowed government the power to ban interracial marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court ended the legal basis for that prejudice in the landmark 1967 ACLU case of Loving v. Virginia.

Howard L. Simon of Miami is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.

Same sex couples get ready to wed

2008-11-14T08:48:00.001-08:00

NEW HAVEN -- A breeze gently tossed the tied bundles of white balloons about.

Baskets of red roses lined the bannisters. Clear bubbles fluttered aimlessly toward the sky.

It's a scene couples like John Anderson and Garrett Stack, J.E. Martin and Denise Howard, and Jeffrey Busch and Stephen Davis never thought would come and now they will never forget it.

At 9:27 a.m. Wednesday, their wishes, dreams and future were fulfilled. That's when Superior Court Judge Jonathan Silbert penned the final order allowing same sex couples to legally marry in Connecticut.

Peg Oliviera, a 36-year-old yoga teacher, and Jennifer Vickery, a 44-year-old lawyer, both of New Haven, wasted little time getting married shortly after obtaining their license on the New Haven Green.

"I feel like I waited my whole life for this day and for Stephen," said Busch, an administrative law judge in New York City who lives with Davis and their six-year-old son, Elijah, in Wilton.

"It's an extraordinary and joyous day," said Davis, a technology manager at Columbia University.

"I'm proud of the people in Connecticut. This is the best place in the country to live."

But that wasn't always the case.

Same sex couples get ready to wed
Connecticut Post, CT

Thousands to Rally for Marriage Equality at L.A. City Hall as Part of National Day of Action

2008-11-14T08:44:00.001-08:00

LOS ANGELES, CA -- As part of a national "Day of Action," tens of thousands of supporters of same sex marriage and full equality for LGBT Americans will hold a rally at Los Angeles City Hall. This event, organized by Freedom-Action-Inclusion-

Rights (F.A.I.R.) with the support and involvement of many other organizations, was developed in the wake of the recent passage of Proposition 8 and is being held simultaneously with rallies at city halls across the nation and around the world. The rally will be followed by a march through Downtown Los Angeles, which will end at the Los Angeles Historic Park, commonly known as "the Cornfield."

WHEN: Saturday, November 15, 2008
10:30 AM

WHERE: Los Angeles City Hall (the intersection of 1st and Spring Streets)
200 N. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Episcopal priests vote on gay marriage

2008-11-14T08:41:00.001-08:00

As of Wednesday, the Connecticut Episcopal church's laws and the state's laws concerning marriage no longer agree, and while priests are able to give pastoral blessings to gay marriages, they are unable to perform them.

At its convention last month, the Connecticut Diocese passed a non-binding resolution to allow priests to perform gay marriages. The resolution was supported 174 to 132.

The Reverend Robert Stocksdale of St. Andrew's Church in Meriden, voted in favor of the resolution.
"I would like for us to have the ability to chose," he said. "I don't think Jesus would turn away anyone."

The bishop of the diocese, Andrew Smith, said he could not change church law, but is studying the issue to see if a way could be found to allow priests to perform the marriages. The Book of Common Prayer, one of the church's constituting documents, defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Episcopal priests vote on gay marriage
Meriden Record-Journal

State high court shows interest in anti-Prop. 8 suits

2008-11-13T19:45:00.001-08:00

The California Supreme Court has asked state Attorney General Jerry Brown to reply by Monday to lawsuits challenging the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage - a sign that the justices are taking the cases seriously and will not dispose of them quickly.

Two groups of gay and lesbian couples and local governments led by the city of San Francisco filed the suits a day after the Nov. 4 election, when Proposition 8 passed with a 52 percent majority.

They argue that the initiative, a state constitutional amendment, violates other provisions of the California Constitution by taking rights away from a historically persecuted minority group and stripping judges of their power to protect that group. The couples' suits contend that Prop. 8 makes such fundamental changes that it amounts to a constitutional revision, which can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

Brown has said he will defend Prop. 8 in court while also supporting the legality of an estimated 18,000 weddings performed under the court's May 15 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

That ruling declared that state law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman violated the state Constitution. Sponsors of Prop. 8 contend that the initiative - which declared that only marriage between a man and a woman is "valid or recognized in California" - would invalidate all existing same-sex marriages.

The filing the court requested from Brown's office will not address the ballot measure's validity, but will focus instead on the initial questions of whether the justices should accept the suits for review - and, if so, whether they should suspend Prop. 8 while they decide the case, said the state's lawyer, Christopher Krueger, a senior assistant attorney general. Suspending Prop. 8 would allow same-sex marriages to resume.

"I think it's fair to infer that the court is looking at these (cases) very carefully," Krueger said. Usually, he said, when plaintiffs ask the state's high court to take up their case directly without first filing in a lower court, the justices dismiss the suit without asking the other side for a reply.

Krueger declined to say whether Brown's office would ask the court to dismiss the suits without further review. He noted, however, that Bill Lockyer, the attorney general when gay-rights advocates first challenged the marriage law, invited the state Supreme Court to review the issue in 2006 even after an appellate court had upheld the ban on same-sex marriage.

More of State high court shows interest in anti-Prop. 8 suits

Costly Lesson for CA High School

2008-11-12T14:00:00.001-08:00

Last month the California Court of Appeal, the state's mid-level court, upheld a $300,000 jury verdict in favor of Lambda Legal clients Megan Donovan and Joey Ramelli, two high school students forced to drop out after being subjected to severe antigay harassment. The unanimous ruling came after we urged the court to uphold the jury decision that holds Poway High School administrators responsible for failing to protect the students. By enforcing protections for LGBTQ students under the antidiscrimination provisions of the state's education code, the decision sends a strong message to school officials throughout California that they must heed state law and provide a safe environment for all students — or pay a high price.

Gay couples to start to marry in Conn.

2008-11-12T07:49:00.001-08:00

Gay marriage is legal in Connecticut now that a judge has cleared the way. New Haven Superior Court Judge Jonathan Silbert ruled at a brief hearing Wednesday morning that gay and lesbian couples now may pick up marriage license forms at town and city clerks' offices statewide.

Many gay and lesbian couples are planning ceremonies Wednesday.

The judge ruling followed a historic decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court.

The high court ruled 4-3 on Oct. 10 that same-sex couples have the right to wed rather than accept a civil union law designed to give them the same rights as married couples.

Gay couples to start to marry in Conn.

Obermann: It's a matter of heart

2008-11-11T07:24:00.000-08:00

Obermann: It's a matter of heart

Okay, I'm a huge fan Keith Obermann - THIS - is stellar.

Here's the piece that got me:

"I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967."

"1967."

"The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery."

"Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized."

"You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay."

Proposition 8 is doomed to be overturned by the courts, despite the $20 Million spent by the Mormons and the other millions by Evangelical groups.

It will be overturned because the LGBT community will work harder to reach minority communities.

It will be overturned because ultimately love is stronger than hate and prejudice.

And, as Obermann says, ultimately, this is a question of love and a matter of the heart.

PROP. 8 SUPPORTERS FILE LAWSUITS

2008-11-11T07:22:00.001-08:00

PROP. 8 SUPPORTERS FILE LAWSUITS
Overturning the ban on same-sex marriage threatens the initiative process, groups say.

Church and state: The issue of Prop. 8

2008-11-10T14:18:00.001-08:00

James Brosnahan

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Proposition 8 has passed, denying to some the right enjoyed by other citizens in California, the right to marry. Now, the central question for the courts to decide is: Are gays in California equal, or can members of certain churches declare them constitutionally inferior?

The approval of a constitutional ban on gay marriage raises troubling but age-old issues concerning the lines between religion and government. Before the founders of our country separated church and state, there were hundreds of years of turmoil caused by one religion dominating the government and using it against nonbelievers.

In the aftermath of Tuesday's vote, do gays and lesbians in California have a reason to believe that they have been abused, discriminated against and relegated to a separate-but-equal status?

Yes, and that's why this fight is far from over. There will be a challenge under the U.S. Constitution. In the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a California constitutional amendment that limited fair housing on the grounds that prejudice could not be put into a state Constitution.

No one can forecast the outcome of this next fight, but there is bound to be some fallout that may harm those religions that so vehemently insisted that their beliefs be placed in the California Constitution. All religions require tolerance to flourish, but in Proposition 8 some religious groups aimed at and wounded gay people in California.

The drafters of the U.S. Constitution had a brilliant, experienced view concerning the importance of drawing the lines to protect religion on the one hand and civil government on the other. They put those lines in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Today, those lines are very relevant.

Government may not attack religion. Californians who have religious beliefs concerning the proper scope of marriage may exercise those rights as they see fit. Churches have always been able to proceed as they wish concerning marriage ceremonies. There was no mandate to suppress religious beliefs. This should be obvious to everyone in California because of our tolerance of all religions.

That the supporters of Proposition 8 were motivated by religious beliefs cannot be denied. Now the religious beliefs of some Californians are in our Constitution and, until overturned, govern us all whether we like it or not.

The other branch of the First Amendment is equally important. The state may not establish a religion. The state may not take principles of religious belief from a religion, any religion, and establish it as the law applicable to all. This line establishing the double branch of protection of religion on the one hand and no establishment on the other was arrived at after hundreds of years of turmoil.

Historically, marriage was used as a method of oppressing a despised group. These lessons of history are relevant to reflect on today. In Ireland, for 150 years, the penal laws provided that no Protestant could marry a Catholic.

Much more recent in the United States were the rules against marriage between a black person and a white person. These were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1960s and the California Supreme Court in the 1940s. Using the civil marriage ceremony as a method of expressing governmental disdain toward a particular group is as old as the Sierra Nevada. It has been an assault on tolerance.

Finally, marriage is a fundamental right in constitutional analysis. There are very few things in life more important than the ability to choose one's partner. Marriage is not just a word; it is a status, a state of mind, a way of being. Look in any direction and you will see examples of the people's respect for the institution of marriage.

A large group of Californians has now been denied that fundamental institution. These folks are our neighbors, our friends, our colleagues and our relatives. The constitutional promise of this state is, as the California Supreme Court held, that they are equally protected in the enjoyment of rights by all Californians. But the voters have spoken.

Now it will be up to the courts to explain whether equality is real - or just an illusion. I would not wish to be the one to justify this vote to a gay woman going to Afghanistan in the military, to a gay police officer who risks everything so we may be safe or any of the other thousands of gays and lesbians in California who contribute so much to our culture, our advancement and our well being.

I cannot square this vote with my view that Californians are decent, accepting and tolerant. But I know that the gays and lesbians of California, like the oppressed Catholics of Ireland who lived under penal laws, will fight this visible, constitutional, embarrassing injustice until it is no more. And when that day comes, we will live in a better state.

James Brosnahan, author of the "Trial Handbook for California Lawyers," is a senior partner at the Morrison & Foerster law firm in San Francisco.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/INUV13V3I2.DTL

This article appeared on page G - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle

See Church and state: The issue of Prop. 8

We've got a chance to "speak to the Headline News Nation" at 4:20 Pacific/7:20 Eastern on CNN's Headline News in their "Issues" segment ...

2008-11-10T14:13:00.001-08:00

We've got a chance to "speak to the Headline News Nation" at 4:20 Pacific/7:20 Eastern on CNN's Headline News in their "Issues" segment ...

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/velez-mitchell.jane.html

Tune in and check it out!

Levi's Brand Opens Retail Store in San Francisco's Historic Castro Neighborhood

2008-11-10T11:31:00.001-08:00

The company hosts 'People's Premiere' of 'MILK' and makes important grants to Castro nonprofit organizations to celebrate grand opening

SAN FRANCISCO, CA -- The Levi's brand will open its newest U.S. store in San Francisco's historic Castro neighborhood at 525 Castro Street today, November 10. The Castro location is the brand's second owned-and-operated retail operation in its hometown city. In celebration of its new home in the Castro, the Levi's(R) brand is honored to sponsor the "People's Premiere" of Milk, the highly anticipated biopic about the life of gay-rights icon Harvey Milk. Inspired by the life of Harvey Milk, and in honor of the opening of Levi's(R) new store in Milk's beloved Castro neighborhood, the Levi's(R) brand and the Levi Strauss Foundation are also proud to be making cash grants to two nonprofit organizations with a presence in the Castro.

"It's a perfect fit," said Mark Breitbard, Levi's(R) Brand Retail President. "We have a unique relationship with the Castro neighborhood that goes back decades. As the Castro was being reborn in the 1960s and 1970s, Levi's(R) jeans were an important part of the neighborhood uniform. Over the years we have also provided philanthropic support to numerous San Francisco and Castro neighborhood organizations that provide services to and advocacy for neighborhood residents."

The Levi's(R) Castro Store:

The Castro store's unique design concept reflects the character and history of the historic neighborhood. Design elements were developed to take into account the distinctive location and neighborhood demographic. Architects restored the store's exterior to reflect the neighborhood's history and the building's character. The materials and color palette selected by the Levi's(R) store design team capture the original Victorian architecture and historic feel of the Castro.

Neighborhood inspired decorative elements including archival photographs of Levi's(R) jeans worn by residents and visitors through decades of Castro history are used throughout the store interior.

Opening events:

To celebrate the Levi's Castro store opening the Levi's(R) brand is sponsoring the "People's Premiere" of the Gus Van Sant film Milk. The "People's Premiere" will be held on November 10 at 7 p.m. at the historic Castro Theatre and will be introduced by special surprise guests. As a gift to the people of San Francisco and the Castro neighborhood, the Levi's(R) brand distributed 1,400 free tickets to the "People's Premiere." Neighborhood residents and community members obtained tickets at the Levi's(R) store front at 525 Castro Street and through a host of nonprofit organizations and Castro neighborhood stores.

Additionally, in honor of Levi Strauss & Co.'s new presence in the neighborhood, the company is making grants of $50,000 each to two nonprofit organizations in the Castro neighborhood. One $50,000 grant will be awarded to MAGNET, a gay men's health and community center located on 18th Street near Castro Street. The grant will address a critical need for more HIV testing in San Francisco and support the organization's innovative one-stop model for integrating HIV testing, sexual health and risk reduction/behavior change.

"MAGNET is a unique neighborhood institution that provides residents with critical health services and serves as a cultural and social gathering place for the community," said Merle Lawrence of the company's Corporate Affairs department. "Its focus on slowing the spread of HIV through on-site HIV testing, counseling and care referrals aligns with our company and foundation history of supporting HIV/AIDS prevention and advocacy efforts globally for more than 25 years."

Another grant for $50,000 will be awarded to the GLBT Historical Society to support a year-long temporary exhibit on the history of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in Northern California at the corner of Castro and 18th streets.

Levi Strauss & Co. was founded in San Francisco in 1853 by Levi Strauss and headquartered here ever since. It was one of the first corporations to make grants to HIV/AIDS organizations and the first Fortune 500 company to provide domestic partnership health benefits to the unmarried partners of its employees. It was the only California company to file an amicus brief with the Cal. Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage, and advocates for the passage of legislation such as the Employment Nondiscrimination Act and the Domestic Partner Tax Equity Act on behalf of its employees.

Invented in 1873 by Levi Strauss & Co., Levi's(R) Jeans are the original, authentic jeans. The Levi's(R) brand offers the widest range of great fitting jeans on the market and are the most widely recognized and often imitated products in the history of apparel. The Levi's(R) brand has captured the attention, imagination and loyalty of generations of diverse individuals in more than 110 countries around the world and continues to do so today through more than 135 years of jeanswear innovation.

A rough night for gay Obama supporters

2008-11-10T00:15:00.001-08:00

The news flashed on the grainy Jumbotron screen in the Oakland Convention Center ballroom: Barack Obama elected president of the United States. A howl erupted, and then we were in each other's arms, hundreds of Obama volunteers, young and middle-aged and old, black and white and Latino and Asian.

"I can't believe it," I choked out, weeping into the neck of the man I was hugging, the man I'd been standing shoulder-to-shoulder with on the ballroom floor, watching and cheering as the electoral votes mounted on the screen.

The man put his hands on my shoulders, his tear-filled eyes gazing into mine. I felt him sizing me up, and then I felt him decide to trust me, black man deciding to trust white woman, and that's what it was all about, wasn't it? This triumph? All of us deciding to trust each other, starting now, on this new American day.

"You know what black folks are saying?" he confided, shouting to be heard as the crowd around us roared, "Yes! We! Can! Yes! We! Can!"

I leaned in close, keeping my eyes locked on his, not wanting to miss a word.

"Rosa sat, so Martin could walk," the man said. "Martin walked, so Barack could run. Barack ran, so our children could fly."

I dissolved again, and he hugged me again, and I reached out and pulled my wife, Katrine, into our embrace. "This is the best thing that's ever happened to this country," I sobbed.

"That's right!" the man cried.

"This country really is changing." Beaming at Katrine, then back at the man, I added proudly, "Just yesterday, we got married."

I felt it in his arms. And then I saw it on his face. The snap of our bond breaking. The no.

"Uh-huh," he mumbled. And then he slipped out of our three-way hug and disappeared into the crowd.

See A rough night for gay Obama supporters

Meet America's First Transgender Mayor: Stu Rasmussen

2008-11-10T00:11:00.000-08:00

SILVERTON, Ore. — Plenty of politicians reinvent themselves, but few do it quite like Mayor-elect Stu Rasmussen.

Rasmussen has been a fixture in Silverton politics for more than 20 years, and had twice before been mayor of the small city 45 miles south of Portland. Those terms, however, were before his breast implants and before the once-discreet crossdresser started wearing dresses and 3-inch heels in public.

Silverton has made Rasmussen the country's first openly transgender mayor, according to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, a group that works to help openly lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people win elected office.

Rasmussen, 60, unseated incumbent mayor Ken Hector, with whom he had long clashed, by 1,988 votes to 1,512.

Because Rasmussen's appearance was no secret, the campaign was dominated by policy issues.

"I've blackmail-proofed myself," Rasmussen said.

Meet America's First Transgender Mayor: Stu Rasmussen

Thousands of protesters gathered around the Bay Area and California over the weekend.

2008-11-10T00:09:00.002-08:00

The backlash against the state's new ban on gay and lesbian marriage intensified over the weekend, with thousands of people gathering around the Bay Area and California during mostly peaceful protests.

Supporters of same-sex marriage questioned whether they had done enough before Tuesday's vote on Proposition 8 and expressed hope that it would be tossed out by the state Supreme Court. They also promised to take the issue back to the ballot.

About 2,500 people gathered on the Capitol steps Sunday afternoon after a noisy, three-hour rally against the marriage ban. About 400 assembled outside Oakland's Mormon Temple, forcing Highway Patrol officers to temporarily close two Highway 13 ramps to protect the marchers.

"I didn't see it coming," said Joe West, who traveled from San Francisco for the Sacramento demonstration. "It was like a punch in the gut. We worked so hard to bring change in this election, and then this happens."

"If I'd known if was going to be so close, I would have made more phone calls," added Brendan Bishop of Sacramento.

The weekend of protests started Friday evening in San Francisco when about 1,000 people gathered, some clogging rush-hour traffic. The state's largest event was held in San Diego with about 10,000 protesters Saturday. On Sunday, hundreds gathered outside Saddleback Church in Lake Forest (Orange County), an evangelical megachurch that had pushed for the ban, which was approved by 52 percent of voters.

Covering state Capitol steps

At the Sacramento protest, the crowd covered the Capitol steps and spilled into the surrounding park. Dozens of rainbow gay pride banners waved, along with hundreds of the blue and white "Vote No on Prop. 8" signs left over from the campaign.

There were hundreds more homemade signs, broadcasting the feelings of those left shocked and disappointed by the election results. "Hatred is Not a Family Value," one said. "Love Will Prevail," another added. "I'm Embarrassed to be a Californian," a third read.

Opponents of the same-sex marriage ban have filed a challenge to the new constitutional amendment with the California Supreme Court, arguing that the rights guaranteed by the court in a May decision overturning a 2000 same-sex marriage ban can't be overturned by a simple ballot measure.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, an opponent of Prop. 8, expressed support for the court challenge on CNN's "Late Edition" Sunday, calling the measure's passage "unfortunate."

"But it is not the end because I think this will go back into the courts," the governor said. "It's the same as in the 1948 (California) case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This falls into the same category."

Supporters of Prop. 8 argue that the legal challenge is little more than a desperate attempt to overturn the will of California voters.

It's more than that, said Dennis Mangers, a former Orange County legislator who will take over next month as chief of staff to state Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento.

"It's very clear we're not going to take no for an answer," said Mangers, who married his longtime partner this year. "If necessary, we'll go back to the ballot ... and give the voters of California another chance."

In Oakland, the loud and peaceful protest outside the Mormon Temple included dozens of gay and lesbian couples whose marriages are in limbo. They said they wanted to openly display their anguish to people who pushed to ban same-sex marriage.

Inside the gates of the huge temple, church officials asked protesters to accept the will of the voters. But the anger over Prop. 8 only seems to be growing.

"I don't think people thought it was going to pass," said Carrie Blanche, 52, an Alameda schoolteacher who got married Oct. 29.

Blanche and others said they were focusing anger on the church because of its endorsement of Prop. 8 and the subsequent rush of campaign donations by members.

Some of those who gathered advocated for a boycott of travel to Utah, the home of the Mormon church, and of Mormon-owned businesses.

Mormons feel singled out

Tim DeBenedictis, a protest organizer from San Francisco, said the actions were warranted, even though he noted that some Mormons support same-sex marriage and not all Utah residents are church members. "To affect large social change, you have to make difficult decisions," he said.

A spokesman for the church, which moved some of its services to other locations Sunday because of the protest, said Mormons have been unfairly singled out.

"We don't normally get involved in anything political," said Don Eaton, who directs public affairs for the church in most of the Bay Area. "However, on certain things that are considered moral issues, we do get involved."

Eaton said calls for boycotts amounted to discrimination and doubted such a strategy would be tolerated if it was aimed at another major religion. "We're an easy target," he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. E-mail the writers at jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com and dbulwa@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MN4E141B3P.DTL

See Backlash Against Prop. 8 Grows

Idaho donated $400K to pass gay marriage ban

2008-11-10T00:09:00.001-08:00

Campaign finance reports show Idaho residents contributed more than $400,000 to a Web site-based campaign in support of banning gay marriage in California.

California Secretary of State records show dozens of Idaho residents sent $10,000, $5,000 and $1,000 donations to ProtectMarriage.com, an online-based campaign in support of the ban.

Voters in California narrowly passed Proposition 8 in the Nov. 4 election. The ballot proposition amends the California constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

The ProtectMarriage.com campaign collected a total of about $40 million for its Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, according to a statement posted on its Web site.

The Idaho donations were collected in a span of less than two weeks, beginning on Oct. 27 and ending on Election Day, and a bulk of the money came from the eastern region of the state.

The wife of Frank VanderSloot, president and CEO the Melaleuca Inc. healthcare products company, donated $100,000 and Idaho Falls businessman Kreg Davis donated $15,000 to the ProtectMarriage.com campaign.

Davis said his uncle is gay and lives in California with a partner.

"I want them to be treated with respect and dignity," Davis told the Post Register. "I want them to have equal rights and equal pay. At the same time, I believe children should be raised by a mom and a dad."

Brigham Young University-Idaho President Kim Clark put $5,000 toward efforts to pass the ban. The university is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which played a vigorous role in the campaign to pass Proposition 8.

See Idaho donated $400K to pass gay marriage ban