Some thoughts about proposition 8

[dsc]

First the California SCOTCA will not bail us out here. Our case is legally weak at best and they aren't going to ignore the 'will of the people' especially after they refused to stop the referendum from going forward in the first place. If issue 8 is going to be reversed it will need to be in a new election.

Because of the truth of above we need to take a cold, hard, honest look at which voters we need to make up ground with.

Clearly we tried with Hispanics and came up a little short. We lost the Latio vote by a fairly small margin. Clearly our ads helped since early polls and the 96 vote showed that their attitudes were significantly changed.

We didn't try with blacks and the rusults showed. Our ads ignored blacks almost entirely. No ads featuring black celebrities (like the ones featuring the Hispanics from Ugly Betty). No ads featuring black politicians like the ones for Hispanic ones. Then the other side used the Obama tape and the rest is history.

While it is possible, even probable that we still would have lost this time even with a campaign that reached out to blacks, there will be a next campaign, and we will likely do slightly better among all groups. That coupled with a campaign that reaches out to blacks will likley push us over the top.

Ignoring where we didn't get votes isn't helpful. Acknowledging it isn't blame. We can't win elections if we don't acknowledge where the votes are.

[cboy4]

1. The only way this vicious cycle is going to end is when it

goes to the United States Supreme Court.

This cruel rollercoaster ride needs to end .. and that means no more public votes on civil rights. It's outrageous.

[dsc]

2. this scotus

ah I think not.

[racaulk]

3. Hopefully Obama will get to appoint at least a couple of judges to the SCOTUS first.

If the current SCOTUS were to rule on this, I have no doubt that their decision would not be in our favor. And even if the SCOTUS were to rule in our favor, although the public votes on the state Constitutional amendments would end, the fight would still not be over. There are fundies that are still fighting for the overturn of Roe v. Wade...almost 36 years later.

[Creideiki]

7. Only if he can replace some of the hardline rightwingers

Say, Scalia or the sockpuppet.

[racaulk]

16. Agreed.

I really hope Scalia steps down during Obama's time in office!

But you're right, if Obama replaces a left-leaning judge (say, Ginsburg), that won't be a net gain for our cause.

[mondo joe]

17. Or expands the court. NT

[Creideiki]

53. Do you think he can attempt an FDR-style "Pack the Courts"?

I don't think he can or will. There's nothing in the Constitution that says how many Supreme Court Justices there are, and now we have this "tradition" that it's 9. So can Congress decide to up the number? Sure. All we need is some insta-grow for Democratic spines.

[Ioo]

4. I do not agree with the your overall slant..

I hope you are wrong, and I think you might be.

The CA SC did not rule because they did not want to waste time on what could have been a moot point. What would be the point of getting all the money and energy into fighting it if it were to have failed....

The court said, we will cross that bridge when we get there...

The will of the people is there, but I think the justices are also very smart people. A lot of hay has been made on the kind of freak fear that the YES people waged. They are also not blind to the huge amount of outside the state moves that were going on. I guess what I am saying is, the justices can, if they choose to, really wonder if the "will of the people" is the case, or was the lies and outside influence put that in question.

I also think that CA as a state, the state of CA wants gay marriage. AT EVERY LEVEL they are crying out how Prop 8 was and is going to bleed a state that is in some real $$$$$ trouble.

If I were to bet my $10 on this, I think at the end of the day, they will shot down prop 8. The justices tipped there hat to that in the ruling that they made last week, they ADDED a reason they wanted argued. No one had made the "separations of powers" argument, the justices kinda of ADDED it.. and this would be a strong argument to be had if you ask me.

So, I think that we just need to wait and see... who knows really.

[yardwork]

8. This approach might work for California but what about the other states?

Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida passed anti-gay legislation this past election day by much wider margins than Prop 8 was approved in California.

My state - North Carolina - is the only state in the entire southeast that doesn't already have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage AND gay civil unions. And they're still illegal in NC - the voters just haven't gotten the constitutional amendment on the ballot yet.

In other words, there isn't a single state in the entire southeastern part of the country that allows legal unions OR marriages for gay folks like me. Throughout the country many states have already passed constitutional amendments codifying discrimination against gay folks, and the trend continues.

California might be ok, but what about the rest of the country?

[Zuiderelle]

10. Exactly. If we put our energy into fighting this in the courts, it will set a precedent

and eventually go to the US Supreme Court where all those state constitutional amendments will get thrown out, including the one in Michigan where I live.

Wasting time thinking of ways to appeal to voters for the next time this gets put on the ballot doesn't help anyone but Californians. It would be an impossible battle to put a repeal of the amendments on the ballot in all the states that already have constitutional amendments.

Let's focus on the legal cases and let it snowball from there, as it should, and eventually will.

I have a fair amount of confidence at this point that we may actually see this taken to the Supreme Court in the next few years if not sooner, and that we may finally have full civil equality throughout this country in the next decade. But we need to concentrate on THAT and stop wasting time trying to convince people to give us what the constitution already guarantees us.

[yardwork]

20. In general, I agree. I shouldn't have to spend money telling people to support human rights.

I agree that the ultimate remedy for this is the U.S. Supreme Court. Sooner or later they will acknowledge that gay people are human beings too and covered by the U.S. Constitution.

In the meantime, if we are going to run ad campaigns we might as well run them in all demographics. As the OP points out, the ad campaign in the California Latina/o communities seems to have worked.

[Ioo]

18. THe Topic was Prop 8 in CA - We have to wait for more fav SCOTUS

Look, the fact is that the SCOTUS is NOT OUR FRIEND at the moment. Maybe it will be soon, maybe in the next 2 years or so we will be able see a SCOTUS that is more in line with the rule of law as related to the Constitution and not the Bible... When that happens, we can push this to the SC and we will win, these laws, all of them, are so clear as to being discriminatory.

Wisdom dictates that it is easier to win in the SCOTUS than it is to ask another SCOTUS to overturn a past SCOTUS. So pushing for this now would be death to the movement for 30 years or more.

[Zuiderelle]

47. I don't know if I agree with you on that.

If the CA Supreme Court sets the precedent for what is right, and then it's carried to the US Supreme Court, I think even the most right wing of our justices would be hard-pressed to justify ruling in favor of something that is so CLEARLY unconstitutional. Yes, maybe I'm being idealistic, but I can't imagine one of those egos wanting their legacy to be such an unprecedented prejudicial bias, that they KNOW will eventually be overturned, given the precedent already set in other progressive countries. If anything, they would simply try to shrug it off over and over again to the state Supreme Courts, which would continue to set precedents, for and possibly against us, until there would be no choice but to bring it to the Supreme Court. Either way, this is where our energies and dollars should be going.

[dsc]

54. their legacy is already Bush v Gore

can it really get any worse? If, and this is a big if, Obama can replace Scalia and Thomas in an 8 year Presidency then I could see SCOTUS as a possible friend.

[Zuiderelle]

65. That was a one-time event, that cannot ever be overturned.

We can't undo Bush, unfortunately.

[Ioo]

59. Work to repeal DOMA. The rest will come soon after that.

For the first time we will have gay marriage somewhere (Mass and Conn) and Federal level recognition of that fact. That is POWERFUL

[Zuiderelle]

64. Yes, that's a good plan.

[HillWilliam]

42. Lucky us, though

My senator is also the GA speaker. The last time that wackjob from down east tried to introduce a bill for an amendment to the NC Constitution banning gay marriage, I wrote SUCH a letter to Sen Foriest. It was calm, but very to the point (I had my "Rev" hat on and pen in hand, so-to-speak. They seem to listen to that one better.) I said something to the effect of, "with a budget crisis looming and hundreds of jobs being lost every week, doesn't the GA have anything better to do than grandstand for fringe votes?" Sen Foriest wrote back and said indeed the GA did and while he was Speaker, no such bill would make it to a vote. Besides NC already had a law defining marriage.

Which gave me an idea that such a law could be subject to repeal with enough time, effort, and precedent. I think we're reasonably safe of the amendment front for right now. We might not have gained ground this election, but I don't think we're in immediate danger of losing it. (Stay in touch with ENC!)

[yardwork]

45. Thank you!

[mondo joe]

5. I'm going to disagree. We may be better advised to play to our strengths, rather

than our weaknesses.

If the data suggests that African Americans as a voting demographic trend in a way that is biased against marriage equality, and there are other easier voting demographics were we can be more successful, take the path of least resistance. A 5% change in the Latino vote in California would have a far greater impact than a 5% change in the AA vote, an it might be a lot easier to achieve.

[yardwork]

9. What about the south, where I live?

[mondo joe]

14. Different states, different strategies - though if this is really come down to state-by-state

a number of the Southern states may defy any strategy.

[yardwork]

19. Eventually this is going to go to the Supreme Court.

Until then, people need to realize that gay people are not going to go away or settle down and allow our rights to be trampled. I don't think of myself as a second-class citizen. For one thing, I'm not used to it. I was middle-aged before I realized I was queer. I'd been in a heterosexual marriage with all the benefits for more than twenty years.

I am not about to fade quietly into the shadows over this issue, or wait around until the churches decide to stop calling me an abomination, or wait until people decide that they might be ok with my having rights. I'm also not naive enough to expect that "being nice" to people will change their minds.

It's going to take shame to change these laws. People are going to have to feel ashamed for treating other people so badly, just as the people watching TV during the civil rights movement felt shame.

[mondo joe]

21. I agree. And I think the Court will address it well before many states ever would.

But I also think it's important to get a number of key states - like California - on the right side before then.

[yardwork]

22. Yes, because otherwise we'll fight illegal discrimination for years.

The core of the problem is that many people are taught by their churches that being gay is an abomination. That is the key to the whole problem.

Until we get a critical mass of people in this country who reject bigotry against gay people we will continue to be treated as second-class citizens in every way.

[bluedawg12]

25. The very act of challenging these laws in some States opens eyes in others

the idea of staggering State strategies makes sense, as there are limited resources, time, and even human determination can flag and weary. However, building on State by State case law and starting where success is most likely makes sense.

If it weren't for the passage of Hate8 the national debate we are having would not be taking place - sadly, and what a price to pay.

[Ioo]

28. A Repeal of DOMA would make this far easier to work with. Once Fed Give rights,,,

Even if there were states out there that did not let you get married. A repeal of DOMA (Signed by Clinton) would make many of these issues NOT moot, but not sting.

I could get married in <FILL OUT STATE> (I am married in CA), and while my home state of WV could care less, the fact that I have release of the courts on a federal level would be great. One could in fact USE THE ANTI-GAY laws of a state to move even matters into a fed system, rendering the state laws pointless.

IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO PUT ENERGY OUTSIDE OF CA, REPEALING DOMA SHOULD BE YOUR CAUSE

[Zuiderelle]

6. Bull. We have a STRONG legal case.

We should be putting our energies towards the courts and forgetting about trying to win over people's votes. Enough time and money has been wasted trying to win people over, when it's a clear constitutional issue.

And you continuing to harp on the black vote is annoying at best.

[dsc]

11. I am harping on the black vote, as you put it, because the geniuses running the anti prop 8 campaign

totally ignored it. Go ahead, show he the ad they had geared toward black people. You can't, because there wasn't one. They worked Hispanics, to some apparent success, Asians to apparently good success and white people to mixed results. Blacks they ignored totally and go figure, got killed. The simple fact is that this will be up again in 2010 or 2012 and if we do then what we did now we will lose again. A closer loss, yes, but a loss, is a loss, is a loss.

[Zuiderelle]

13. But there is nothing on any ballot now. What good would an ad do right now?

IF it gets on the ballot in 2010 or 2012 and we haven't won in the courts, THEN you can harp about who you think we should target in advertisements. Why concentrate on that now?

[dsc]

15. because a sucessful ad strategy takes time to develop

and because now is the time to think ahead. We didn't think ahead and that is why we are where we are now. We figured that gays would get married, the sun would rise the next day, money would flow in, and Californians would be OK with it. That didn't work out, now did it. You seriously think the otherside isn't planning for in case they lose? The Mormons had a decade long plan to target gay marriage in order to get acceptance among mainstream fundies. The other side is planning for all contingnecies and we should too. We didn't, they did, and the results are clear for all to see.

[yardwork]

24. You and I live in the south and we know how important this is.

For one thing, ignoring any major demographic leaves our gay brothers and sisters who also identify within that demographic isolated and abandoned.

For another thing, the only way to address the problem of homophobia in this country is to frame it in terms of human rights and put that right in the middle of the table. Nobody gets a pass because their religion says they have to be homophobic. That means nobody, not most people.

Pretending that any demographic can be ignored just puts that demographic back into second-class status too. Not the way to go. We're all in this together. It's a rainbow world and we're demanding human rights for every color of the rainbow.

[dsc]

27. thank you

The fact is ignoring blacks here would mean likely never getting our rights. Plus, as you point out, ignoring more than a few of our fellow gay folk. Thank god for the fact that initiatives are nearly impossible to get on the ballot here or we would have had ours long ago.

[mondo joe]

29. One note here, if I may: If we are looking at popular vote, a la Prop8, we need

to pay attention to the electorate in question.

A campaign geared to California is going to look very different than one geared to Alabama.

And I think that in looking at a campaign, you have to go the route that will yield the most votes, regardless of any other factors. That doesn't make anyone a second class citizen - it's smart campaigning.

[yardwork]

32. That's right. My point was that ignoring a particular demographic is actually discriminatory.

Singling out a particular demographic to ignore in a public relations campaign is discriminatory. It says, "We don't care what you think and we don't think that your opinion is worth trying to change."

The bottom line is that all people are deserving of human rights and all people should be expected to support human rights for all.

[bluedawg12]

36. How do we stop human rights/civil rights ballot initiatives?

It's one thing to make our case and appeal to a variety of people, it is entirely another to allow a simple majority > 50%, to decide the human rights of any minority. How is this stopped in the first place?

[yardwork]

39. Shame.

It's disgraceful to ever allow the rights of a minority to be decided by majority vote. It's unconstitutional. It needs to be stopped now.

[bluedawg12]

44. Exactly! This is crazy, someone could pop up tomorrow with a Prop

to restrict the rights of any group. This Prop thing is out of control and that's why the RW loves it.

[yardwork]

46. I've been wondering if Proposition 8 was a test.

"Let's see if we can get the Mormon Church to fund a proposition in a state that allows up-down votes on minority rights. Hey, it worked! Let's go after group X now."

[bluedawg12]

58. There was thread in GD recently, where an anti-gay "expert" extended

restrictions to Native Americans, in terms of adoption, because of his claim of alcoholism!

It's like the Hater tipped his hand! I wish I could recall the thread that cited the outside source and OP, and my guess is that this was trap laid out for him during testimony by opposing counsel ( pro-gay) during cross examination to show the logical conclusion of such discriminatory thinking.

But this has the potential to extend beyond gays.

[shimmergal]

82. IMO, that's the key to

convincing a whole lot of voters. If this right can be taken away by a simple majority vote, no one's rights are safe.

I've been surprised by how many people who're not too supportive of gay marriage per se, have agreed with me on this since Nov. 4. It doesn't hurt, either, to remind them that Mormon propaganda had a lot to do with the Equal Rights Amendment failing in the 1970's. Bringing this up jars them into thinking that unequal pay etc. could come back if established rights can be voted away so easily.

[mondo joe]

I don't agree at all. Being campaigned to isn't a civil right. I wouldn't campaign to hardcore

evangelicals - that doesn't mean I'm discriminating against them.

[yardwork]

43. Technically you are discriminating. There's a difference between discrimination and civil rights.

I would campaign to hardcore evangelicals, too. They wouldn't like the campaign - it would be designed to shame them into shutting up about me and my rights.

[mondo joe]

48. Discriminating, in as much as saying I prefer pasta to pizza is discriminating.

But my interest in a campaign is a winning campaign. :-)

[yardwork]

49. LOL! Good point.

[mondo joe]

51. I know we share the same goal. I don't mean to have a real disagreement over

strategy.

:hug:

[yardwork]

52. I think that this is an excellent thread and an essential conversation.

I don't think I have all the answers, by any means. Gay people need to be having this conversation. We all want the same goal, and we all bring different perspectives about how to get it done.

:hug:

[bluedawg12]

50. We are discussing campaign strategy - and how we allocate resources

which is a great topic about discerning strategy, not to be confused with civil rights discrimination, as mentioned.

We have no "duty" to campaign to anyone, we do need to make smart choices.

[mondo joe]

55. And I think any campaign owes its donors (to say nothing of its mission) the best

use $ per $ to achieve its goals.

It doesn't mean there is NO strategy to connect with some hard to reach populations - but they can't be a focus equal to those most likely to be swayed.

[bluedawg12]

57. Yup. Work smarter and harder.

[mondo joe]

62. The other thing: everything in a campaign is - or should be - purposeful.

If you're buying a mailing list for a direct mail piece, let's say, are you going to buy the Mother Jones subscription list, the Time Magazine list, or some hardcore Evangelical mailing list?

Even if you say "all of them" you have to face the fact that with whatever limits you have on funding, you will have to make choices about how much and to whom.

[FreeState]

70. I don't think they ignored it 100%

There is this ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj-0xMrsyxE

THey should have had him out front visible instead of just a voice over but a high percentage of black voters know his voice - and the ad addresses the Black civil rights struggle. Its still week - and that was the problem - they needed to take a Harvey Milk in your face this is reality approach IMO.

[Ioo]

23. I agree that it is a waste of money. Out-reach should be done eye to eye

There is nothing to but in the ad...

"Hi I am gay and I want you to like me"

Forget it. Civil Rights were not won by blacks in the nation by an ad, they were won by the courts and the political process. FIGHT!

[yardwork]

26. I agree that asking people to like us is pointless and irrelevent anyway.

I don't care if people like me or not. I want equal rights. It also makes me angry that I even have to consider spending money or time reminding people that all people deserve equal rights.

But if some groups are going to run public relations campaigns, I hope they run them in all communities and reach out to all demographics. And I hope that the tone of the campaign is not "like me" but "all people deserve rights."

I'm more interested in shaming people. Shame works pretty well. It worked in the 1960s. You don't hear people say racist things out loud in most situations now.

[bluedawg12]

30. The problem is one of propaganda from religious groups vs. gays

there is no amount of getting to know people and changing their hearts when they have been immersed in a moral argument against gays.

What we do on a private level, one on one, in making friends is one thing, I am all for reaching out to people I am surrounded by. However, as a political movement, the fight for justice is the only way to actually change things and that is via the Courts.

Out reach may minimize "backlash" to gay activism but it won't stop the argument, "But being gay is immoral, sorry, marriage is one man one woman...."

[dsc]

31. actually I suggested nothing of the sort for ads

We should have run three ads aimed at blacks. One pointing out how racist the Mormon Church was and still is. Haters then, haters now, whom will they hate next? would have been the title. the second pointing out the partnership gays and blacks have had politically over the years "what have we done for you then and lately". The third, featuring black gays saying being gay isn't a white thing.

[bluedawg12]

33. Aren't we fighting the next war with last wars strategy?

I appreciate your looking at causes for why Hate8 passed and ways that could have changed things but it's over.
It's a Court matter now.

The thing that bothers me the most:

1.) Allowing human rights to be put up to a popular vote.

2.) How do we stop this from happening again, as far as human rights issues being on ballot intitiatives?

[dsc]

35. until it becomes a federal right

or California decides that this method of changing the Constitution is stupid, I don't see a way out. I hope I am wrong here but I fail to see any way that the Supreme Court of California is going to overturn this. They didn't overturn the proposition that went after undocumented workers which would have to be considered a more vulnerable class and the restrictions were more onerous.

[bluedawg12]

40. Assuming it is not overturned - then what? Can another ballot

initiative be put up for vote in California? I don't know the laws on this, so just asking?

BTW- if the California Supreme does not overturn, then, if not this year, in the future when we have an Obama Supreme Court, I do see it as a SCOTUS matter.

[Ioo]

60. WORK TO REPEAL DOMA. The rest will fall into place.

[yardwork]

38. Your question #2 is highly relevant as it is happening all over the country.

To me, Proposition 8 is the flame that started the fire but it's also the one most easily remedied. It will be remedied in the courts or in another proposition one day.

How do we remedy Florida, where 63% of the population just amended their constitution to make BOTH civil unions and marriage illegal for gay folks? How do we remedy Arkansas, where they already amended their constitution last time and this time they made it illegal for perpetually "single" gay folks to ever adopt?

The ultimate solution is obviously with the U.S. Supreme Court, but I don't have confidence in this court and, quite frankly, I don't have confidence that any likely replacements will show courageous progressive fervor. Obama is a centrist and the Democrats running Congress are proven wimps.

I say fight this fight on all stages. The courts, the individual states, public relations campaigns, and take it to the churches. Make them ashamed to treat people so badly. It's unchristian and ungodly.

[bluedawg12]

56. It makes me nauseous to read about new Fla. ban on civil unions

"Florida, where 63% of the population just amended their constitution to make BOTH civil unions and marriage illegal for gay folks?"

This is insanity! This JUST passed and it's a step backwards.

Yes, we do need to fight on all fronts and discussions about strategy is good. But, my faith in people who are subject to relentless anti-gay propaganda changing in significant numbers is dim.

In terms of priority, I weigh in on fighting at the State level, create State by State precedent, AND work on protest, boycott and what's left over in terms of time, money, resources, then, out reach.

Outreach is just not my first priority at this stage.

BTW- this is all pretty hypothetical at this stage, as we have yet to have the California Supreme CT. weigh in.

They may yet do the right thing in March.

[yardwork]

34. My personal opinion would be to stick with the third type of ad.

I'd avoid muddying the waters by talking about the Mormons at all, and some African Americans don't like the comparisons between the black Civil Rights Movement and gay rights, so I'd be inclined not to use either of those strategies.

We absolutely need black gay folks talking about their lives. We need black celebrities telling people that gay folks are black, too. We need black celebrities and leaders talking about how human rights mean everyone.

[dsc]

37. my second ad wouldn't have been a comparision

it would have been about Rustin, and the election of mayors Dinkins and Washington. cases where blacks and gays worked together to benefit both.

[yardwork]

41. That's reasonable. I agree that that would be a good ad.

[bluedawg12]

12. It's in the Court now, let's put our energy there

http://www.365gay.com/news/california-to-investigate-mormon-prop-8-donations/

"All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

As is its custom when it takes up cases, the court elaborated little. However, the justices did say they want to address what effect, if any, a ruling upholding the amendment would have on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that were sanctioned in California before Election Day.

The initiative’s opponents had also asked the court to grant a stay of the measure, which would have allowed gay marriages to begin again while the justices considered the cases. The court denied that request.

The justices directed Attorney General Jerry Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign to submit arguments by Dec. 19 on why the ballot initiative should not be nullified...>

Copy of petition:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/S168047_S168066_S168078-11-19-08_ORDER.pdf

[bluedawg12]

61. Here is an analysis about "what went wrong"

I was going to post it as a topic of it's own, but it fits in with this thread nicely so here 'tis.

I wonder if this rings true?

http://www.365gay.com/features/prop-8-what-went-wrong/

Prop 8: What went wrong
By Louis Weisberg,
Special to 365gay.com
11.25.2008

[keepCAblue]

63. Solution is not in the courts nor in another election...

The "will of the people" cannot be trusted to protect an oppressed minority from the tyranny of the majority, as was evidenced in the Southern Jim Crow laws of the 60s and by all of the state anti-gay laws that have passed over the last eight years. This is why civil rights issues should never be allowed on a ballot - EVER.

For reasons already stated, we will not likely find justice in either the state or US Supreme Courts. The injustice is not merely a California problem, it is a national problem - thirty states now have constitutional bans against same-sex marriage. Thus, a win at the California Supreme Court level will do little to remedy the injustices in the 29 other states. Furthermore, even if the CA Supreme Court rules in our favor, you can bet our foes--the supporters of Prop 8--will appeal to the US Supreme Court. In spite of the fact that it was the US Supreme Court who, in 2003, struck down the sodomy laws in Texas (Lawrence v. Texas), we cannot forget that since that landmark 2003 decision, the complexion of the court has changed significantly with the addition of justices Roberts and Alito. Whether a same-sex marriage case, presented as a fundamental right, could survive strict scrutiny under the current US Supreme Court is highly debatable, unfortunately, due to Bush's uber-conservative appointees.

The only solution to the civil rights crisis of present day is through federal legislative action, just as it was necessary to do in 1964:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment. Conceived to help African Americans, the bill was amended prior to passage to protect women, and explicitly included white people for the first time. It also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In order to circumvent limitations on congressional power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause imposed by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases, the law was passed under the Commerce Clause, which had been interpreted by the courts as a broad grant of congressional power. Once the Act was implemented, its effects were far reaching and had tremendous long-term impacts on the whole country. It prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment, invalidating the Jim Crow laws in the southern U.S. It became illegal to compel segregation of the races in schools, housing, or hiring. Powers given to enforce the bill were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson righteously pushed congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without Johnson's heavy-handed exhortations to Congress, this act would not have passed on its own merits. For today's civil rights crisis, the task of righteousness falls on PE Barack Obama. How Obama handles this matter will, one way or the other, become his legacy. Will he be a complete coward by ignoring the injustice; will he be a hypocrite by pushing through a "separate-but-equal" civil rights bill; or will he be a hero and defender of all people, by pushing Congress to "fix" the Civil Rights Act of 1964, amending it to include sexual orientation and gender identity?

Were Obama and Congress to amend the CRA '64 to include sexual orientation and gender identity, constitutional bans of thirty states against same-sex marriage (and, now, adoption) would be in violation of said act, in that it prohibits discrimination IN GOVERNMENT.

So we should not be putting energy, time and money into a 2010 repeal election, nor into years and years of hideously expensive state-level court cases, all of which would eventually funnel their way into the US Supreme Court where, at best, the outcome would be a crap shoot. No, we should be focusing everything we have on Obama and Congress, exhorting them to "do the right thing" and amend the CRA '64 or pass an equivalent piece of legislation. In the years leading up to the 1964 passage of the CRA '64, it was the protests, sit-ins, boycotts, etc. that opened the door to negotiation between then-president John F. Kennedy and leaders of the black civil rights movement. That is why it is IMPERATIVE for glbt activists and our supporters to CONTINUE making ourselves visible and our voices heard, be it through marches, rallies, acts of civil disobedience, UNTIL Obama and the United States Congress open a similar door to negotiation.

Keep marching. Keep screaming. Keep boycotting. Keep fighting. Keep your eyes on the prize.

[bluedawg12]

66. The Federal Laws you cited are why "State's Rights" became the rallying cry

for right wingers.

Claiming that marriage rights are a States rights issue, is a way of punting the problem back to the States and avoiding Federal responsbility for civil rights.

Good analysis. Thanks!

[keepCAblue]

67. They can cry "states' rights" all they want...but

it will be a false premise upon which they stand. As long as there are federal laws, regulations and benefits that are tied to marital status, the issue of marriage equality MUST be decided by the federal government.

[bluedawg12]

68. Theoretically I agree. This is the elephant in the room, however,

in an ideal world that's how pols would stand up and fight for us.

If I recall, even as a candidate Mr. Obama said it was up to the States?

As a side bar, in looking up some quotes, interesting how some candidates like Mclame framed it as "protecting the sanctity of marriage."

Since when do States have a duty to protect "sanctity?" What ever sanctity is, since it is variably defined by different groups.

Their duty is to protect equal rights under the law.

..........

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/katvoboril/Cvyf

Obama: Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

............

[keepCAblue]

69. Obama contradicts "states' issue" on his change.gov site

Workplace discrimination...federal rights for LGBT couples...oppose a federal constitutional ban...adoption rights for LGBTs

All these sound like Obama has waded into the deep waters of federal protections and recognition for LGBTs - he has ventured far from the shores of "states' rights".

Workplace discrimination is one of the key provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. How can he reconcile his commitment to granting LGBTs federal rights as relates to civil unions, workplace protections, adoption rights (which has already been banned in AR via a state constitutional amendment), and the repeal of DOMA, and still maintain marriage law is a "states' issue"? He can't and it is up to glbts and our supporters in ALL states to confront Obama on this conflict. Either he defends the civil rights of all Americans or he is a liar and a hypocrite.

As I said before, we must hammer Obama--just as the black civil rights movement hammered JFK--until he "gets it." That is our job and if we fail as a community to mount a movement capable of shaking the status quo, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.


# Fight Workplace Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. Obama also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

# Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

# Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

# Expand Adoption Rights: Barack Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.

[AntiFascist]

71. Umm, I think you need to take a good look at the legal arguments against Prop 8...

which are summarized very well in the amicus curiae. There are excellent arguments as to why Prop. 8 is both unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers of government. Unfortunately the media glosses over this, particularly the LA Times.

[bluedawg12]

72. Can you point me to the friend of the court brief from this link?

Looks like there are several, I will look at them or the one.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm

[AntiFascist]

73. Yes...

They are all under the heading "Letters in support of petition"

I also found this one particularly educational:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4450307#4459480

It was submitted by UC law professors, including a distinguished chair, which was submitted to support the lawsuit previously filed to have Prop. 8 removed from the ballot. (The CA Supreme Court did not rule on that case because typically they let the people vote on initiatives before getting involved.)

[bluedawg12]

74. Thank you!

[David Zephyr]

75. You don't have a crystal ball as to what the California Supreme Court will do.

Respectfully, I believe just the opposite.

I believe that the California Supreme Court will look at the initiative from several angles, none of which will be a good thing for the proponents of Prop H8.

1.) Our state constitution clearly has a strong equal protection clause.

2.) Amending our constitution requires a 2/3 vote by the state legislature which then goes to the people (ballot initiative). That is the proper order for amending our constitution.

3.) Even if the state legislature was to vote by 2/3 majority to strip gays and lesbians of their civil rights and even if the public then voted in agreement, the Supreme Court would still be faced with our Equal Protection language. I believe that even then, such a measure would be seen as unconstitutional.

4.) There already is ample precedent of the California Supreme Court overturning ballot measures as unconstitutional.

Finally, our GLBT community should NOT be trying to win elections about our rights. Your OP surrenders our constitutional cause suggesting that our efforts be to "win elections".

The ballot measure was unconstitutional. It is a matter for the Court to remedy.

The Supreme Court knows well that once any minority's rights can be subjected to mob rule, then Pandora's box is opened for White Only Country Clubs, English Only Employment Criteria. Put anything on the ballot and then the tyranny of the majority will reign unfettered.

Minorities could have never won rights to vote, to own property, to marry through the ballot. It came through the Courts and by direct action.

Our battle is correctly in the Court.

And that's where we will win. Just as it was won in Vermont in the courts. Just as it was won in Massachusetts in the courts.

The big news is that in spite of the initial setback, we will be victorious.

The big loser in all of this is the Mormon Church which has confirmed the worst suspicions of average Americans about the organization. They blew it big time. They have created a PR nightmare that they could never have imagined. They have now unwittingly also disclosed their members names and addresses and businesses all over the country. Their great lever of secrecy is no more.

But back to my main point: our fight is correctly in the Court.

We will win because our rights are constitutionally equally protected.

We will win. I believe we have already won.

[keepCAblue]

76. by "We will win", you mean CALIFORNIA glbts will win. What of the...

...glbts in the other 29 states that have constitutional bans?

A win in California does not amount to a win for glbts, collectively. This is a civil rights issue that impacts glbts in all fifty states. The ONLY way to achieve equality across state lines is by a US Congressional legislative action.

[AntiFascist]

77. The CA Marriage Ruling determined that gays and lesbians...

(sexual orientation) is a suspect classification. This provides strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause, and sets a precedent. Other state courts may site this ruling in coming to their own determination about sexual orientation. This is where we are in basic disagreement with the Religious Right, which argues that sexual orientation is a choice, or that it can be fixed through therapy. Science is on our side. Eventually, when this is brought before the Federal Supreme Court, we may have the momentum and DOMA can be overturned.

[David Zephyr]

78. You are correct in how it should be done, but don't count on federal action with the term "marriage"

I am in agreement with you completely that the real remedy is to write this into federal law which would be done, as you point out, by congressional legislative action.

But, the most that this Congress controlled by Democrats and our new President will do will give us all of the civil rights contained within heterosexual marriages including tax filing, inheritance, immigration, etc. But it will not include the loaded term "marriage" in any such legislation. I think that this would be a giant step in the right way. Obama has said that heterosexual couples should not have any federal rights that gay couples don't. But he, along with most all Democrats in Congress, will not include the word "marriage" in any bill drafted. At least not now.

Is that cowardly? Or is it moving the ball forward pragmatically as much as possible?

Consider, Congress still has never written abortion rights into law. In spite of the fact that nearly 2/3 of all Americans believe that a woman has a right to choose, Congress has never brought forward legislation to a President to sign those rights into law. Women still, all these many years later, rely on the rulings of the Supreme Court.

Back to your other point: a "win in California does not amount to a win for glbts, collectively." I respectfully disagree, but only in degree. It was courts in Vermont and Massachusetts and more recently Connecticut that have pushed the marriage issue into reality. One domino after the next, emboldening courts in other states to rule for "equal protection" and to continue stacking up legal precedent state by state. So if we win a victory with the California Supreme Court, it will be yet one more powerful precedent, one more crack in the wall, and one more state forever subtracted from the unjust ledger of that original 50 states where no rights existed before.

Is this incrementalism? Yes. Is it progress? Without any doubt. In fact, it is huge progress. Ask any of my friends who were among the 20,000 or so that got "married".

As to your other observation, I used the word "we" because I am a Californian. The OP author is not. It was in that context. Since he was giving his opinion about how he felt the Supreme Court out here would rule, I felt -- that as a Californian who sees that ruling coming down differently, and favorably our way (that would be we Californians) -- that I would say so.

While there is good reason for encouragement that Prop 8 was such a narrow victory compared to the last ballot initiative here because it shows the cultural climate has moved dramatically our way, I do not want to encourage any more ballot measures where our civil rights, or those of anyone else, is ever subjected to a popular vote. The Equal Protection Clause of the U.S Constitution and even in our Californian constitution are not negotiable. It is never right to vote on anyone's civil rights.

So, while I understand the OP's wish to "win elections" about our civil rights, while I sympathize with his heart-felt sentiments, I strongly disagree that we should be participating in ballot measures in 2010, as some even here in California have suggested, because I feel that it signals that we a giving in, giving up a very important legal principle: equal protection for all under the law.

I believe the California Supreme Court will rule in our favor. I may be wrong. I also do not have a crystal ball, but even if the Court wanted to reverse itself, how do they write inequality into their decision? I don't think they will want to go there.

Finally, even this Californian in a relationship for nearly 35 years who uses the word "we" when speaking as a Californian, refuses to marry because the two of us feel we are part of the bigger "we" of all American GLBT who can not marry. Like Brad Pitt and his mate, we can not find it within ourselves to be part of something that is still denied to others--those in the "other" states that you correctly champion. It is a personal decision on our part. We have attended the joyous weddings of our friends gay and straight. If there is any union in this country stronger than ours, I've never seen it. And yet, while we rejoice at those that have gotten married, we just can't do it until all can. And hopefully, one day we will, but when all can.

[dsc]

79. a couple of things

First, I hope on the court you are right and I am wrong. I just think that the retention system you have out there is going to be what ends up doing us in.

Second, some of those victories were won at the ballot box. The voting rights act for example, was an act of Congress, not the Courts but I do agree that marriage will be won in the court.

I do agree that the Mormons made a huge mistake here. They will be very sorry they ever did this unless the fundies decide they are no longer a cult and that is highly unlikely to say the least.

Finally, on a more personal note, I am glad we are speaking again. Hope your thanksgiving is going well.

[David Zephyr]

80. Happy Thanksgiving.

Carlos and I went to see "Milk" at the Arc Light in Hollywood and we ran into Leslie Jordan afterward. He said he cried in the film and Carlos told him "not as much as David." We wound up swapping tales of growing up in the Bible Belt as kids and singing hymns together at the parking lot. How cool was that? He is a very precious man. Carlos kissed him. What an afternoon. And what a film.

Seeing the film tore me up. I know that you know that I was very active back then. This film was very close to home for me.

Now I look at where we are with Prop H8. You know, we had our Proposition 6 long before these other hate-filled ballot measures. It's like a fucking tradition having ballot initiatives to fuck with us.

Fire the homosexual teachers ballot initiative.

Make anti-discrimination ordinances against homosexuals void ballot initiatives.

Criminalize gay adoption ballot initiatives.

Outlaw gay marriages and gay union ballot initiatives.

That's why I feel so strongly about my civil rights being toyed with by bigots (there are some here at the DU, too who took joy in our defeat here in the Golden State and this parenthetical comment is for those that would lurk here) in our forum.

I want the fucking courts to do their job as they did for minorities historically.

Watching "Milk" conjured up all those memories of Proposition 6 here in California, of being terrorized in our clubs by the police, of being threatened at our first marches in the 70's with bottles thrown at us while the cops laughed.

I hope I am right about the Supreme Court here, too. I admire your sentiment about winning elections, dsc, but I'm tired of being subjected to unconstitutional elections anymore.

Happy Thanksgiving to you, too. :hi:

[dsc]

83. I figured you would see Milk fast

we get it in December so I am set to see it on the 11th. I can't wait. I am fortunate to live in a state where the constitution is hard to amend. But if we lose the legislature just once it will be game over here. The initiative which really terrifies me is the one out of Arkansas which banned single parent adoption and fostering. If that spreads who knows what is next.

[Iggo]

81. With Prop 187...

...they did the right thing and ignored the will of the people.