Perhaps leaving out the conservative side of the debate led to some poor decisions and the passage of the proposition.

He has promised greater transparency in government, committing to making “his administration the most open and transparent in history.“

Didn’t we get a similar promise from the liberals of the 110th Congress, of which Chairman Obama was a participant? We’re still waiting.

Hell, Bush provided more transparency than Obey et. al.

but it’s not open to the general public and the organization has set certain rules for how journalists can cover the event.

Sieg Heil, baby!

Equality California will be hosting an “Equality Summit” in Los Angeles on Saturday, Jan. 24,but it’s not open to the general public and the organization has set certain rules for how journalists can cover the event. Many of the “No on 8″ leaders will no doubt be in attendance. [Emphasis added]

What arrogant a**holes these people are!

I think the worst thing about this is that while these losers have been hiding behind their shroud of secrecy, even small-amount private donors to the Yes on 8 campaign have had their names published; some have even been hounded from their jobs!

With “no Republicans on the Committee” thing (as you put it), I am suggest thatthose who organize these committees, largely the left-leaning gay leadership, don’t reach out to the Republicans in our community (a point I’ve made repeatedly on this blog). And once again, torrent, state recognition of marriage is not a right, but a privilege.

I do know that lefties sites have listed the failures of the “No on 8″ campaign. Heck, I linked one in this very post, maybe two if you count Patrick as a leftie. Nice guy he is, but conservative he is not.

And quit your insults, ok? I handled more than two thoughts at once in this post. It’s you who didn’t get the point of that reference. The point is this, and it comes from the aforementioned Patrick, once again, hardly a Republican he, that Lorrie Jean would rather attack Mormons (like much of the “No on 8″ “leadeship”) than admit her own mistakes.

Of course, I’ve said this before, but you don’t seem to bother to read my posts, only to skim them so you can find something to attack.

And no, torrent, Mormons aren’t our enemies. They just disagree with gay activists on some issues. And until you get that point, you–and others like you—should be disqualified from the debate on gay marriage.

But, we live in a free society where we must tolearate the speech even of the ingorant.

And I’m going to criticize my political adversaries when I see them offering silly arguments and engaging in juvenile tactics rather than making serious arguments.

Wow, I’m sounding a little harsher than I normally do, but I want to promote a conversation on this blog and you’re clearly not interested in such an even-handed exchange.

Anyway, the names of these folks should be sounded loudly from one side of the state to the other, if not coast to coast. This was the worst example of comfortable, insider politics assuming that they could relax and not fight the lies and hatred emanating for church pulpits and talk radio. They lost us marriage rights and p*ssed away a ton of money. The (lefty) sites (unless you consider Rolling Stone a conservative publication) that have listed out their failures need as much exposure as possible.
And, GPW, you may need to handle two thoughts at once here, but just because a commander fails to adequately defend a city from attack when it could have been defended doesn’t mean it wasn’t under attack. The Mormons did fund and organize a huge initiative to strip us of marriage rights. It doesn’t mean that we couldn’t have won, of course, but it doesn’t make the lies they told about kids learning about gay marriage in school and preachers being arrested any less disgusting. Guess some bloggers would rather attack their political adversaries than admit we have enemies.