When talking to (and reading the e-mails of) my gay friends and acquaintances about Mormons, all too many of them insist on insulting that faith and its flock, largely because of the church’s involvement in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 last fall.

Recall the hysteria of the protests last fall against the passage of Prop 8?  The activists directed their ire at the Mormon Church.  And now, as we debate means to repeal the proposition, it seems sometimes that they would rather attack Mormons than make the case for gay marriage.

In that process, they would alienate those Mormons who, while they love their church, do not always agree with its teaching, individuals who might buck church elders and vote for gay marriage.  If the issue is about the qualities of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints, then they lose those votes–as well as those of others truly tolerant of the great variety of religions which flourish in the United States.

Last month, Law Professor William A. Jacobson noted how some bloggers were singling out one of the signatories on the Obama Justice Department brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because that lawyerThey  is Mormon:  “Even though others also signed the brief, and the brief must have gone through a vetting process at DOJ, Aravosis chose to single out the one person who was Mormon for scorn“.

Why is it that gay marriage activists are so determined to use the debate on their issue to vilify members of a particular faith instead of making the case for the social change they advocate? It’s almost as if their real issue is not promoting gay marriage, but demonizing cetain social conservatives.

GayPatriot reader Jeff Fenner sent me this “letter to the editor” for publication.  I have reprinted in its entirety.

All I can say is…. AMEN, brother!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

==========

Call me crazy, but I don’t see anywhere in the United States Constitution that gives anyone the right to marry, least of all, heterosexuals. What I do see is that each man was created equal and is to be treated equal and be allowed the pursuit of happiness.

Why don’t gay marriage advocates chase the simple idea that only married heterosexuals get tax breaks, next of kin benefits, and partner benefits? It’s wholly unconstitutional that only hetero’s get these benefits. No where in the Constitution is it written ‘only heterosexuals’.

There isn’t even a definition of marriage IN the Constitution, at least, not yet. I truly believe that gay marriage advocates would get FAR more traction, politically, attacking the tax breaks and other benefits that ONLY heterosexually married couples get. Why should they pay fewer taxes than single people? Why not pull in the single voting public. Surely the voice would be louder and tougher to ignore?

This is a prime example of Religion getting too close to government and getting a government sanction for their dogma. Most religions recognize marriages between a man and a woman. This is an example of religion reaching too far into our government. Why don’t we look at that, and even the reasons for the tax breaks given?

It is my belief that these tax breaks were born out of the idea that the federal government needed and continues a need to encourage marriage between a man and a woman so that it can ‘grow’ a future tax base. A married couple can use the ‘tax break’ to grow their family with more affordability. If this same tax break is given to a straight single person, or couple that aren’t living together romantically where’s the incentive to ‘grow a family’…a family of individuals that would eventually be taxpayers.

In short, it’s far more unconstitutional to give a tax break to married couples than to bar gay people from being married. Single people should join the fight and demand the same tax breaks given to married people, or that the IRS disallow a tax break for heterosexually married people. Imagine the increase in the tax base if this benefit was removed!

As you might imagine, I don’t believe it’s the government’s place to determine what marriage is. I don’t believe it’s my government’s place to give one group of benefits that it freely and loosely gives another group of people.

I’m ambivalent about gay marriage in part because, in studying the history of the institution, we learn it is defined by gender difference.  Up until the 1990s, those cultures which have recognized same-sex unions either called  them something different than marriage or, if they did call them marriage, required one partner to live in the guise of the opposite sex.

And while today, we do not define gender roles as strictly as did most societies until the second half of the century just concluded — and as do many nations around the world, particularly the Islamic world, we can still see differences between the genders, particularly in the gay community.  Just contrast how gay men and lesbians relate to one another.

Despite these noticeable differences, the politically correct voices in academia and the gay movement, balk at acknowledging the reality of this experience.  In one breath, they tell us gender is a social construct, but in the next, they tell us sexual orientation is predetermined, it is, so speak, encoded in our DNA, leading blogger Gregory of Yardale to ask:

How is it the left can simultaneously claim that gender is a purely social construct, but homosexuality is determined by genetics?

Gender differences are more than just physiological, and our sexual orientation may well develop from a great variety of factors, some nature, some nurture.

Reading yesterday that some prominent gay donors to the Democrats were pulling out of a party fundraising dinner later this month because the President has been backtracking on promises he made to the gay community helps illuminate San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s political strategy.  It becomes increasingly clear that his decision to direct city authorities to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in 2004 was a ploy to curry favor with the gay community in anticipation of a future gubernatorial bid.

And now with his rainbow “Newsom 2010,” signs, we see how it’s tapping into our community’s enthusiasm for his actions as he begins that campaign.

With these prominent gay figures pulling out of the national Democratic fundraiser, we are reminded just how generous gay people have been to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates.  While we may not be as demographically strong as some activists might claim, we are a relatively affluent community, thus a ready source of campaign cash for political candidates.

So, Newsom sought to become a folk hero among gays in order to raise money from affluent homosexuals and to seek volunteers among impassioned activists for his 2010 campaign.  And Newsom supporters were out in force at the Gay Pride festival this past weekend in Los Angeles.  His rainbow signs and stickers were ubiquitous.  Those very signs indicated his recognition of the role gay people play in California Democratic politics.

He marched with his supporters in Sunday’s parade:

Newsom’s pandering to the gay community is a smart political strategy.  It could put him in a good position to win a potentially crowded Democratic primary.  Enthusiastic gay people are more likely to vote than other groups.

It’s not clear, however, how much this will help him in the general election.Indeed, should a proposition appear on the fall 2010 ballot to repeal Prop 8, they would energize evangelical voters–and Republicans would already be energized to vote against big-spending Democrats.  That could diminish Newsom’s chances.

Right now, the San Francisco Mayor is focused on winning his party’s gubernatorial nomination.  And he seems to be doing all the right things to tap into the financial resources of an affluent community and the energy of that community’s overly politicized activists.

Make the case for gay marriage, not against social conservatives.

UPDATE from Bruce:  Conservative Brawler has a related perspective on this topic. 

When looking at the gay marriage issue, one has to ponder… what is this really all about? Gays can already have any relationship they wish, what they’re fighting for here is state-recognized status. Why? They can call themselves “married” until they’re blue in the face, why do they need to the state to recognize their union? Because with state-recognition comes state benefits. And here we find the crux of the issue for the intellectual conservative - the reason the intellectual conservative wants gay marriage to be decided state-by-state isn’t because he has some vehement hatred for gays, but because he believes that a state’s citizens should have the autonomy to decide what they will and will not subsidize.

It is such a fine posting that I could have chosen any paragraph of it to highlight.  So please, read the whole thing!

Perhaps the greatest irony of the campaign last fall against Proposition 8 was how readily opponents of the initiative used the most hateful language to slur their opponents as haters. So self-righteous were they in their cause that they assumed that only those with malicious motives could support the measure.

In the course of the campaign, however, those promoting the proposition rarely attacked the opponents with the vehemence of those opponents used against them.

I was reminded of this at our GayPatriot dinner earlier this week.  A reader (whom I had not previously met) joined us and recalled their rhetoric exactly as I had. He too reported how vicious opponents of the initiative had been, nearly bringing him (a young gay man) to vote in favor. 

Yet, this reader’s words reminded me of my thoughts last fall when I voted against Prop 8. While I didn’t think it was appropriate for the state constitution to define marriage, I also didn’t want the haters to win. From all the hateful e-mails I received from the “No” side* and the speeches and conversations I heard, the hatred came primarily from the gay marriage side, those how like me, opposed the constitutional amendment.

I was no alone. In hist post on wavering before voting “No,” Wesley says he had wanted to “punish” those who had made an anti-Mormon ad (ostensibly to oppose 8).  He too was offended by the rhetoric of Prop 8 opponents. (more…)

As many of you know, Carrie Prejean was dethroned earlier this week as Miss California and replaced by someone whose name will be forgotten as soon as the publicity over her recent crowning subsides.  If it is true that Miss Prejean breached her contractual obligations, as pageant executives contend, then this action was entirely justified.

Given, however, that the pageant executive quoted in most news reports, Keith Lewis, has not concealed his animus against Miss Prejean, I was initially skeptical of his claim that, “This was a decision based solely on contract violations.” Methinks he may have been a bit overeager to find such violations.  That said, Donald Trump who has shown himself to be incredibly even-handed in this hullabaloo, did sign off on the dethronement, saying that Prejean did not honor her contract.

If she wasn’t doing her job, she deserved the boot.

Lewis seemed determined to dethrone Prejean.  And if Trump is right, then she gave her adversary the proverbial robe he used to hang her.  He did seem to have a vendetta against her.  When I saw him on Larry King Live with the new Miss California, he was practically gloating.  He had to wreak vengeance because she hurt his feelings when offering a different point of view on gay marriage at odds with his own.

Well, it looks like he won’t be too happy with Prejean’s replacement, Tami Farrell, as she also believes marriage is between a man and a woman.  But, to Miss Prejean’s advesaries, they probably won’t matter too much.  They had made it all about her.  And she just had to be defeated.

So, they got their pound of flesh.  And the former Miss California may well have made it easier for them to take.

For as long as I have observed and particpated in gay politics, I have noticed that, by and large, the diversity at gay confabs is one of appearance, not ideas.  Well, perhaps, I’m being a bit harsh, they do include a range of political opinion from socialist progressives (and communist sympathizers) to what some deem as conservatives, i.e., the Democratic apologists at HRC.

To be sure, there are exceptions, but when in the organized opposition to Prop 8 and now the nascent movement to repeal 8, Republicans are about as scarce as virgins at the Playboy Mansion.

While some of our critics fault me for pointing this out ad nauseum and doing nothing about it, I have been reaching out to the few people I know out here (in LA) in contact with the leadership of the gay organizations.  One person, either at my behest or on her own steam, has pointed out the absence of Republicans to some of those leaders.  I spoke with another individual who reported on efforts within one gay organization to include more Republicans.  And this before I raised the issue.

It seems that they have encountered some pretty strong resistance from those averse to dealing with Republicans all together.

In short, there are a number of liberal gay activists quietly working behind the scenes to promote political diversity in the gay leadership, but they face an entrenched intransigence among what, I would call, a hard-left gay establishment.

I can’t yet single out by name those whom I have contacted and who have responded sympathetically to my concerns.  But, I do want to commend them for taking on a cause not entirely their own, the inclusion of those with political beliefs at odds with their own in the gay leadership and at gay confabs.

Just as not all gay activists are lickspittles to the Democratic Party, not all gay activists are committed to the exclusion of Republicans.

I realize now that, even with some allies on the gay left, it is quite a daunting task to fight for the inclusion of Repubilcans in the efforts to overturn 8.  And I’m not quite sure this is my fight.  For now, let me point out that not all prominent gay activists suppot the exclusion of gay Repubicans.  Some actually are quietly working for our inclusion.  It’s just that they’re up against a determined cadre of intolerant zealots who see attacking Republicans as an article of faith–and perhaps their primary purpose.

Reading the first comment to my post on why, I believe, the Prospects Don’t Look Good for Overturning Proposition 8 in the Golden State, I wondered if a reader had been stealing glances at my notes for he had done a great job anticipating an issue which I plan to start addressing with this post and hope to consider regularly for the next few weeks:

So, Dan, this looks like a great opportunity to start working with / providing consultation-advice, and build some bridges.

Work on the side, provide input in any way that makes you feel comfortable, or will you close the door on this opportunity to be part of the change?

Basically, I’ve been scribbling notes on strategies for overturning Prop 8.  Right now, I don’t think it would be smart to push this issue for 2010 and it might be better to wait until 2012, but the success of the legislation in New Hampshire may make it easier to address the issue sooner rather than later.

There, while the Governor peronally opposed gay marriage, he signed legislation providing for his state to recognize it because it included language spelling out “that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services. Legislators made the changes.”

If that gay marriage opponent could be persuaded to sign a bill recognizing same-sex marriages, then other gay marriage opponents could be persuaded to vote for similar legislation.

In short, do in California what the legislature in New Hampshire did after Governor Lynch first vetoed the bill–include a provision addressing the concerns of gay marriage opponents.  And their strongest argument is that state recognition of same-sex marriage could prevent churches and other religious institutions from defining marriage according to the dictates of their faith.

So, include such a provision.  And have a conservative legsl scholar draft it. Thus, when pushing this measure, advocates can point to his authorship. It would give the measure credibility on the right and make it more difficult for social conservatives to raise the religious freedom objection which they used so effectively last fall. (more…)

I had delayed in posting on New Hsmpshire’s recognition of same-sex marriages, thinking that I might have something profound and original to say, but (in past posts on legislative recognition of gay marriage),  I’ve pretty much said everything I have to say about this.

I could go on about the hyperbolic language of the releases that have cluttered my e-mail boxes.  It seems that most gay organizations don’t understand the meaning of the words “freedom” and “legal.”  (It seems they believe you need some kind of government imprimatur to be free.)

When the folks at Freedom (sic) to Marry announce that New Hampshire Becomes Sixth State to Embrace Freedom to Marry, it almost sounds like people who had previously gotten married in the Granite State had to hide their unions lest they be persecuted.  The same holds for those who announce that it’s now “legal” for gays to wed in New Hampshire. You mean, they had been jailed in the past for getting married?

All that said, I am pleased with the way things progressed in New Hampshire, particularly pleased with the final result for the same reasons I was pleased with the processes in Vermont and Maine.  In the Granite State, we really saw the benefit of the legislative process.  There, instead of judges announcing a decision in accordance with the court calender, there was a real back-and-forth between the elected Governor and the elected members of the legislature.  The Framers would have been pleased at that deliberative process.  If people don’t like the result, they can hold their representatives accountable at the ballot box.

Governor John Lynch, an opponent of gay marriage, opposed the initial bill because of his concerns that it might not protect the liberty of churches to define marriage according to their creed.  But, when he vetoed the initial legislation, he proposed a compromise, asking for language spelling out “that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services. Legislators made the changes“:

The revised bill added a sentence specifying that all religious organizations, associations or societies have exclusive control over their religious doctrines, policies, teachings and beliefs on marriage.

It also clarified that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same-sex spouses of employees.

As we see, this process allowed the law-making body to address citizens’ concerns.

There’s something else in this process which could help advance gay marriage in other states.  Advocates can show how they persuaded a gay marriage opponent (Lynch) to sign a bill recognizing same-sex marriage.  With the appropriate religious liberty provisions in the statutes they propose, they may be able to persuade other such opponents.

And so I end on the subject of my next post (planned before I had learned of the good news from the Granite State.)

When it comes to Democratic politicians, all but a few gay activists swoon when a politician in (or pursuing) power pays lip service to “gay rights” or “equality” or whatever is the gay leftist watchword of the day.  And while they may grouse and they may grumble when that Democrat with soaring rhetoric fails to follow through on his campaign promise(s), that failure won’t dampen their enthusiasm.  Recall how HRC refused to rescind its endorsement of Bill Clinton even after he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996.

And now they’re all but tripping over themselves to sing President Obama’s praise despite that Democrat’s failure to follow through on his campaign promise to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.  Even the unhappy Barney Frank, supposedly an advocate for gay issues, has been so captivated by Obama’s charisma that he’s defending his party’s plan to go slow (i.e., ignore) action on that promise.

Former Vice President Cheney frank remarks on gay marriage further expose the Democrat’s mealy-mouthed record on gay issues (”equivalent rights” anyone?), some, including blogress Dr. Melissa Clouthier, are wondering why gays don’t get mad at Obama:

President Obama knows [gay marriage] is a political loser. So do gay activists. For the greater good, gay activists won’t push the President. They will hypocritically maintain their silence. They will be willingly silenced by the President because it serves the Democrat’s purpose.

Is anyone astonished and appalled at the hypocrisy around this issue? We shouldn’t be. The Left has a long record of political expedience around this and other social issues. Remember President Clinton’s treatment of women? Yeah. And they love, love, loved him!

To the gay left, it’s not about ideas, not about principles, not even about gay people, it’s all about keeping Democrats in power.  And when those Democrats take power, all too many gay activists fawn on elected Democrats as do the mind-numbed peasantry in a monarchy no matter what abuse the monaarch heaps out.

At the close of this song, Deborah Kerr well describes how gay activists react to Democrats in power, always “bowing” and “kowtowing”:

When Pajamas Media asked me to write a piece on former Vice President Cheney’s recent reiteration of preference of a federalist approach to same-sex marriage, I decided to see what the various gay groups were saying about this good man’s recent comments. What I found should not be a shock to those who read this blog.  Indeed, it fits their pattern.  That pesky little (R) after a politician’s name renders him all but immune from praise (from gay groups).

Let me whet your appetite with a few paragraphs from that article:

Two weeks ago, former Vice President Dick Cheney delivered a speech at the American Enterprise Institute “on the serious and ongoing threat terrorism poses to the United States.” He defended the Bush Administration’s record in the War on Terror and took issue with some of the criticisms and policies of the current President.

It was a good speech, earning him high marks across the political spectrum, particularly among conservatives, eager to hear our ideas defended with such vigor and conviction.  As Cheney burnished his conservative credentials at AEI last month, on Monday, in remarks at the National Press Club, he showed that he does not toe the party line on all issues.  He once again parted company with George W. Bush, the man who tapped him as his running mate and in whose Administration he served loyally for eight years, on gay marriage.  The former Vice President reiterated a point he has made publicly at least since the 2000 vice presidential debate, that we should take a federal approach to recognition of same-sex unions:

I think that freedom means freedom for everyone.  And, as many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don’t support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. … But I don’t have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that.

You can read the rest here.

Once again, gay marriage activists show they’d rather intimidate their opponents than address their arguments.  Just as in Maine, gay groups plan to “out” citizens in Washington State who sign a petition to put a referendum on the ballot in order to overturn the recent expansion of the state’s same-sex partnerships. (In the Evergreen State, the legislation in question merely expands the states domestic partner law to “give partners the same state rights as married couples,” but does not call them marriages as did the legislature in the Pine Tree State.)

Instead of publishing the names with an eye to intimidate, why don’t they just prepare to debate the issue in public fora should this referendum make the ballot?  Given the demographics of Washington State, I think those who favor such a referendum going to have a tough time overturning the law.  Bear in mind, this is recognition of same-sex unions as domestic partnerships, not as marriages.  The Evergreen State is far to the left of Arizona whose voters in 2006 rejected a referendum barring state recognition of same-sex marriages, largely because it was too expansive and would have banned civil unions as well.

And defeat of such a referendum could provide a real boost to efforts to enact civil unions in other states.

That said, for the same reasons I opposed a referendum in Maine, I also oppose one in Washington State.  Elected representatives who decided the issue.  If citizens don’t like the way their representative voted, they can vote them out of office.

Still, the state constitution allows them to put such a referendum on the ballot.  But, all too many gay marriage activists just get really upset if people express opposition to their agenda and dare do something about it.  So, I joined Michelle Malkin in wondering how they would they react if social conservatives attempted to intimidate those supporting state recognition of same-sex marriage?

. . . imagine the uproar if the roles were reversed and anti-gay marriage activists were publicizing the names of petitioners supporting same-sex partnership expansion laws.

But when they do it, they’re not creating a “climate of hate.” They’re just exercising their free speech.

Their very tactics suggest a reluctance to debate an issue supposedly near and dear to their hearts.  They’d rather make it personal.

If they eschewed such politics of intimidation and focused on making a careful and considered case of state recognition of same-sex partnerships, we may well see more states doing as Washington State has done.

Based on conversations I’ve had with those close to the leadership of the gay organizations who spearheaded the campaign last fall against Proposition 8 and on what I have read on the web about the “Meet in the Middle” rallies this past weekend, I’d say the prospects look pretty poor for overturning Proposition 8 next fall at the ballot box.

To be sure, a lot could change between now and then.  We haven’t yet seen the wording for the ballot initiative.  The campaign promoting the initiative could include Republicans–or at least those who know how to communicate with Republicans (but based on past experiences, I wouldn’t bet on it).

The problem is threefold:

1. GOP Turnout Will be up in 2010.  Based on tradition patterns for off-year election, Republican turnout should be up in 2010.  Given GOP outrage over the rapid growth in federal spending and the return of big government, conservatives seem particularly emboldened to head to the polls next fall.
2. Left-wing Nature of Campaign to Overturn.  The rhetoric at the Decision Day Rally I attended sounded more like that for a left-wing gathering than for a movement ot win the hearts and minds of centrist and conservative voters.  The leaders of the movement (as it is now constituted) have a background in “progressive” movements, thus are not conditioned to appeal to those they most need to reach.
3. Default Reaction is Voting “No” on Initiatives.  When voters don’t know enough about a particular initiative, they tend to vote “No.”  This could mean a huge chunk of electorate just votes against some measures as if by rote.   Given how much media attention gay marriage attracts, that “chunk” will be much smaller on this issue, maybe 2-3 percentage points, but that could be enough.  Bear in mind that in 2010, unlike 2008, a “Yes” vote would be a vote for gay marriage.

Still, it’s early, way early.  And the leadership of the movement to overturn 8 does have time to address the second issue, the one they can most readily fix.  They should tear a page from Barack Obama’s 2008 general election campaign.  Almost as soon as he wrapped up the Democratic nomination, he began to reverse some of his positions and move to the center as he addressed the concerns of voters in the middle, reassuring them that he would pursue a more centrist path.

Right now, the prospects don’t look good for overturning 8 in ‘10.  But, a lot could change in 17 months.

It would happen on a day when I’m running errands and thinking about things other than politics when one of my political heroes says something which shows why I so respect him.

And how wonderful it is that we gay Republicans can in one week hear a man deliver a speech which becomes a rallying cry for conservatives, then barely two weeks later, break ranks with the party on gay marriage.  Rare that we gay conservatives see a man so outspoken on issues near and dear to our hearts.  As most of you know by now, since the news broke while I was away from a computer, in response to a question at the National Press club, the former Vice President said he believed marriage should be a state issue:

And I think that’s the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don’t have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that . . . .

Thank you, Mr. Cheney.

And we know that he has dared speak out because, well, not only he is a smart man, but he’s also a good Dad.  He would likely not have spoken out if he did not have a lesbian daughter.

While gay groups regularly fault Mary Cheney for not being the activist they believe she should be, she, simply by being herself, has done more to advance understanding of gay people.  With her Dad, beloved on the right, publicly expressing his support for a federal approach to same-sex marriage, many conservatives may reconsider their views on same-sex marriage.  After all, they’re more likely to listen to a man they respect than those who insult their political confrères.   Cheney has credibility with the people whom most need to be moved if Prop 8 is to be overturned.

When will gay activists thank Mary for bringing her Dad around on this issue?

In her own quiet way, Mary Cheney has accomplished a lot more than the activists who take to the streets shouting left-wing slogans.  For our part, we say to her, “Thank you”

I want to begin this post by commending the various gay organizations spearheading  “Meet in the Middle” event in Fresno yesterday.  They’re taking a step in the right direction by gathering in a more Republican region of the state, understanding that they need “explain who we are to the heartland,” as Orange County gay activist Linda May put it.

I believe, Prop 8 will be overturned, if those organized in favor of a new ballot initiative doing just that, work to change people’s minds by making the case for gay marriage (instead of attacking supporters of the institution’s traditional definition).  To that end, they need develop a strategy to reach Republicans, given that Republicans, like Fresno residents, voted overwhelmingly in favor of Prop 8.

I did not attend “Meet in the Middle” (even as I had considered going as it might provide fodder for blog posts) for a great variety of reasons, chief, among them, that while approximately one in every four self-identified gay voter votes Republican, organizers included no Republicans on the event agenda, as just as their confrères (and soeurs) invited no Republicans to speak at the Decision Day Rally, as they had no Republicans at a Town hall on gay marriage at LA’s Gay and Lesbian Center, as they included no Republicans in the officials program of the “Equality Summit.”

See the pattern?  In conferences on gay marriage, the organizing groups regularly exclude gay Republicans.

To overturn Prop 8, they’d do well to include those who know how to talk to a group which voted overwhelmingly in favor of the ballot initiative.

Perhaps gay Republicans should start boycotting such confabs until the organizers acknowledge our presence in the community.  If we were an approved minority which threatened such action, they would bend over backwards to accommodate us, even holding seminars exploring their own internalized bias against political minorities in the gay community.

More on this anon, much more.

In my picture post on the “Decision Day Rally” in West Hollywood earlier this week to protest the California Supreme Court’s affirmation of Prop 8, I speculated that such “pro-gay marriage rallies will get better coverage in the MSM than did the anti-tax and spend rallies last month.”  Because of a variety of obligations and aggravations this week, I have not been able to investigate that hypothesis, but a post (to which reader Peter Hughes alerted me) at Newsbusters seems to back up my theory.  Note, I say, “seems.”  I have yet to explore this in depth.  Maybe some media watchdogs can help me out.

Over at Newsbusters, Colleen Raezler writes:

ABC, CBS and NBC combined devoted nearly 11 minutes of air time during their evening and morning news shows to the May 26 California Supreme Court ruling that upheld Proposition 8, the 2008 state constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage. The networks gave gay rights activists more than seven minutes of air time, through interviews and footage of their protests, while they gave Prop 8 supporters less than one minute to talk about their victory.

Now, I wondering, did the networks give that much time to the Tea Parties on Tax Day.  It would be interesting to compare the coverage.

In both cases, we had genuine grassroots gatherings, but only the anti-Prop 8 rally seems to meet the standard MSM definition of what a legitimate protest is supposed to be.

Over a Pajamas, they’re running my piece on yesterday’s California Supreme Court decision upholding Proposition 8:

With the California Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8 yesterday, the initiative Golden State voters approved last fall to amend our state’s constitution to recognize only unions between one man and one woman as marriages, advocates of gay marriage have their work cut out for them.  Since the court refused to respond favorably to their opinion, they must go back to the people and ask them to reverse Prop 8.  To do that, they’ll need make a better case than they did last fall.

While the court did overturn Prop 8, the decision was not entirely bleak for gay people.  The court upheld the marriages of same-sex couples performed after it struck down state statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples “but prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid.”   Moreover, in its ruling, the court made clear that this was an issue of state constitutional jurisprudence:

. . . the principal issue before us concerns the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state Constitution itself through the initiative process so as to incorporate such a limitation as an explicit section of the state Constitution.

You can read the rest here.

Over at the Corner, Williams Duncan offered the best short summary of the decision I have found on the web:

The court said Proposition 8 does not have “even a minimal effect” on the framework of government in California. If it had such an effect, it would have had to be approved by the legislature before going to voters. The court also said Proposition 8 did not change the judicial function or interfere with the separation of powers.

In my post yesterday on the California Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8, I wrote that the reaction of the activists to the ruling could well determine if voters overturn the ban when a initiative to do so is placed on the Golden State ballot.

To see just how some were reacting, I decided to trek down to the Decision Day Rally in central West Hollywood last night.  I was actually impressed with the gathering.  There was a large crowd.  It seemed to be about the size of the Van Nuys Tea Party when I arrived (about 3,000), then grew, maybe to twice that, perhaps even more.  I was in the middle of it so couldn’t really tell.

And while there were a few angry T-shirts and a number of nasty signs, I didn’t get the same vibe as I did last November when I witnessed a march protesting the passage of Prop. 8.  It seemed there was more anger on the podium than there was in the crowd.

Like the Santa Monica Tea Party, it had more of a festive than protest atmosphere.  This is not to say there wasn’t any anger there, but that people by and large kept it under control, save for a few of the speakers, two in particular.

I took some pictures of the crazy signs, but am hesitant to publish them because they were not the defining feature of this rally (so I may just post them later, then bump this post so it leads the blog).

Running into my friend Kerry, the aforementioned lesbian for liberty (I wonder if we were the only people here who had also attended a Tea Party) I ended up joining the march, something I had not anticipated doing.  As she and I talked, my observations coalesced into a kind of conclusion which found expression in this maxim,”First, do no harm.”

I don’t think the rally today will do anything to harm the movement to change minds and overturn Proposition 8.  There was, to be sure, some overheated rhetoric (more on that in a subsequent post, which may end up as a “previous” post if I bump this one).  While the rally will not do any harm, I’m not sure it will do any good either. (more…)

When I headed to the rally, I expected to encounter a vicious crowd, similar to those I witnessed in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8 last fall.  To that end, I was on the lookout for some of the more extreme signs.  I did get a few of pictures of such placards.  

But, let me caution those of you who might want to smear the entire rally by a few of its most extreme participants.  Such extreme banners may have constituted a majority of hand-made signs, but they represented only a fraction of the signs being waved, most of the people holding signs waved ones like these:

I ran into my friend Kerry with whom I had rallied at the Santa Monica Tea Party.  Like those rallies, this one (and this was one of many across the nation), was a genuine grassroots gathering. But, I dare say the pro-gay marriage rallies will get better coverage in the MSM than did the anti-tax and spend rallies last month.

As Kerry and I walked together down Santa Monica Boulevard, she offered an interesting thought, “What’s the next generation going to do when there’s nothing to get into the streets about?”  It does seem that some of the participants wanted to create a new generation of protest.  

(more…)