Prop 8, Film at 11... or, at least, on-line (woot!) ?

It was just announced that there is a strong possibility that the court battle over California's Prop 8 will be broadcast on a delay on YouTube. This is being reviewed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The broadcast is opposed by the Pro-Prop 8 people (you know, the bad guys). I love the reasoning, too. Prop 8 attorney is quoted as below in an article by Variety reporter Tim Johnson last week:

In a letter sent to Walker on Monday, their attorney, Charles Cooper, referred to the aftermath of the 2008 election, a time marked by protest rallies, marches and, in some cases, boycotts of those who contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign, including one website that identified donors and their addresses with a Google map overlay.

Indeed, some potential witnesses have indicated that they will not be willing to testify at all if the trial is broadcast or webcast beyond the courthouse," Cooper wrote. He also cited a history of the court prohibiting cameras from trial proceedings.

Good God! We could have a bunch of people non-violently exercising their freedoms of speech, assembly, and press? Witnesses not testifying? Look, if you are going to be a self-righteous asshat and use your vote, money, and time to meddle in other peoples' lives, at least have the stones to own up to it. Cowardice is the province of those on the wrong side of history.

Cooper does have a better argument, based on precedent. Federal appeals hearings are not broadcast, with the exception of opening arguments. This is, well, at best kind of dumb, and at worst, undemocratic. Trials are part of the public record, and barring some kind of national security issue or other extenuating circumstance, the citizens ought to be able to access that public record. In the past, this meant transcripts, but in the 21st century media environment, the standard ought to be actual audio and video record-- when we have the means to provide a much better quality record, we deserve to get it. To take a page from the Teabaggers-- who is paying the bill for this trial, anyway?

The judge in the case is soliciting public comment; since it is a federal case, those of you outside of California should comment as well. California's Courage Campaign has launched an on-line petition, which can be accessed here.

I am a little torn on this court case, however. I'd rather just wait a few years until the demographics shift, then we can overturn Prop 8 via California's idiotic public democracy experiment. Winning this battle by court decision just adds more fuel to the other side's fire, and would likely spike donations for anti-marriage equality forces in other states. To have the voters come back and reject discriminatory legislation and atone for the lunacy of Prop 8 would be a nice, swift kick in the teeth to hatemongers everywhere. Of course, I am torn because this would be a clear case of justice delayed, which is not fair to my LGBT compatriots in my state. That this is the situation we are in is ludicrous.

(After a lengthy hiatus, I am refreshed and back to the AD community. I look forward to being part of the interesting conversations here again).

Bad News Coming (sort of)

Tomorrow the California Supreme Court will give a ruling on the case challenging Prop 8-- the talking heads and legal eagles mostly seem to think that it won't turn out well for the forces of marriage equality. The ruling will most likely uphold the voter-approved constitutional amendment banning marriages based on non-privileged configurations of genitals.

I'm not terribly upset, however. At this point in history, I'd rather have a rematch in 2010. If the court struck down the voter approved ban, the wingnuts would have some ammunition in other states and that could hurt the positive momentum we've seen lately. It will be much more meaningful to the marriage equality movement to have the people of California vote for the equality of their gay brethren than for the court to unilaterally correct the bigoted parade of asshattery that is Prop 8 (as gratifying and justified as it would be, assuredly).

I think 2010 will turn out much differently. For one, proponents of marriage equality won't be fooled by a large and early lead in the polls like in 2008. We all know now that right-wing nutjobs and some religious groups (like that "magical underwear" wearing outfit that shall remain nameless) will raise piles of cash. A similar fundraising effort will need to be put in place to fight it. Plus, I think the shock of Prop 8 passing will force many people out of complacency and mount a better offensive.

As a resident of California, there is another reason I would like this on the ballot in 2010: to point out the sheer and utter insanity of ballot initiatives for constitutional amendments. Let me put it this way: we have an budgetary clusterfuck in this state not in the least part because of the two-thirds "Supermajority" required to raise state taxes, but we can vote down previously granted civil rights for a portion of the population with a straight up and down vote and a simple majority.

Prop 8 Protests

Around the country today, at coordinated times, people took to the streets to protest the passing of Proposition 8 and other gay marriage bans across the country.

I've been in my Obama-victory haze and have admittedly not written as much about this as I should, other than recommending Olbermann's comment on the subject.

But Karthika and I headed down to City Hall in Philly today to join the fun, and took some pictures on the way.

It's always amazing to me to see the diversity at events like this. I absolutely love the energy, the straight parents bringing little kids, the older parents holding signs that say "Proud Father of a Gay Son." The "str8 against 8" signs were particularly prominent today. And despite the stupid coming from some sectors, people of all ethnicities were represented.



That's the thing no one tells you about public protest, collective action, etc. How much fun it all is. I'm not happy that Prop 8 passed. But the response to it around the country has been amazing.

For those Obama organizers and volunteers who are genuinely befuddled as to "Now what?" I offer these events as an idea. Electing Obama was a beginning, not an ending. We still have much work to do.

And while I'm talking about Prop 8, I'd like to remember Duanna Johnson, a transgender woman murdered in what is all too common a manner. While we fight for marriage equality, we need to remember that not everyone's life will be made OK by granting marriage rights.

We still have a way to go, indeed.

(more photos at Flickr)

A letter of which the Unabomber could be proud

The battle over California's Prop 8, already ugly, has gotten a little bit uglier this week. The Prop 8 initiative, funded by the likes of James Dobson and the Mormon Church, would establish a constitutional amendment in California defining marriage as only between a human with a penis and a human with a vagina. The Prop 8 proponents are still lagging in the polls, but have closed the gap significantly due to their deep pockets and significant advertising expenditures.

The Prop 8 zealots have a new tactic-- threatening businesses that have donated to groups that oppose Prop 8, like Equality California. Here is an excerpt from the linked letter, received by San Diego firm Abbott & Associates:

Were you not to donate [to ProtectMarriage.com] comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published. It is only fair that Proposition 8 supporters to know which companies and organizations oppose traditional marriage.

I'm surprised that the asshats who sent this letter didn't paste it together from letters clipped from magazines and newspapers. This is certainly a new low in this campaign, which features a highly motivated group of people with nothing better to do than be professional assholes. With all of the problems this state faces, one would think groups like the California Catholic Conference would be focusing on issues like foreclosures, poverty, education, child care, etc. I guess those issues just don't give one the same self-righteous jolt of disgusting, ugly piety that these bigots are getting from this campaign.

Prop 8 and the bullshit machine

Here in California, we are readying ourselves to vote on a whole host of propositions, but Prop 8 is certainly garnering the most attention. Prop 8 is a constitutional amendment that would effectively trump the California State Supreme Court's May decision to allow same-sex couples marriage rights.

Happily, Prop 8 is behind in the polls. The most recent poll shows the measure failing by 17%. The opponents of Prop 8 have a very effective television ad running; I've not seen a single ad for the measure.

The loose coalition of self-righteous homophobes, self-loathing "ex-gays", and fundamentalist Goddies is in full spin mode. They point to the fact that polling may be wrong, because people may be reluctant to admit they are for Prop 8 (gee, out of shame maybe?), and that election day will bring more support. To an extent, this is probably somewhat true, though fairy negligible, according to NYU's Professor Patrick Egan:

Reanalyzing the data shows that the number of voters who are reluctant to share their true feelings about same-sex marriage is small -- and is certainly not on the rise. Since 1998, the gap between polled support for marriage bans among decided voters and Election Day results has averaged only 2.2 percentage points. In 2006, the gap declined to less than a point in the seven states holding initiatives for which data are available.

The other bit of spin from the Prop 8 proponents is this mantra about the margin of victory for 2000's Prop 22. Prop 22, which passed 61% - 38%, defined marriage in California as only between a man and woman. The Prop 8 machine keeps pointing to the above margin as if it means something. It doesn't, for a few reasons.

(1) That was 2000; 2008 is happily a different landscape for the visibility of LGBT issues and rights, if only for eight years of younger voters coming into the system. Many polls show overwhelming support for same sex marriage among younger voters.

(2) Prop 22 was a change to California State Law. Prop 8 in a constitutional amendment. Big difference; some opponents of gay marriage who gladly voted for changing (a now unconstitutional, thankfully) state law may be less willing to change the state constitution.

(3) This is perhaps the biggest reason-- in 2000, the election that Prop 22 was offered was the presidential primary, on Super Tuesday. Al Gore was already the presumptive nominee at this point; the Republican primary had not been settled, however. There were far more Republicans that voted in the primary than Democrats, so naturally Prop 22 was at an extreme advantage.

I'm thrilled to hear the recent polling on Prop 8., and I hope for not just a squeaker of a victory, but an overwhelming landslide (I'm thinking 15% or so) to shut these asshats up once and for all.