Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional...But the Fight is Not Over

I am sure most of you have heard the good news...

Today, Wednesday August 4th, 2010, a California Federal Judge overturned Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, stating it was unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker stated that the proposition was unconstitutional under both the due-process and equal-protection clauses.

"Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result." "...moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings. Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8."

The judge concluded that "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples."


So what's next?
Despite the favorable ruling for gay and lesbian couples, Judge Walker has yet to decide as to whether his order to allow gay marriage should be suspended while proponents of the ban pursue their appeal. He ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Friday .

Once the appeal is ready, it will go first to the 9th Circuit, and then on to the U.S. Supreme Court, if the high court justices agree to review it.

HRC's Video & Letter Campaign to Target & Best Buy

HRC reported earlier this week that the Target Corp and Best Buy donated a combined total of $250,000 to the political committee MN Forward, a political action committee headed by Brian McClung, a former spokesman for Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

HRC representatives explained that MN Forward's mission is to "...elect as governor an anti-LGBT state representative with a long history of attacks on LGBT Americans. This representative's campaign even donated to a controversial 'punk-rock Christian ministry' whose leader has advocated executing gays and lesbians!"

"After all these two companies have done to build a fair and equitable workplace, it's a slap in the face," said HRC president Joe Salmonese. "In years past, Target and Best Buy consistently received 100 percent ratings on the Human Rights Campaign Foundation's Corporate Equality Index."

So HRC has drafted an open letter to Target and Best Buy asking them to make it right by donating an equal amount of money to support candidates that fight for equality. But they need your help to make that happen.

Check out the video below and then Click here to add your name to the letter.

Manifest Equality

Throughout history artists have have lent their creative expression to the ideas and issues that shape life in our communities, our country and our world.

The Manifest Equality Gallery gathers together a diverse array of hundreds of the nation’s most talented visual artists under one roof to celebrate that role and join with our gay (LGBT) friends, family members and co-workers to demand full and equal rights for all Americans.

The Manifest Equality Gallery, issues an inspiring, visual call-to-action, with hundreds of artists motivating public energy toward true reform on a local, state and national level.

Manifest Equality will be open to the public, Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010 through Sunday, March 7th, 2010 between the hours of 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM with extended hours Friday - Sunday.

For more information go to www.manifestequality.com

March 3rd – March 7th, 2010
Wed & Thurs - 11:00 am - 6:00 pm
Friday - 11:00 am - 10:00 pm
Sat & Sun - 10:00 am – 6:00 pm

1341 Vine Street
(between Hollywood & Fountain)
Los Angeles, CA 90028-8141

Lesbian Couples Given Equal Birth Rights in the UK

BBC news just announced that women in same-sex relationships can now register both their names on the birth certificate of a child conceived as a result of fertility treatment.

Female couples not in a civil partnership but receiving fertility treatment may also both be registered.

The law change applies to female couples in England and Wales who were having fertility treatment on or after 6 April 2009.

However critics say the change would be detrimental to family values.

Previously, the mother's female partner could not be registered as a parent.
in
But the change in the law confers legal parenthood on the mother's female partner.

According to the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, there were 728 lesbians who underwent invitro fertilization (IVF) between 1999 and 2006.

And in the same period, there were 5,211 lesbian females who received donor insemination (DI) treatment.
“ Now lesbian couples in the UK who make a considered decision to start a loving family will finally be afforded equal access to services they help fund as taxpayers ”
Ruth Hunt, Stonewall

The changes to the Registration of Births and Deaths Regulations 1987 were approved by Registrar General James Hall earlier this year, following Royal Assent for new parenthood provisions contained in the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 2008.

A spokeswoman for the Home Office said that there will be provision for a birth certificate to be used that will have two "parent" sections, rather than mother and father.

Also, sperm donors will continue to be able to opt in or out of having their name on the birth certificate, but if both mothers wish to have their name on the document, the donor cannot be registered in that way.

'Fair treatment'

Home Office Minister Lord Brett said: "This positive change means that, for the first time, female couples who have a child using fertility treatment have the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts to be shown as parents in the birth registration.

"It is vital that we afford equality wherever we can in society, especially as family circumstances continue to change. This is an important step forward in that process."

Conservative MP Nadine Dorries told the BBC that the move undermined the traditional family model.

She said: "If we want to build a stable society, a mother and father and children works as the best model.

"We should be striving towards repairing and reinforcing marriage. I think this move sends out the exact opposite message."

'Legal fiction'

Dr Peter Saunders, of the Christian Medical Fellowship, criticised the move, telling the Daily Mail that the change would "create a legal fiction around the parentage of the children" which would then result in a "legal minefield" when it came to issues of maintenance and inheritance.

He was supported by Labour MP Geraldine Smith, who said: 'To have a birth certificate with two mothers and no father is just madness."

Stonewall's Head of Policy and Research Ruth Hunt said that as a result of the law change, life for lesbian families "isn't only fairer, it's also much easier".

She added: "As the law improves to provide further equality, knowing your new rights will help people make full use of the services they're entitled to. And, if discrimination occurs, the same knowledge can help them demand fair treatment.

"Now lesbian couples in the UK who make a considered decision to start a loving family will finally be afforded equal access to services they help fund as taxpayers."

Story from BBC NEWS

Marriage or Civil Union, What's in a Name?

What's in a name? "that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet..."- William Shakespeare

The dictionary defines Marriage as the state of being united to a person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

The dictionary defines a Civil Union as the legal status that ensures to same-sex couples specified rights and responsibilities of married couples.

I often wonder if it is “the principle” that keeps us from getting what we really want, especially when it comes to same-sex marriage. Would it really be so terrible to have a Civil Union instead of a marriage, especially if it came with all the same legal benefits?

I realize that Marriage is more than just a word for many gay and Lesbian couples, it is the implied belief that with Marriage comes acceptance, not just from our family, but also from our church and society as a whole.

But do we really believe that by allowing Gay couples to marry that society’s negative beliefs about homosexuality will magically disappear? Perhaps it is a start, but so much more will need to be done before that idea comes to fruition, and at what cost? We have all heard the stories about partner's who are kept from each other during medical crisis, and benefits that are denied to gay and lesbian couples due to their unmarried status. Wouldn't it be better to have the legal rights and protection NOW, and worry about the name later?

Don't get me wrong, I would have loved if Proposition 8 was overturned and for California, as well as all states, to have recognized same-sex marriage. But the reality is, we have a long struggle in front of us, so why not change the rules a bit? If legally a Marriage is between a man and a women (at least in most states), then by changing the name from Marriage to Civil Union, do we not eliminate that entire argument?

When it comes down to it, you can call the joining of same-sex partners whatever you want, because in the end, it is truly about two people celebrating love, having a legally recognized commitment and having all the same rights and protections that are afforded to hetero-sexual couples.

Lawmakers approve same-sex marriage in N.H., Maine

(CNN) -- Lawmakers voted in favor of same-sex marriage in New Hampshire and Maine on Wednesday, leaving Rhode Island as the only other New England state without legislation in favor of the issue.

Maine Gov. John Baldacci signed his state's same-sex marriage bill less than an hour after the legislature approved it.

"I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage," Baldacci, a Democrat, said in a statement released as he signed the bill.

But he raised the possibility that the citizens of the state would overturn the law, saying: "Just as the Maine Constitution demands that all people are treated equally under the law, it also guarantees that the ultimate political power in the state belongs to the people."

It was not immediately clear whether New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat who has questioned the need for such legislation, would sign the bill passed Wednesday by the legislature in his state. Lynch said last week he did not think the law is necessary because the state already recognizes civil unions.

If he does sign, his state will join New England neighbors Maine, Vermont, Connecticut and Massachusetts, which all have laws approving same-sex marriages. That would leave Rhode Island, which has same-sex marriage bills pending in its general assembly.

Iowa is the only other state that allows same-sex marriages, after the Iowa state Supreme Court ruled unanimously on April 3 that it is illegal to discriminate against same-sex couples by denying them the right to marry. The first gay marriages in the state took place April 27.

California's state Supreme Court issued a similar ruling in May 2008, after which some 18,000 gay and lesbian couples got married there. But California voters in November approved Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to ban gay marriage. See which states allow same-sex unions »

The state's high court heard arguments earlier this year about whether Proposition 8 was itself constitutional, but it has not yet issued a verdict.

New York Gov. David Paterson introduced legislation in April to make same-sex marriage legal in his state. A similar bill died in the state Senate in 2007.

The District of Columbia voted Tuesday to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, but does not itself give marriage licenses to gay or lesbian couples.

In New Hampshire, the House voted 178-167 in favor of the legislation Wednesday after the Senate approved an amended version of the House's original bill last week. The amended version distinguishes between civil and religious marriage. It allows each religion to decide whether to acknowledge same-sex marriage, but extends the option of civil marriage to any two individuals.

Meanwhile, the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian rights organization, praised Maine's new law.

"This law is simply about making sure that loving, committed couples, and their families, receive equal rights and responsibilities. This is a step that will strengthen Maine families," Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said in a written statement.

A slim majority of Americans are against legal recognition for same-sex marriage, CNN polling found last month. Fifty-four percent of adults questioned in an April 23-26 nationwide CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll said marriages between gay or lesbian couples should not be recognized as valid, while 44 percent said they should be considered legal.

But there was a huge gap between the opinions of younger and older people, with younger people far more likely to approve of gay marriage.

Nearly 6 in 10 people ages 18 to 34 said same-sex marriages should be legal. Just over 4 in 10 people ages 35 to 49 agreed. Numbers were similar for 50- to 64-year olds, while only 24 percent of people 65 and older agreed.

The survey's sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

CA Supreme Court allows school to expel lesbians

Last week the California Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling that allowed a private religious school to expel two teenage girls for having an alleged lesbian relationship.

The girls were juniors at California Lutheran High School when their principal, Gregory Bork, called them to his office in September 2005 and questioned them separately about their sexual orientation, after another student reported postings on their MySpace pages. He then suspended them based on their answers, and the school's directors expelled them a month later stating they were exhibiting “a bond of intimacy” that was “characteristic of a lesbian relationship.”

The teens parents initially sued the Riverside County school, based on the Unruh Act, a 1959 state law that forbids discrimination by businesses that was amended in 2005 to include bias based on sexual orientation, as well as someone else's perception of sexual orientation.

In January, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Bernardino said the school is not a business, but a social organization entitled to follow its principles. The ruling relied on a 1998 California Supreme Court decision that allowed the Boy Scouts to exclude gays and atheists. The Boy Scouts of America, which had faced similar discrimination charges, did not have to comply with the state's anti-discrimination law because it was a social organization.

Advocates for religious freedom called it "the right decision," however, the teen's attorney, Mike Grace, said he fears the decision could open the door for more religious discrimination.

Source:
Los Angeles Times

Will New Hampshire & Maine be the next states to allow same-sex marriage?

The New Hampshire State Senate voted yesterday (13-11) in favor of House Bill 436, which would allow same-sex couples to marry under state law. The bill passed the House last month in a 186-179 vote. However, since the Senate voted on an amended version, the bill will have to return to the House before being passed. If the bill becomes law, New Hampshire will become the fifth state in the US to allow gay marriage.

“Just one month ago, there were only two states where same-sex couples could marry. Now, with this vote in New Hampshire, we are on the verge of having five states that recognize marriage equality for same-sex couples. It’s been quite a month, and we look forward to more states joining this group,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese in a press release yesterday.

And to add to the excitement, Maine may be #6 on the list of States that allow same-sex Marriage. Just today Maine's State Senate voted 20 - 15 in favor of LD 1020, the marriage equality bill, which will now move to the House of Representatives. Luckily the the Senate defeated an amendment that had proposed putting the question of marriage equality for same-sex couples before voters, at least Maine won't have to deal with an issue like California's Proposition 8.

Presently, only four states have recognized same-sex marriage legally: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont (effective September 1, 2009). However, with the possible addition of New Hampshire and Maine, perhaps that will be enough to persuade California 's Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8, which is expected to be decided on by June...I am crossing my fingers.

Will New York be the 5th State to Allow Same-Sex Marriage?

Just this morning New York Governor David Paterson unveiled legislation that would allow same-sex couples to marry in New York. “Marriage equality is about basic civil rights and freedom. That is why we stand together today to embrace civil rights for every New Yorker.” stated Patterson at today's press conference.“The timing is always right. It’s just a matter of who is willing to take the step, and I am.”

Paterson’s bill would amend the domestic relations law allowing civil marriages between same-sex couples, and he called on the Legislature to approve the bill.

This new bill is similar to the one that the Democratic-controlled state Assembly had passed in 2007, but was later shot down by the Republican majority Senate. And although Democrats now control the Senate, the State Senate Majority Leader stated he did not have the votes to pass marriage equality legislation and will not bring the bill to a vote.

Gov. Paterson has said in recent days that the State Legislature should move ahead now with the bill even if it cannot produce enough votes. His reasoning, which some gay rights advocates have questioned, is that he believes New York should make a statement by showing that they are committed to treating same-sex couples as they do heterosexual couples.

Paterson, accompanied by his wife Michelle, City Council head Christine Quinn, state Sen. Tom Duane and other officials, compared the need for same-sex marriage to the struggle to abolish slavery. “Gay marriage is a crucial issue of equal rights in America that cannot be ignored.” He continued on to say, "For too long, gay and lesbian New Yorkers — we have pretended they have the same rights as their neighbors and friends. That is not the case. All have been the victims of what is a legal system that has systematically discriminated against them."

Both Republicans and religious conservatives have already vowed to defeat the new same-sex legislature. And while Paterson was announcing his new proposal, Sen. Ruben Diaz of the Bronx, also a Democrat, met with religious leaders to discuss how to block the bill.

Diaz, an evangelical pastor, stated that his meeting in the Bronx was to inform Hispanics, Catholics, evangelicals and others who are opposed to same-sex marriage of their options to prevent this bill's passage.

New York City’s new Roman Catholic Archbishop, Timothy Dolan, has already promised to work actively to ensure the same-sex bill never passes.

“You can bet I’ll be active, present and articulate,” said Dolan. “We bishops aren’t into politics, we’re into principles…I won’t shy away from the fact. I realize with gratitude and humility that the pulpit has prominence that takes some getting used to.”

Earlier this month a Quinnipiac University poll was released showing that approximately 41 percent of New York State voters support recognition of same-sex couples, while 33 percent favored civil unions.

So do you think it will be California or New York that becomes the 5th US state to legalize same-sex marriage...I am hoping for a tie!

Nations that recognize same-sex marriage, partnerships or unions

Nations that recognize same-sex marriage include:

Belgium
The second nation to legalize same-sex marriage in 2003.

Canada
In June of 2005, the Canadian Parliament enacted a law allowing legal marriage for same-sex couples.

Netherlands
The Netherlands is the first country to grant gay marriage in 2001.

Spain
On June 29, 2005, Spain became the fourth nation to allow gay marriage.

South Africa
The fifth nation to recognize gay marriage in 2005.


US states that recognize gay marriage:

California
In May of 2008, California's Supreme Court ruled that banning same-sex marriage in the state was discriminatory. However, Proposition 8, a voter initiative was passed, effectively striking down the court ruling. Although the legality of Prop 8 is being decided right now, at the moment, marriage in California is defined as between one man and one woman.

Connecticut
In a 4 to 3 decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage, making it the third state to allow legal gay marriage.

Massachusetts
On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage. The State of Massachusetts also issues licenses to gay couples from New Mexico and Rhode Island since neither state explicitly prohibits same-sex marriage.

New Jersey*
New Jersey is the third U.S. state to offer same-sex civil unions behind Vermont and Connecticut. The new same-sex civil unions law, which went into affect on February 19, 2007, grants gay and lesbian couples the same rights as marriage. *(Although same-sex unions in New Jersey are classified as civil unions, couples are granted the same rights as married heterosexual couples.)

New York
Based on a May 29, 2008 directive, New York only recognizes gay marriages from couples legally married outside of the state.


Nations that allow same-sex partnerships or unions:

Brazil
Only the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul allows same-sex civil unions. (June 2006).

Croatia
Civil partnerships for same-sex couples have been allowed since 2003.

Denmark
Legal civil partnerships have been allowed since 1989.

Finland
Has offered registered partnership benefits since September 2001.

France
Pacte Civil de Solidarité” (PACS), or “Civil Solidarity Pacts,” were instituted in France on November 9, 1999.

Germany
Gay couples can register as "Life Partnerships," granting lesser financial and pension benefits than marriage.

Hungary
Gay couples have been protected under common-law marriages since 1995, buy they are not eligible for legal marriage.

Iceland
Since 1996, gay & lesbian couples have been protected under registered partnerships.

Luxembourg
Civil partnership legislation, which is similar to France's PACS, were introduced in Luxembourg in 2004.

Mexico
Same sex civil unions were legalized in Mexico City in November 2006 and in the state of Coahuila on January of 2007, essentially making civil unions legal in all of Mexico (by law, each Mexican state must recognize the laws granted to individuals of the other states).

New Zealand
New Zealand enacted legislation recognizing same-sex civil unions in December of 2004.

Norway
Since 1996, gay & Lesbian couples have been protected under registered partnerships.

Portugal
Same-sex partners have the same rights as opposite-sex partners in common law marriage.

Sweden
Since 1995, Swedish same-sex couples have been able to register under domestic partnership laws.

Switzerland
Same-sex couples are given limited legal benefits with civil recognition.

United Kingdom
Domestic partners can register under the Civil Partnership Act. This legislation took affect in December 5, 2005 giving registered same-sex couples the same rights, privileges and responsibilities of married heterosexual couples. The Civil Partnership Act applies across all of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

US States that allow same-sex partnerships or unions:

Connecticut
Although Connecticut defines marriage as between a man and woman, in April 2005, it became the second U.S. state to grant same-sex civil unions.

New Hampshire
New Hampshire was the 4th state behind Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut to offer civil unions. In January 2008, same-sex partners were allowed to register for civil unions.

Oregon
Under Oregon's new domestic partnership law gay and lesbian couples are eligible for all the state-wide rights and benefits of marriage.

Vermont
In 2000, Vermont became the first U.S. state to offer same-sex civil unions.

Washington
On April 21, 2007, Washington's domestic partnership bill was signed into law giving gay and lesbian couples many of the benefits of marriage.

Sources:
Lambda Legal
Glaad.org
about.com

Same-Sex Kiss Day 4-15-09

Samesexkiss.org has put together a Same-Sex Kiss Day on Tax day, 04/15/09. LGBT couples have yet to be granted the same rights to file our taxes jointly on a Federal level, and we can still be fired for being openly gay in the workplace. That's why they are encouraging you to be seen on Tax Day, April 15, 2009, spreading your love with a KISS!

THE PLAN
Show up at any Starbucks on Tax Day at 7:15 AM, 12:15 PM, 5:15 PM, or 8:15 PM , buy a cuppa joe, then share a kiss with your sweetie, or a friend, or even a long-time crush!

INFO
Don't have someone to kiss? Go to Samesexkiss's Facebook page, click on "Confirmed attendees" and find someone to kiss in your area.

Straight allies are encouraged to attend as well! Show up and give your husband or wife some love to show your support of LGBT rights.

For more information, check out their website at http://samesexkissday.org/

The Courage Campaigns Latest Efforts

The other day I received an email from the Courage Campaign asking me to show my support for federal same-sex equal rights by signing their letter to President Obama asking him to keep his promise and allow the federal government to provide health benefits to all same-sex partners and spouses of federal employees.

For all of you who may not be on the emailing list for the Courage Campaign, I thought you might want to read the email I recieved and participate in their campaign.


"I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law." -Senator Barack Obama, in a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, March 2008
President Obama has a unique opportunity to give hope and equality to thousands of same-sex couples across America.

No matter what happens in the fight to overturn Proposition 8, same-sex couples will not enjoy full equality until the federal government recognizes all of their rights, starting with the repeal of the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) and the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Right now, the President can take an important first step towards full equality by allowing the same-sex partners of federal government employees to receive health benefits, just like their straight colleagues. Currently, same-sex partners are banned from receiving these important benefits.

As the New York Times reported on Thursday, "two judges of the federal appeals court in California said that employees of their court were entitled to health benefits for their same-sex partners under the program that insures millions of federal workers." But, citing DOMA, the federal Office of Personnel Management has instructed insurers not to provide the benefits ordered by the judges.


President Obama now has a choice -- to uphold the benefit ban or to keep his campaign promise to provide same-sex couples all the benefits that their fellow federal employees receive.

Please show your support for federal same-sex equal rights by signing the Courage Campaign's letter to President Obama. Ask him to keep his promise and allow the federal government to provide health benefits to all same-sex partners and spouses of federal employees:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/keepyourpromise

The right-wing is already preparing to launch a major attack on President Obama over this issue.

Gary Bauer, a long-time leader of the religious right, told the New York Times last week that Obama would "provoke a furious reaction" among conservatives if he does the right thing by reversing the benefit ban. As we saw last fall, the right-wing will stop at nothing to promote inequality.

That's why we need to show President Obama that he has our strong support.

Please sign the Courage Campaign's letter to President Obama asking him to keep his promise and allow the federal govenment to provide health benefits to same-sex partners and spouses of federal employees. And please invite your family and friends to sign the letter as well:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/keepyourpromise

Together, we will ensure that all committed couples enjoy full equality at the state and federal level.

Cleve Jones
Founder, the AIDS Memorial Quilt, and historical consultant for the film "MILK"

The Truth and the Lies about Prop 8

Lie #1: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen in California unless we pass Prop 8.

Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it, and the Yes on 8 campaign knows they are lying. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has already ruled that this claim by Prop 8 proponents is “false and misleading.”

Lie #2: A Massachusetts case about a parent’s objection to the school curriculum will happen here.

Fact: Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won’t affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts.

Lie #3: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…

Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it’s about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn’t grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren’t supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.

Lie #4: If Prop 8 doesn't pass, people may be sued over personal beliefs.

Fact: California’s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.

Lie #5: Pepperdine University supports the Yes on 8 campaign.

Fact: The university has publicly disassociated itself from Professor Richard Peterson of Pepperdine University, who is featured in the ad, and has asked to not be identified in the Yes on 8 advertisements.

Lie #6: Unless Prop 8 passes, CA parents won’t have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.

Fact: California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Lie #7: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.

Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

Lie #8: Prop 8 doesn’t discriminate against gays.

Fact: Prop 8 is simple: it eliminates the rights for same-sex couples to marry. Prop 8 would deny equal protections and write discrimination against one group of people—lesbian and gay people—into our state constitution.

Now that you know the facts and lies about the "Yes on 8" ads, you may be asking yourself, "Hey, what can I do to help?"

Well of course you can always donate to the "no on 8" campaign, it is a great cause and they are using the money to get the truth out to the public.  But you can do other things as well, such as sending an email to your local TV and radio stations that are airing these negative ads (like KZST is Santa Rosa), and let them know you are not "OK" with the political lies being portrayed in the "Yes on 8" ads.  

For a TV or radio station, the biggest liability issue is for libel or slander if the alleged inaccuracies relate to identifiable people or groups. If the station continues to run a third party ad that is not truthful, and that libels or slanders an identifiable person or group, they could be liable. Normally, someone suing a media outlet for libel about an election related issue has to prove that the outlet had "malice" in running it - which means that they either knew it was false, or broadcast it with reckless disregard of the truth. If someone tells the station that it is false, and provides something to back up that claim, and they continue to run it - that could be construed as reckless disregard, and could then be dealt with by the FCC.

So, you can also use this complaint form to let the FCC know that your tired of the lies and that based on the information above, you want them to pull the ads from both the radio and TV.

Your voices, your emails and your votes can make a difference, so don't give up!

Sources:

No On Prop 8 Campaign

CBA.com

Dancing with the Stars – SAME-SEX Style

California Dreaming 2008

First time ever, World & U.S. Same Sex Ballroom & Latin Champions to compete and perform in SF Bay Area Competition & Show on Oct 18th.

On Saturday, October 18th, 2008, the Bay Area will play host to the second annual California Dreaming Same Sex Partner Dancing Competition and Dance Show at Just Dance Ballroom in Oakland. A whole day and evening of partner dancing--from sizzling rumba to Astaire Rogers foxtrot to down-home two-stepping. California Dreaming, along with its sister competition April Follies, have become the biggest same-sex dance events in North America in terms of competitors and audience participation.

Attracting some 150 same-sex dance couples from across the United States and beyond, the competition boasts events in both the International and American Ballroom Dancing disciplines (known as International Standard and Latin, and American Smooth and Rhythm), together with events in Country & Western, Night-club two step and Salsa dance styles. Spectators from all around the greater Bay Area will watch the North American Women's Standard Champions from Oakland and Men's' Latin Champions from NYC and cheer all other competitors ranging over various levels of experience.

The same-sex competition dance community in the Bay Area has grown tremendously over the last 3 years, a key milestone being Gay Games in Chicago and OutGames in Montreal in 2006. Dancers from all over the greater Bay Area are preparing to represent Northern California in the upcoming OutGames in Copenhagen, in July 2009.

California Dreaming is in its second year, following the phenomenal success of the inaugural competition last year, and its sister competition, April Follies, which has been ongoing for half a dozen years, is now home to the annual California Same Sex Dance Championships. Both these competitions are sanctioned and supported by NASSPDA, the North American Same-Sex Partner Dance Association.

Following the competition is 'Love & Marriage – our way' an evening Dance Show featuring 15 professional same-sex dance stars of international fame. Some of the highlights of the show are:

World and European Women's Same Sex Standard Champions Caroline Privou and Petra Zimmerman (Germany) will perform a full International Standard demonstration for the first time in the SF Bay Area.

North American Men's Latin Champions Jacob Jason and Willem deVries (New York) will perform a selection of International Latin dances. This will be their debut appearance as show dancers in the SF Bay Area.

3 times Canadian Champion Dale Neale be dancing with the finest Bay Area dance professionals Jeff Chandler and Heintje Soriano (originally from Philippines) .
New to the Bay Area, but winner of many European competitions Robert Tristan Szelei (Hungary) will be performing with David Estrada (USA), the reigning California Men's Latin Champion.

The evening celebrates California's recent a adoption of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. In support of that effort, National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Board member Kristina Militante will make a brief appearance.

Tickets for both the Show and the Competition are on-sale now at http://www.caldancechamp.com/priced at $25 and $15 respectively. This event is expected to sell out quickly so early purchase is advisable.

Google Opposes Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Search engine giant Google has taken a public stand against Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage measure on the November ballot in California.

Co-founder Sergey Brin said in a blog posting last Friday, that the California based company, is "an active participant" in policy debates that relate to its main businesses. He also noted that Google lay claim to a "diversity of people and opinions," Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, straight and gay. He acknowledged that it was an "unlikely question" for Google to take a stand on this initiative. But for Google, he said it became an "issue of equality."

"However, while there are many objections to this proposition -- further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text -- it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 -- we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love."

Although it is unclear whether Google will take any further action to oppose the ballot initiative, their willingness to take a stand on this issue has made news world-wide and will help the fight against Proposition 8.

Answers to the When, How and Where Questions about Gay Marriage in California

Now that some of the excitement over the California Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage has died down a little, I have noticed that people are starting to ask some questions, mainly, "When can my partner and I get married?" The EQCA website has created a list of FAQ (posted below) specifically for same sex couples in California who want to get married. These FAQ's can not only answer the "when" question, but many other relevant gay marriage issues as well. It is definitely worth a read...

Can same-sex couples marry in California?
Yes. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that barring same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional. Beginning as soon as June 16, same-sex couples will be able to marry in California.

Can the court’s decision be appealed?
No. The California Supreme Court has the final say in cases brought under the California Constitution, like this case, and there can be no more appeals.

Does the court’s decision affect the rights of heterosexual couples?
No. The rights of heterosexual couples to marry and the rights and responsibilities of those who are married remain exactly the same. The decision simply ensures equality and fairness for same-sex couples.

Does this ruling require religious groups or clergy members to marry same-sex couples?
No. The court’s decision said the government may not discriminate against same-sex couples by barring them from civil marriage – a legal institution established and regulated by the government. Religious groups and clergy members remain free to recognize or refuse to recognize marriages within their religion as each sees fit. While some faiths do not permit same-sex couples to marry within that faith, a growing number do. As a result of the court’s decisions, same-sex couples may choose to be married by a clergy person in a welcoming community of faith or by a civil servant such as a judge or authorized deputy.

Should we get married now?
Marriage is a serious legal and personal commitment that should not be entered into lightly. Before getting married, couples should educate themselves about the legal consequences of marriage, in addition to other considerations.

Same-sex couples also face some additional considerations that heterosexual couples do not face, due to discrimination by the federal government as well as by a number of states. Deciding whether to marry is an important decision for everyone, gay or straight, but lesbian and gay couples have to be prepared for and be willing to take on those additional challenges.

A period of legal uncertainty is likely. For example, if you marry in California, you cannot be certain whether your marriage will be respected if you live in, travel to, or move to a state that has laws or constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

In addition, current federal law prohibits the federal government from recognizing marriages of same-sex couples for purposes of the many federal rights and benefits given to married heterosexual couples, such as the right to file joint federal income taxes and the right to social security benefits as a surviving spouse. Being excluded from these federal protections, and often state protections as well, is a serious hardship and can cause significant legal problems.

Important Note: Bi national couples in which one member does not have permanent legal resident status in this country and anyone serving in the U.S. military should consult with an attorney with expertise in these areas of law before getting married.

If we’re already in a registered domestic partnership in California, do we have to dissolve our domestic partnership before we can marry?
No. The California domestic partnership statutes permit an individual to be both married and in a registered domestic partnership, so long as it is to the same person. In addition, there may be legal protections that are available through domestic partnership but not through marriage. For example, some states that will not honor marriages of same-sex couples may honor domestic partnerships.

Do you have to be a California resident to marry in California?
No. There is no residency requirement to marry in California.

If my partner and I are from another state and marry in California, will our marriage be valid in our home state?
If you live in another state and get married in California, you will be legally married. However, depending on where you live, your home state may not respect your marriage. Many states have passed discriminatory marriage laws, and in those states, state and local governments likely will not respect your California marriage. But even in those states, it is highly likely that at least some private businesses and other private third parties will respect your marriage – particularly those that already recognize same-sex couples through domestic partnership or a similar system.

Marriage is a serious legal decision, and same-sex couples face additional challenges and questions because of continuing discrimination against married same-sex couples by the federal government and many states. We urge couples who are considering getting married in California to proceed with caution. Before getting married in California, you should educate yourselves about the law in your state and, if possible, consult an attorney about the best way to protect your relationship based on your circumstances.

Can we file lawsuits if our marriages are not respected in other states or by the federal government?
If you feel you have been discriminated against, please contact one of the LGBT legal organizations listed on this document. We can help you figure out what options you have to protect your rights. Some types of unfair treatment can be the basis of a lawsuit, and other times the unfairness may not be suitable for a court to address. Even when litigation is an option, it is not the only option. It is always necessary to weigh the chances of success or failure because bad results in lawsuits can cause set backs and hurt our entire community. We want to increase the chances of winning overall, so it is critical that we work together to have a carefully planned strategy. Together, we can win!

What do we have to do to marry in California?
First you need to get a marriage license from the office of the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk of any California county. You can get a license application from most counties’ websites and complete it in advance, or complete it in the county clerk’s office. Both of you must go together to the county office and present a government-issued picture ID and proof that you are over 18 years old. (If either or both is younger than 18, different procedures apply.) You’ll need to pay the license fee, which varies by county but generally is less than $100. The license will be valid for 90 days and your marriage can be performed anywhere in California. Neither a blood test nor a health certificate is required. Call ahead or visit the county’s website to learn the hours and locations of the county offices that issue licenses.

Who can marry us?
In California, clergy members, active and retired judges and court commissioners, and the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of Civil Marriages are authorized to perform legal marriages. The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of Civil Marriages perform marriage ceremonies by appointment at designated county offices. There is a fee, which generally is less than $50. Call ahead or visit the county website for more information.

Any couple wishing to marry can also have a friend deputized to perform their marriage ceremony through a county “Deputy Commissioner for a Day” program. If you choose this option, you will need at least two months advance notice and the person to be deputized to perform your ceremony will have to pay a fee and visit the county office in person to be sworn in. Visit the county website to see if your county has this program. If it does not, check whether a nearby county will deputize an out-of-county resident.

The person who performs your ceremony must complete and sign your marriage license after the ceremony. In addition, at least one witness 18 years old or older must sign the marriage license.

The license then becomes your marriage certificate, which has to be returned promptly to the county for filing.

What happens if we marry in California and then wish to divorce?
The only legal way to end a marriage is to get a divorce. If you marry in California and live in California, you can divorce by filing a petition with a California court. However, if you move to another state, or if you already live in another state, getting a divorce could be difficult. Currently, the only state other than California in which same-sex married couples have an established right to divorce is Massachusetts; however, Massachusetts has a one-year residency requirement before a person can petition a Massachusetts court for a divorce. States with civil unions or comprehensive domestic partnerships, like Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont, may also allow married same-sex couples to divorce, but those states also have one-year residency requirements. That means that at least one spouse must be a resident of the state for a year prior to the divorce.

Couples who are unable to obtain a divorce remain legally married. Therefore, being unable to divorce may cause serious legal problems and complications for same-sex couples who find themselves in this situation.

Could right-wing forces take away the freedom to marry at the ballot box in California?
Yes. Because the court based its decision on rights guaranteed by the California Constitution, right-wing groups are trying to amend our state Constitution to eliminate these fundamental constitutional protections and take away the basis for the decision.

These groups, which have received significant funding from out-of-state right-wing organizations, are placing an initiative on the November 2008 ballot that will ask voters to amend the California constitution to reverse the court’s decision and deny gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.

Already, many state leaders are expressing their opposition to this proposed constitutional amendment. For example, in a public statement on April 11, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger stated that an initiative to amend the California Constitution to ban gay and lesbian couples from marriage was “a waste of time,” adding “I will always be there to fight against that. It will never happen.”

We agree with Governor Schwarzenegger that these outsiders are wasting their time and money trying to turn California into a state that would use its Constitution to take away civil rights and hurt families. But it will take every one of us to stop this anti-family initiative. For more information about how to get involved, contact Equality For All at www.EqualityForAll.com.

What can we do to help preserve the freedom to marry we have just won?
We urge you to get involved today! For more information about how you can help, please contact Equality For All at www.EqualityForAll.com. Now that we have won this victory, all residents of California are better off, because strengthening any group of families makes stronger communities for everyone. All people who value families and fairness have a stake in preserving the freedom to marry for lesbian and gay couples. We cannot afford to wait, please act now.

Equality Quotes

Sometimes I have to remind myself that we are not alone in this struggle for Equal rights. History has shown us that there have been many brave men and women who have helped pave the way for equality.

Below are just a few quotes that lift my spirits and remind me that mankind does have the capacity to understand equality for EVERYONE, even if it is taking longer than we had hoped.

Yet, there is always hope...


"We must scrupulously guard the civil rights and civil liberties of all our citizens, whatever their background. We must remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred, is a wedge designed to attack our civilization."
--Franklin Delano Roosevelt's greeting to the American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign-born, January 9, 1940


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
The opening of the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776

"We need to guarantee equal rights and civil rights and say that, here in America, workers have the right to organize - women have the right to choose - and justice belongs to everyone regardless of race or gender or sexual orientation.”
-Senator John Kerry quotes

“Never may an act of possession be exercised upon a free being; the exclusive possession of a woman is no less unjust than the possession of slaves; all men are born free, all have equal rights: never should we lose sight of those principles; according to which never may there be granted to one sex the legitimate right to lay monopolizing hands upon the other, and never may one of the sexes, or classes, arbitrarily possess the other.”
-Marquis De Sade quotes

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
- Thomas Jefferson quotes

"I'm a supporter of gay rights. And not a closet supporter either. From the time I was a kid, I have never been able to understand attacks upon the gay community. There are so many qualities that make up a human being... by the time I get through with all the things that I really admire about people, what they do with their private parts is probably so low on the list that it is irrelevant."
-Paul Newman
And just a few more that make me smile:

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision."
-Lynn Lavner

"If homosexuality is a disease, let's all call in queer to work: "Hello. Can't work today, still queer."
-Robin Tyler

"Everybody's journey is individual. If you fall in love with a boy, you fall in love with a boy. The fact that many Americans consider it a disease says more about them than it does about homosexuality."
-James Baldwin

California State Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Update

The California Supreme Court appeared divided today over the constitutionality of the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

The courtroom was packed for the long-awaited hearing, with lawyers for various sides taking turns at the podium. Attorneys for same-sex couples and for San Francisco argued that the state marriage law violated equal protection rights and anti-discrimination laws, while lawyers for the attorney general's and governor's offices, and for pro-family and religious groups, insisted that cultural tradition justified a ban on gay weddings.

During the three hours of arguments by lawyers for and against gay marriage, Justice Joyce L. Kennard questioned whether "the state has effectively conceded there is no valid grounds for distinction" between domestic partnership and marriage.

Three of the seven justices repeatedly mentioned that California voters have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, (Proposition 22) and that the public might not be ready to embrace same-sex marriage.

Justice Carol A. Corrigan said that it might be best to leave the question to the public, whose perception of gay marriage, she said, is in the process of "evolving." She also asked lawyers to show her where the state constitution addressed same-sex marriage.

Justice Carlos R. Moreno's questions did not make clear which way he was leaning, but he asked a lawyer for the city of San Francisco if the state's domestic partnerships gave same-sex couples rights equal to those extended to married couples.

"It's not equal, your honor," said Deputy City AttorneyTherese M. Stewart.

Moreno asked, "Doesn't this just boil down to the use of the "m" word, marriage?"

"Words matter, names matter," Stewart said. "It violates equal protection.”

Chief Justice Ronald M. George suggested that the state might want to give same-sex unions a different name since the federal government does not recognize gay marriage.

Other opponents of California's voter-approved same-sex marriage ban told the justices that the ban on gay marriage is as unconstitutional as was a 1940s ban on interracial marriage. The 1948 ruling that lifted the ban on interracial marriage recognized a "right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice."

The seven-member court is made up of six Republicans and one Democrat who are considered cautious and moderately conservative. They have 90 days to reach a decision.

Help Stop An Anti-Equality Marriage Amendment

In 2006, California became the first state to prevent an effort by right-wing radicals and religious extremists to qualify an anti-equality marriage amendment on the California state ballot. In a renewed effort to place a discriminatory constitutional amendment onto the California ballot this November, these conservative organizations have hired paid signature gatherers to do their dirty work.

Two of these out-of-state organizations, Nationformarriage.org and protectmarriage.com, are financially backing this effort to deny California's same-sex couples the right to marry. To get this amendment onto the 2008 ballot, they will need to gather 1.2 million signatures by April. 

"These out-of-state extremists continue to expend time and resources to write discrimination into our California Constitution, in spite of the fact that Californians are tired of these costly and divisive campaigns," said Lorri L. Jean, chief executive officer of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, and member of the Equality for All campaign's executive committee. "California voters have a long history of supporting fairness and equal treatment under the law. We believe voters will reject this measure, and the politics of hate and division it represents."

As Californians and lesbians, we need to make it a priority to thwart all efforts by these out-of-state extremists to make decisions for our state. It is essential that we pass this information on to our friends and families so that we can prevent anyone from signing a petition that will allow marriage discrimination in California.

You can find more information about the Equality for All campaign is available at http://www.equalityforall.com/.

Let California Ring (Have you seen their videos?)

I know that some of you know about the "Let California Ring" campaign...I mean you can't really be a lesbian and not have heard something about it, especially if you're in California. Well just in case you haven't, here is the 411 from www.letcaliforniaring.org:

Let California Ring is a public education campaign to open hearts and minds about the freedom to marry and the respect, support, protections, and responsibilities that come with marriage. Every day, gay and lesbian Californians are denied the freedom to marry the person they love. Through a groundbreaking television ad and video, an interactive website and a statewide network of community leaders and volunteers, the campaign addresses the public’s concerns and conflicts about marriage and same-sex couples, builds a better understanding of the everyday challenges lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians face, and encourages dialogue through individual and public conversations about ways to end exclusion.

Okay, now that you have a better idea of what this campaign is about, you have to check out some of their videos. I just saw this one today and if you have a few minutes, it is definitely worth taking a look at.