The White House has invited recently retired NFL Coach Tony Dungy, whose outspoken Christian faith fueled his 2007 support for a gay marriage ban and has won accolades from evangelical leaders, to join its Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, U.S. News has learned. The invitation is likely to draw praise from conservative evangelical groups and criticism from liberals and gay rights activists.
Dungy has long been active with evangelical Christian charities like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Prison Crusade Ministry, along with other nonprofit groups, including Big Brothers Big Sisters and the United Way. Leading the Indianapolis Colts in 2007, he became the first black coach to win the Super Bowl.
The White House press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Officials with the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships would not confirm the invitation to Dungy, but his publicist said rumors of the invitation in Washington were true. …
The soft-spoken Dungy sparked controversy in 2007 by endorsing an Indiana ballot initiative to ban gay marriage and similar legal arrangements for gay couples. “I feel like telling people when they look at this issue of same-sex marriage . . . I’m not on anybody’s side,” Dungy said at a 2007 banquet sponsored by the Indiana Family Institute, a conservative Christian group associated with Focus on the Family. “I’m on the Lord’s side.”
At the event, Dungy said he “embraced” the Indiana Family Institute’s support for the gay marriage ban. “IFI is saying what the Lord says,” Dungy said, accepting the group’s Friend of the Family Award. “You can take that and you can make the decision on which way you want to be.”
“We’re not trying to downgrade anyone else,” Dungy added. “But we’re trying to promote the family—family values the Lord’s way.” …
I don’t give a damn how well-liked Dungy might be — he’s one mean, cold, smug, arrogant, delusional, homophobic bigot.
And as for Obama… What can I say that I haven’t already said? A lot, but after spending more than a year trying to open people’s eyes, I gave up on worrying about anything Obama does unless it directly impacts me. (That’s not selfishness talking; I mean, I finally conceded the fact that whatever he’ll do, he’ll do, and nothing I say will ever change that — he doesn’t care what I think — so why waste the effort?)
And there’s plenty I’d like to say to however many remaining Obama worshippers there are out there, but I don’t see much point to that either. They’ll either finally admit that those of us on the Left — the real Left — were right about Obama and his to-hell-with-the-gays policy from the beginning, or they’ll continue to stick their fingers in their ears and run the ol’ “You’re just a racist!” diversion.
And why not? I’m sure — no, actually, I know — there are plenty out there still stuck in the groove of “It’s only ONE SONG!” and “It’s just a TWO-MINUTE PRAYER!”
President Hamid Karzai has signed a law the UN says legalises rape in marriage and prevents women from leaving the house without permission.
The law, which has not been publicly released, is believed to state women can only seek work, education or doctor’s appointments with their husband’s permission.
Only fathers and grandfathers are granted custody of children under the law, according to the United Nations Development Fund for Women.
Opponents of the legislation governing the personal lives of Afghanistan’s Shia minority have said it is “worse than during the Taliban”.
Mr Karzai has been accused of electioneering at the expense of women’s rights by signing the law to appeal to crucial Shia swing voters in this year’s presidential poll. …
The bill passed both houses of the Afghan parliament, but was so contentious that the United Nations and women’s rights campaigners have so far been unable to see a copy of the approved bill. … “[T]hey didn’t want to discuss it because Karzai wants to please the Shia before the election.” …
A spokesman for President Hamid Karzai would not comment.
It’s easy to see where the normal, well-meaning believers (A&P Protestants, bothersome but harmless Jehovah’s Witnesses, yoginis, most Catholics) fall on the spectrum, and where the extreme psychotics (Jim Jones, David Koresh, numerous living members of the kill-the-gays cult I won’t name for fear of a lawsuit) fall; but it’s that immense grey area in between that scares us. And the closer you get to the middle of the spectrum, the more the distinctions blur.
Where in the muddy middle are, for example, the Sally Kerns, and the Yes On 8 sign wavers? When one truly believes s/he is a warrior in a final showdown between good and evil, submitting mindlessly to the directives of an imagined entity, a flesh-and-blood false prophet, or that “still small voice,” how much does it take to push such a person into the psychotic end of the spectrum?
More chilling: How can religious insanity be cured (or at least managed), when religion is always perceived to be an inviolable right?
When is “freedom of religion” just a catch-all for “My actions are unassailable, because I’m on a mission from God”?
Members of One Mind Ministries drew little notice in the working-class Baltimore neighborhood where they lived in a nondescript brick rowhouse.
But inside, prosecutors say, horrors were unfolding: Answering to a leader called Queen Antoinette, they denied a 16-month-old boy food and water because he did not say “Amen” at mealtimes. After he died, they prayed over his body for days, expecting a resurrection, then packed it into a suitcase with mothballs. They left it in a shed in Philadelphia, where it remained for a year before detectives found it last spring.
Tomorrow, five of the group’s alleged members — including the boy’s mother, Ria Ramkissoon — are scheduled to be tried in Baltimore on murder charges. Sources and Ramkissoon’s mother said Ramkissoon, 22, has agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge on one condition: The charges against her must be dropped if her son, Javon Thompson, is resurrected.
Psychiatrists who evaluated Ramkissoon at the request of a judge concluded that she was not criminally insane. Her attorney, Steven Silverman, said the doctors found that her beliefs were indistinguishable from religious beliefs, in part because they were shared by those around her.
“She wasn’t delusional, because she was following a religion,” Silverman said, describing the findings of the doctors’ psychiatric evaluation. …
The group claimed to find authority for its beliefs in the Bible. …
Silverman said he and prosecutors think Ramkissoon was brainwashed and should have been found not criminally responsible; prosecutors declined to comment. Although an inability to think critically can be a sign of brainwashing, experts said, the line between that and some religious beliefs can be difficult to discern.
“At times there can be an overlap between extreme religious conviction and delusion,” said Robert Jay Lifton, a cult expert and psychiatrist who lectures at Harvard Medical School. “It’s a difficult area for psychiatry and the legal system.” …
According to charging documents, in December 2006, Javon stopped saying “Amen” at mealtimes. Queen Antoinette told members the boy had developed a demonic spirit and needed to be cleansed through fasting and by being denied water…
Ramkissoon found it “unbearable” to watch but followed the instructions, the officials said. “In her mind, an apostle of God had ordered this,” Silverman said.
Javon’s skin turned dark and he stopped moving, according to charging documents. Ramkissoon tried to feed him, but his mouth would not open. She felt for a heartbeat but detected none.
The body was placed on a mattress in a back room, and Queen Antoinette told her followers that God would “raise Javon from the dead,” according to the charging documents. …
The group came to believe there had been no resurrection because someone among them was not a true believer… With that person no longer part of the group, they headed north out of Baltimore with the suitcase, believing Javon could be raised at a future date…
Distilling this news six days after the latest purge began — because I didn’t know about it for six days, because YouTube stopped sending out email notifications. Thanks heaps, YouTube.
Mind you, I’m not accusing him of it — but that was the first thought that crossed my mind (and Buffy’s, as soon as I gave her a completely un-editorialized, one-sentence summary of the story). Yes, the timing could be completely incidental… but with the just-when-you-think-they-can’t-sink-any-lower skullduggery from the anti-equality camp, I don’t believe much in coincidence anymore — and in light of Krueger’s appalling performance on our “behalf” earlier this month, you can’t blame me for wondering if something doesn’t stink to high heaven:
The attorney who led Jerry Brown’s efforts to overturn Proposition 8 is swapping government shops.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Christopher Krueger is taking a new job as chief deputy legal affairs secretary in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration, a spokeswoman for the governor confirmed. He starts Wednesday and will replace Louis Mauro, who was appointed to the Sacramento County Superior Court bench by Schwarzenegger last week.
Krueger said the move has been in the works for weeks and that top brass at the AG’s office knew about it. …
Krueger was panned by critics — including his boss — for his performance during oral arguments on Prop. 8. …
Well, what was the first thought to cross your mind when you read that?
Facing national criticism about his decision to appoint an anti-gay rights activist as a legal adviser, the president of the NAACP’s Cincinnati chapter issued a warning on his radio show this weekend.
Christopher Smitherman, the local NAACP president, talked about unspecified consequences if the gay and lesbian community continues pushing for the ouster of Chris Finney, who Smitherman recently appointed as the group’s “chair of legal redress.” He made the remarks on Smitherman on the Mic, a show he hosts Saturdays on WDBZ (AM 1230.)
“I think you should be very, very cautious LGBT community,” Smitherman said. “I think you should be very cautious moving forward. I don’t think this is a tree you want to bark up. But if you want to go there, if this is what you want to do, we can go there.”
And then what? Sounds like an “…or else” threat to my ears, only you’re not specifying the consequences. What are you going to do, Mr. Smitherman? Keep ranting about how all white gay people are racists? You’re doing that now. You’re flinging your angry screeds in every direction — and for what? You’re not trying to open any sort of dialogue with the community of which you claim to be so “supportive.”
You’re already slamming us at every opportunity, and we haven’t burst into tears and run home to our mamas, have we? What else are you going to do — besides keep telling us what horrible, unreasonable excuses for human beings we are? I know you’re not talking about physical violence, so… So, what’s the implied “…or else,” Mr. Smitherman?
“But the bottom line is your community as it deals with racism in the African-American community, you’re not there,” he continued. “You’re absent. And then when it’s convenient for you, you start evoking (sic) Dr. Martin Luther King. Proposition 8 lost in California because the (gay) community isn’t properly engaging the African-American community. And you’re showin’ up at the last minute trying to build bridges and have relationships, and it doesn’t work that way.”
Also, Smitherman challenged local gays and lesbians to participate in the NAACP’s upcoming rally at Cincinnati City Hall to protest the low amount of city contracts that are awarded to minority-owned businesses. …
In the last week, Finney’s appointment has been covered by 365gay.com, the news Web site of the Logo cable TV network, which is owned by CBS; and popular gay blogs like Towle Road, Lavender Newswire and LGBTN. …
Black gay men in Cincinnati are generally treated poorly by their white counterparts, Smitherman said.
“Now this doesn’t mean that there aren’t gay members of the Cincinnati NAACP because I can name some white brothers by the name, i.e. Victor Fabro, white male, gay, he’s out, who’s very supportive of the NAACP. He stands with us, he comes to marches,” Smitherman said.
“But he’s not carrying the banner of the institution. The institution is quiet. And the only time … and I’m supportive … I’ve been supportive of these issues. Matter of fact, not in lock step with the African-American community. Now you write me having been absent and I’ve sent messages and told you to engage the African-American community differently.”
Cincinnati’s white gay community could begin healing the rift by purchasing a table at the chapter’s annual Freedom Dinner fund-raiser, the president said. …
On, that’s rich. You rake LGBTs over the coals, repeatedly, and then set conditions for the LGBT community to make it up to you, Mr. Smitherman? What, are you hoping we’re a bunch of limp-wristed nelly queens suffering from Stockholm syndrome? What do you think your reaction would be if, oh, say, the Human Rights Campaign hired a lawyer from the KKK, then knocked you back for criticizing the move, and then informed you that you could only begin to compensate for hurting their tiny widdle feelings by dragging every member of the Cincinnati NAACP to the next Pride parade, and buying a table at the next HRC fundraising dinner? What do you think your reaction would be, Mr. Smitherman?
Man, this attack-the-victims crap — and then demanding the victims suck up to you for… what? forgiveness for making you attack them? It’s getting old, man. Way old. Get a grip, Mister. Get a freaking grip.
I tell you, the things you find when you’re researching Prop 8 donors…
(By the way, Secret Service, if you’ve got a second, would you go look at this guy’s MySpace page and see what you think? He might just be a mean, stupid, arrogant, misanthropic butthole — or he might just be genuinely sociopathic, and dangerous. I sure wouldn’t want him to corner me in a dark alley.)
So, I’m researching this company in Lodi, California, which donated $500.00 to the Prop H8 campaign, and I stumble across this MySpace page belonging to a guy who says he’s the “Director of Programming” at this place — Beyond Words Speech Therapy, Inc. Here’s what he has to say (and I took screen caps of the whole thing, top to bottom, as such craziness usually tends to “disappear” once word gets out):
About me: Do you really care??? If you are a friend, you know me. If you are not a friend, you most likely never will be. Do not spin your wheels, go make friends with some of my other friends, as they actually like people and society. That way neither one of us has to talk to each other. Which, in my case, is a huge plus (heck, I do not really even like talking to my existing friends.) I hate checking my myspace page with all the stupid security…come to think of it, why am I even writing this…why do I have page? Oh yeah, so I can take pleasure in rejecting friend requests from you all…such satisfaction.
Who I’d like to meet: Probably not you. If we are not friends already…I would not count on much. I would have loved to meet Reagan. Would love to meet Hillary and Obama at the same time, stand them next to each other, and smack them both with a single backhand. Probably would love to pop that beach ball Michael Moore calls a head, then steal that sweaty baseball cap he always wears. Other than that, the Red Sox…Carlton Fisk, probably…Ted Williams, definitely (heard he’s cryogenic now…so maybe). Thomas S. Monson…if you do not know who that is, e-mail your address and I will send the Missionaries over to meet with you. Every member of the United States Armed Services, so I could thank them for laying down their lives for the freedoms and lives of you idiot liberals who bash them…
Talk about your good Christian love— or, actually, talk about your good Mormon love (since Mormons aren’t Christians)…
There are so many things wrong with this story… Off the top, I’ll say that CityBeat should have used my headline, instead of the practically innocuous-sounding “Smitherman and Finney in Bed“:
In a move that’s raised eyebrows across the political spectrum, the president of the NAACP’s Cincinnati chapter has given a board appointment to an arch-conservative legal activist who has a history of working on anti-gay rights causes.
The appointment involves Hyde Park attorney Chris Finney, perhaps best known as the person who wrote Article 12, a charter amendment passed by voters in 1993 that prohibited city officials from passing any laws that included sexual orientation as a protected class.
Among his past comments in defending Article 12, Finney once said that landlords shouldn’t be legally required to rent to gay or lesbian tenants if they didn’t want to do so, a remark that some critics compared to people who refused public accommodations or services to African Americans before the 1960s.
Strangely, Finney’s appointment as the Cincinnati NAACP’s “chair of legal redress” occurred at almost exactly the same time the NAACP’s national office asked California lawmakers to support efforts to repeal Proposition 8, which it deemed a civil rights violation. Prop 8 overturned court rulings that allowed the marriage of same-sex couples in that state.
Christopher Smitherman, the Cincinnati NAACP’s president, appointed Finney and defends his action. No one should be judged on one issue alone, Smitherman says…
“Chris Finney has done a fabulous job for the NAACP over the last two years,” Smitherman says, referring to successful ballot issues that blocked a sales tax increase to build a new jail and repealed City Council’s decision to install red-light cameras at intersections. “He has earned our confidence in him with our legal work. I cannot be concerned with the interests of any other constituency group. I must look out for the interests of our membership.”
Gee, that must mean there are no gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender members of the NAACP.
Before voters repealed it in 2004, Article 12 prohibited Cincinnati City Council or any other city entity from enacting or enforcing measures to give “minority or preferential status” to homosexuals, in effect preventing gays from seeking protection against discrimination or hate crimes. …
After the amendment created a public relations nightmare for the city nationwide and caused $45 million in lost convention business—
Smitherman must have an awfully short memory. Discimination against minorities leads to boycotts, and boycotts — even against entire cities — do work. Ask anyone who remembers Montgomery.
—a coalition of city officials, business CEOs and Cincinnati’s Catholic archbishop led a successful repeal campaign.
Now, if Smitherman’s idiotic, and appallingly insulting, remarks aren’t enough to knock you right on your butt, here comes the F.U. of the century (OK, the last century) from the NAACP’s brand-new lawyer himself:
Article 12 was CCV’s response to the city’s human rights ordinance after an earlier court challenge failed. During testimony in a 1994 court hearing, Finney was asked why sexual behavior should affect who can eat in a restaurant or be employed by a company.
Finney replied, “Because there may be some who don’t want their family dining next to a homosexual couple whose actions they find offensive.”
Take a moment to pick your jaw up off your chest; I’ll wait.
Better? OK…
Many people believe that view is inconsistent with the sentiment expressed by Julian Bond, the national NAACP’s chairman…
“Many people believe”…? That’s not a matter of opinion; it’s fact: Julian Bond has been a tireless champion of equal rights — for everyone — and he’s not been afraid to stand up for the LGBT community, most recently against Prop 8. In fact, I’m looking forward to Mr. Bond’s reaction to all this — and I’ll be very surprised if he doesn’t issue a statement.
(I’m also hoping — but not counting on — a statement from the national Green Party. Believe it or not, Smitherman declared himself a Greenie in 2007, when he was weighing another city council run. Don’t you have to, oh, I don’t know, actually agree with a party’s platform before you can represent it? See, there’s this little matter of the Greens’ Ten Key Values, and it sure looks like somebody isn’t too concerned about either Value #2 or Value #8…)
CityBeat e-mailed Finney to ask him several questions, including whether he believes issues of civil rights should be decided by individual state legislatures or by the federal government and — noting conservatives’ typical dislike of “identity politics” — how he felt about working for a group geared toward representing a minority population.
Smitherman prevented Finney from responding, later stating, “You’re not going to see Chris Finney making statements about the work he does for the NAACP. I am the NAACP’s public representative.”
Doesn’t matter to us who does the talking, Mr. Smitherman; as two-faced, hypocritical, smallminded, homophobic bigotry goes, you and Mr. Finney appear completely interchangeable.
… Finney is helping the NAACP’s efforts to place amendments on the November ballot: one that would require a public vote before City Council spends money on streetcars, the other creating a process to recall the mayor. He’s also helping the group’s push to have more city contracts awarded to minority businesses.
But…! But…! But “there may be some who don’t want their family shopping next to an African-American-owned business whose actions they find offensive.”
Sounds pretty horrible when it cuts the other way, eh, gentlemen?
… Smitherman has a gay brother and has championed gay rights in the past. Still, after he was defeated in his City Council re-election bid in 2005, he told CityBeat that he blamed the white gay community for not supporting him.
There are so many responses I could make to that little bit of nastiness… but I think I’ll go with: “Which means that every black, Latino, Asian, and other non-white gay voter in Cincinnati voted for you, right, Mr. Smitherman?”
Out of curiosity, I looked up the racial demographics of Cincinnati, and guess what? The 2000 census shows 142,176, or 42.9%, identify as “Black or African American.” Whites make up an even 53% (and that includes some overlap with those who identify as Hispanic or Latino and white), and pretty much everybody else is Asian, Native American, or Pacific Islander.
Now, let’s say every white queer in Cincinnati — say, 5% of 53% (minus non-white Latinos) — voted against Smitherman. Would roughly 2.7% be enough to scuttle Smitherman’s chances? And do you think every white queer in Cincinnati voted against Smitherman, because — according to Smitherman — all gays are white, and all gays are… well, he never said all gays were racists, but what else do you think he’s saying?
But never mind Smitherman’s attempt to stoke the Gays-Versus-Blacks inferno (and propagate the Black-Gays-Do-Not-Exist idiocy — or perhaps the equally offensive All-Blacks-Vote-As-A-Monolith idiocy); the truth is, he lost African-American votes across the board — and in a year when it appears there was a higher-than-usual African-American turnout at the polls.
What do you think that says? Gee, could it be that the majority of voters — all voters, black, white, straight, gay, and otherwise — just didn’t think Smitherman was the right person for the job?
Yes, I’m sure that would be a very bitter pill for Mr. Smitherman to swallow, but the facts of his 2005 loss indicate that’s exactly what happened — and it wasn’t Teh Gays’ fault.
Cincinnati.com has the neighborhood breakdown, including the most interesting tidbits that 1) Smitherman’s “own neighborhood… also turned on him,” and 2) he actually lost support in “the East Side Republican precincts that helped elect him in 2003,” which “wouldn’t have been quite so devastating if he had a corresponding increase in African-American support.”
But he didn’t have a corresponding increase in African-American support.
Which went to Laketa Cole.
Who is also African-American.
And a woman.
And Smitherman is blaming Cincinnati’s “white gay community” for his loss? He may as well blame all the women in Cincinnati (he could cite misandry as the cause), because it certainly doesn’t look as if he’s going to take responsibility for his own failure.
That said, let’s get back to today’s story:
Asked if that sentiment influenced Finney’s selection, he says, “I continue to be very concerned that the gay community continues to approach the African-American community only when they want something from us.”
Mr. Smitherman, why is it so impossible to get it through your skull that there are gay African-Americans in this world? You’ve got a gay brother, fercrimenysakes, and I think it’s pretty safe to assume he’s black.
Equality Cincinnati, which endorsed Smitherman in his two council campaigns, hasn’t yet addressed the issue.
“Christopher Smitherman has always been and, in my mind, continues to be a friend of the LGBT community,” says George Ellis, Equality’s president. “I haven’t had the chance to talk to him about it, and I wouldn’t want to express any opinion until I have.”
Uh, George? The LGBT community needs “friends” like Christopher Smitherman the way a kid with croup needs somebody blowing cigar smoke into his oxygen tent.
There’s plenty more stubborn blindness and maddening, inexcusable divisiveness at the link, including Smitherman’s claim: “This is a myth that the African American is liberal.”
Wow, so you speak for all African-Americans, Mr. Smitherman? No, sir: You speak only for those who want to believe that all African-Americans are conservative, straight bigots — like you.
It’s the policy of HRC that the organization will only support an inclusive ENDA. In 2007 House leadership informed us that there were insufficient votes to pass an inclusive bill, so they decided to vote on a sexual orientation only bill. We made a one time exception to our policy in 2007 because we strongly believed that supporting this vote would do more to advance inclusive legislation. We will not support such a strategy again. We look forward to Congress sending President Obama a fully inclusive ENDA for his signature.
Well, glad to hear the HRC “will not support such a strategy again” — although I wouldn’t wager a penny on another policy shift at any moment. I haven’t trusted the HRC in a lot of years, and it’s going to take the gay, white, East-Coast cocktail set a lot of hard work, and consistency, before I’d ever dream of trusting them again.
Still, it’s something. I won’t deny them credit. Or, to replay a scene from The Boys in the Band, with the HRC as Michael, and myself as Harold:
Michael: “I bought a bottle of Pouilly Fuissy just for you, kiddo.”
Harold: “Pussycat. All is forgiven. You can stay. No… You can stay, but not all is forgiven.”
With all the controversy surrounding the LDS Church’s involvement in the Proposition 8 election in California last fall, a more subtle dust-up was brewing at the Hawaii State Legislature last month, pretty much over the same thing.
Hawaii resident Leonor Briscoe was fired up enough over an e-mail exchange with a neighbor that she forwarded copies to her friends, including some Utah residents she believed would be interested in the issue.
The exchange began with an e-mail she got from Frank Lueder, also of Hawaii, that informed her of HB444, a bill before the Hawaii Legislature that “is attempting to once again legalize same-sex marriage but under a new term, ‘civil union.’ If you wish relay your OPPOSITION to it, you could do so by [calling or e-mailing] your representative. You could access the list of … House of Representatives from the e-mail address I just gave.”
Briscoe, who is LDS, responded: “In the hierarchical, authoritarian structure of the Mormon church, there’s no way you would be sending out e-mails about HB444 without the implied or expressed sanction of the leaders of the Mormon Church.
“You do not know me and I do not know you, so the only way you could have gotten my e-mail address is through your stake clerk’s access to church stake records, which are not supposed to be used for political or commercial purposes.”
No, wait — actually, I do have a comment:
I look forward to the day the Catholics and the evangelicals (the commoners, I mean, not the leadership) see what I see. I look forward to the day the Mormon church is recognized as— well, exactly what it is.
This is more interesting — albeit not in a good way — than it might appear at first glance. I’ve added some background information about the initiative process I myself hadn’t fully digested, which has led me to understand why the court (lousy attitudes and personal agendas aside) may not be able to overturn Proposition 8, even if it wanted to. It’s the system, folks, set up by long-dead idiots who crafted the ridiculous rules for the state’s much-abused “direct initiative process,” and allowed to stand by we who never fully realized until now how these arbitrary rules were being exploited to the max by the slick characters who regularly buy our elections for their own nefarious purposes.
Prop 8 will stand. Not because Joyce Kennard might hate our guts, but because it must stand under The Rules.
Enough about that. You’ll see exactly what I’m talking about when you get to it.
Here’s my re-cap of last night’s call. I haven’t listened to the audio since; this is all from my notes taken while listening.
Start: 7:03 p.m.
Operator/moderator says that at first, all callers will be in listen-only mode; later, the lines will open for live questions.
Rick Jacobs, Courage Campaign: Opens with thank-you’s to AG Brown. Says this is just one of a series of conference calls sponsored by the Courage Campaign; runs down the list of some other high-profile people CC has hosted. Honored to have Jerry talk about Proposition 8. “Having said that we’re honored to have the Attorney General, I still want to say a few words about him…” Runs down Brown’s long list of achievements and elected positions, goes into Jerry’s background (Yale Law School, working with Mother Teresa, L.A. Community College Board, Secretary of State, Governor, Mayor of Oakland, and now AG). Mentions that because Brown was elected governor before term limits were imposed, he’s eligible to run again. Brown has “never been afraid to take on a challenge.”
Makes “procedural notes”; first, a few minutes from Brown on Prop 8, then on to email questions and live questions. Doesn’t mention how many people listening in, but says this is “the most popular call we’ve ever had.”
Jerry Brown, California Attorney General: Thanks… Goes into Prop 8 right off the bat; says “the closest thing we’ve ever had in the Attorney General’s office” to Prop 8 is Proposition 14, which overturned the Rumford Act (California’s fair housing law) in 1964.
Sapph: Prop 14 passed, thereby giving property sellers and lessors the “right” to discriminate against anyone they wanted. The California Supreme Court overturned Prop 14 (on federal grounds/as a violation of equal protection). While important, the eventual passage of federal fair housing law (in 1968) superseded this and any/all other state decisions… which is why you don’t hear much about the Rumford Act these days.
JB: Prop 14, which was “overwhelmingly popular,” was “a case where constitutional provisions trumped popular will.” Prop 8 is different, “but not really different”; the “general question” is: “When does the popular vote prevail, and when does the constitution prevail when there’s a conflict?”
Says he himself “learned more about it” (this question) after Prop 8 passed. “What’s important to realize is that the right of initiative was put on the ballot by the [state] legislature in 1912, 1913… You have to go back to the beginning, in 1849, and [in the] subsequent constitutional convention where people approved the [state] constitution.”
Mentions Article 1 of the California constitution, which specifies the phrase “inalienable rights.”
Explains that Californians “get the right to amend the constitution by simple majority vote,” and gets into the rules for putting an initiative on the ballot.
Sapph: Before continuing, here’s the quickest, easiest way to understand what JB talks about next; from the California Secretary of State:
“California uses the direct initiative process, which enables voters to bypass the Legislature and have an issue of concern put directly on the ballot for voter approval or rejection. There are two types of initiatives that can be placed on the ballot: 1) statute revision, which requires signatures equal to five percent of the total votes cast for Governor in the preceding gubernatorial election, and 2) constitutional amendment, which requires signatures equal to eight percent of the Governor’s total vote in the preceding gubernatorial election.”
JB: Talks about the 8% rule, and how all you need to pass an initiative is 50% plus one vote.
Says Prop 8 is “unusual”; the wording of Prop 8 is identical to that of Prop 22 — but, because Prop 22 was put on the ballot by [signatures equal to only 5% of the previous gubernatorial votes], Prop 22 was a statute revision [and not a constitutional amendment].
Sapph: In other words, if Prop 8 was put on the ballot by “signatures equal to eight percent of the Governor’s total vote in the preceding gubernatorial election,” Prop 8 was already defined as an amendment from the outset — which explains why JB’s office argued that Prop 8 is not a revision. (Don’t you wish someone among the gay “leadership” had explained all this a long time ago? Don’t you wish someone had admitted that the “revision versus amendment” argument was not going to fly, and this was the reason? As hard a pill as this is to swallow, I certainly wish someone on “our side” had come clean about this, and scuttled the whole pointless argument. “Our” lawyers should have argued “our” case on federal grounds, specifically equal protection. Too, at least that way, we would have had an opening for appeal to SCOTUS.)
The bottom line: All arguments about whether Prop 8 is an amendment or a revision are moot, and futile… again, *IF* the signatures reached 8%. If I had caught this at the moment Brown was talking about it (which I did not; the full impact didn’t hit me until today), I would have asked the two most obvious questions: 1) How can we be certain the initial petition signatures reached that magical 8% point, when California does not allow public scrutiny of signatures on initiative petitions? 2) How do we know all the people who signed the Proposition 8 petition knew what they were signing… or even signed it at all?
Never forget what happened in Massachusetts — and how we would never have known about the petition fraud there if Massachusetts blocked public scrutiny of the signatures… the way California does.
JB: “It’s important to realize the word ‘marriage’ is not in Article 1″ of the California constitution. However, the California court ruled that “same-sex couples should not be excluded from a fundamental right unless there was a ‘compelling reason’” to exclude them — and the court found no “compelling reason.”
“So, in effect, last May [the court] by a 4-3 decision ruled that this fundamental liberty was available to same-sex couples. Then Proposition 8 gets put on the ballot [and] passes by 52%.” So the question is: Should an amendment be treated differently than a statute? “Certain core liberties can’t [just] be swept away” by a popular vote.
“I know this argument was controversial, but [we] have to put restraints on the majority — that’s what all western nations do; [voters are] curbed by the specification of these core liberties. That’s why — in the old language of the 19th century — [these are] called ‘inalienable rights’ — [I know] some judges had trouble with that word &mdash’ [but] we felt the court had already ruled… [This was not just about] same-sex marriage — we’re talking about a core value called ‘marriage.’ That’s the way I saw it.
“Now, another interpretation on whether or not [an] attempt to take away a right [had to do with] the death penalty. In my office, my lawyers felt: ‘Let’s go to the heart of the matter.’”
Without mentioning Chris Kreuger by name, JB admits Kreuger’s performance at the March 5th hearing was less than optimal: “The presentation wasn’t all that I wanted.” JB thought about making the argument himself, but by tradition the Attorney General doesn’t do that, and so… he didn’t.
“The judges were certainly on the attack, and our man didn’t fight back as well as I wanted.”
In any case, by the time of a hearing like the one on March 5th, the judges have already drawn up a “conference memo” (their minds are already made up — implying that Kreuger’s miserable performance was of little consequence).
“I think [our argument] was put well before them, [but the judges] didn’t seem to like the idea of ‘revision,’ or [the idea of] fundamental liberty.
“The case that stood in the way of [the ‘revision’ argument], and, I think, that gives the court trouble” is the death penalty case, “while Reagan was governor. [It] violated the Eight Amendment [of the U.S. Constitution]. Then people voted in restoration of the death penalty, then the court upheld that amendment. I think the [Prop 8] court saw the spectre of that death penalty vote. Wouldn’t this amendment [Prop 8] have revised this ruling [of the California court the previous May]?”
RJ: “It’s a sad day indeed that we’re even arguing our rights… that a majority of any size could take fundamental rights away from people at the ballot box.”
JB: Mentions Kenneth Starr arguing that the people could even vote away their own right to free speech if they wanted. “Well, the times can change, and in difficult periods, who knows what the court could do? So it is a sad day if this court abandons its role in protecting fundamental liberties.”
Sapph: At this point, the lines are opened to live questions. For a moment, there are no questions at all — not even from me, as JB had already answered the two questions I had for him. Half a second later, another question occurs to me (how our existing marriages could possibly remain “valid” if Prop 8 deemed them not “recognized”) and I hit the * key to “raise my hand” on the call — but so did another forty people, so I never got to ask it.
First email question, from Keith in San Diego, whose own marriage is among those in jeopardy: Keith and his husband were easily able to change their names (on drivers’ licenses, credit cards, etc.); all agencies involved merely requested a copy of their marriage license. Question is basically, now what?
JB: Doesn’t think existing marriages will be voided. “If [they were], that would be a tragedy.” Says he’s “very confident” the 18,000 existing marriages will remain valid — and the next battle in all this is to “get rid of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.” Reflects on Prop 6, the Briggs initiative, and (rightly) calls it a “witch hunt.”
Next question asks JB’s opinion on the “role of [anti-Prop 8] protests.”
JB: “One has to be careful about the nature of protests.” Emphasize “the affirmative, the affirmation of love… the humanness of it… the familiarity… That’s powerful — but I think one has to be careful” because the public is still getting its “education through the media.”
Live caller Mike: Says he has no personal stake in this issue, but sees Prop 8 “as a fundamental perversion of an initiative process… a symptom of the [state] legislature not doing the job we pay them to do…”
Sapph thinks: On this issue, the legislature did do the job we pay them to do — twice — but Schwarzenegger shot them down with a veto — twice. Nevertheless…
Live caller Mike: “If this goes the wrong way in [the California Supreme Court], what is your opinion about a constitutional convention to fix some of the basic problems with the state constitution?”
JB: The problem is “how to guard fundamental liberties from 51% hostile votes.” Thinks a constitutional convention would be “hard to pull off, because the legislature sets the rules on who gets to vote — and they have a hard time making up their minds on” any but the most non-controversial issues.
“I’ve not given up on the court as the guardian of the constitution, but it’s improbable that leg will kick in.”
To get a constitutional convention happening, you’d “need the same majority [as you would] to defeat Prop 8. I think this is a contested area. [It strikes me] as easier to repeal Prop 8 than it might be to get some more comprehensive constitutional provision [passed].”
Live caller Ruben, age 52: Brings up “the hypocrisy of the Mormon church — they were very blatant in their discriminatory comments and funding of Prop 8.” Asks JB if anyone is looking into removing the Mormons’ tax-exempt status.
JB: If we see evidence of [any] church engaging in political activity, we’ll certainly take action… [evidence of] people acting in ways not tied directly to the church… We’d like to hear about it.”
RJ: Mentions (without naming Fred) Fred Karger’s complaint to the Fair Political Practices Committee.
JB: “That would be the place to present the evidence,” although the Attorney General’s office does have a Charitable Trust Division as well. “If [a] church acts outside permissible mandates, we will look into that.”
Live caller Weaver from Santa Rosa: “As one of the 18,000… my concern, of which I have many, [is]: What if the marriages stand, but none go further from here? What’s the next step?”
JB: Existing marriages will “remain recognized in California. There is [also] Massachusetts — and Connecticut, Vermont, [and] New Jersey are all on deck to pass marriage laws. If that happens, you’re getting pillars of support, [and] the next step is the federal repeal of [DoMA]. So I’d say that would be the next move: federal recognition and protections.”
RJ: “Whatever happens next” the next step for everyone is a system of “sophisticated research… working together to win [our] rights back. … [This] fight’s not over until we win federal rights.”
JB: Agrees; first step is “federal recognition for marriages in states that have them.”
JB: Also see Facebook page. There are a lot of Jerry Browns on Facebook, so “look for my picture.”
Live caller Jen: “Is anyone putting in a ballot measure for the next election?”
JB: Doesn’t “know of an immmediate initiative.”
RJ: Affirms there is indeed [”an immediate initiative”]. “What we’ll have to do — the grassroots — what’s going to have to happen” is research: “Share research, make the decision when to file, whether [or not] for 2010… Then we have to win. But it’s all gonna have to be us.”
JB: Says you need to listen to your gut feeling: “When you feel you have enough base,” that’s when you file. Prop 22 was identical in wording to Prop 8, and Prop 22 passed with 61%, while Prop 8 passed with 52.3%; “that’s a big move in a short period of time.” The question is: “Is 2010 the right time, or later?” Needs to be “a consensus decision.”
RJ: “The key work we have to do is protest, get out and change hearts and minds.” The Courage Campaign “is asking people to give three hours a month…”
Live caller Emily Levy of Velvet Revolution: Talks about Diebold voting machines, and how it’s been established that “illegal software used last fall allowed votes to be deleted, even on Election Day.” These irregularities call into question whether or not Prop 8 actually passed in the first place; is there any investigation into this going on?
JB: I’ve not heard it put quite that forcefully, [but] I will be glad to take this up with the Secretary of State. And if I see any credible evidence—”
EL: Asks how to get that evidence to JB.
JB: Lists office locations. “Just come by and leave it for my attention.”
Live caller Sharon from Marin (where voters voted against Prop 8 by 75%): What’s JB’s opinion on the direction to go in should Prop 8 be upheld — step by step? We need some help.”
JB: Notes “Equality California, Courage Campaign, other grassroots are mobilizing. A phone call” to one of these groups is a first “step in that direction. I think it is a kind of bottom-up thing… neighbor-to-neighbor outreach. It is, really. After a certain number of conversations and encounters, it’s going to go from 52% one way to 52% the other way.”
Live caller Stewart from Santa Monica: “I have more of a remark [than a question]. I listened to the entire proceedings [and] about fell out of my chair when Mr. Starr made that remark about freedom of speech. That was the most disturbing element of this whole argument… I gotta tell you, man, that right there — my hair stood up.”
JB: Seems to agree; says essentially that if Prop 8 is upheld, then the court is basically about saying Article 1 of the state constitution: “It’s gone.”
Live caller Michael from L.A.: Question is twofold: 1) If Prop 8 is upheld, “who has the standing” to bring it to the Supreme Court of the United States? 2) What would be the most salient arguments to use when appealing to SCOTUS?
JB: Prop 8 “was not argued on federal grounds; it was argued on a state constitution.. [so] there’s no recourse, no appeal.”
RJ: Makes last thank-you’s to JB, who “came early and stayed late.” Mentions that audio from tonight’s call will be on the Courage Campaign site. Reminds people that the Saturday after the court hands down its decision (no matter which way it goes) is when we will “meet in the middle” in Fresno.
Asks JB for any “parting words of wisdom.”
JB: Thanks RJ for the opportunity, says: “My only words are: Stick to solidarity, [and] grassroots organizing.” Then plugs Facebook page again.
It’s one thing not to pass the resolution. It’s another thing to dive deep into Pretzel Logic territory and pretend that supporting equality would be “discriminating” against homophobes. But the thing that gets to me most is the attitude of the city’s vice mayor, who couldn’t make it any clearer that she 1) doesn’t get it, 2) doesn’t care that she doesn’t get it, and 3) would rather see us bothersome homos take our pink money elsewhere.
Lady, you’ve got your wish. I was hoping to scrape together a few bucks this spring to introduce my wife to the wine country — but with that cavalier attitude, you can bet your boots that Napa is out of consideration.
Bethany Holden-Soto and her wife were planning a weekend getaway in Napa — until they found out the city council had just declined to pass a resolution in support of same-sex marriage.
“We want to take a trip with our tax return money and Napa seemed like a nice place,” said Holden-Soto, 28, of Modesto. “We like wine and we wanted to go somewhere gay friendly, where we wouldn’t have to worry and people wouldn’t care. Then I heard about the resolution and thought it might be a bad idea.”
On Tuesday, Napa City Councilman Mark van Gorder asked his colleagues to support a resolution saying the “city does not support discrimination and finds that all people regardless of gender should be able to enter into the legal contract of marriage.”
He was the only one who voted in favor. Three other council members did not vote, saying they were not comfortable taking a position on the issue. The vice mayor did not attend. …
“It’s really heartbreaking that even with the majority of voter support and two solid hours of public testimony in favor of the resolution, our elected officials refused to even vote,” said Deb Stallings, a Napa resident who married her partner in June. “Napa is a place that has a world-class reputation and we thought it would be cool to tell the world that we are a place where everyone is equal. It would have gone a long way to make us feel worthy.”
The controversy reflects the divide statewide over gay marriage - but in Napa, a boycott over the council’s lack of support could hurt the town’s many tourism-related businesses. Elsewhere in the Napa Valley, a St. Helena city councilmember is drafting his own resolution in favor of same-sex marriage. …
James Krider, a councilmember who uses a wheelchair and voted against a park project in the past because it wasn’t accessible, said he is familiar with discrimination but said a resolution supporting same-sex marriage would be discriminating against residents who supported Prop. 8.
“I feel like I have to represent everybody, if I discriminate against one, I discriminate against all,” he said.
Read that again. How anti-gay does a person have to be to come up with that kind of tortured logic? Krider doesn’t want to “discriminate” against those who discriminate? That’s the kind of whackadoodle crapola you hear from the radical religionists: “Not letting me kill your civil rights is oppressing me!” (I wonder if Krider is a radical fundy? Anyone know?)
Holden-Soto, the Modesto woman, wrote to each of the councilmembers expressing her dismay with their decision not to support the resolution.
“I have concerns that your actions indicate that Napa is not a place where gay people are welcome to visit or spend their vacation dollars,” wrote Holden-Soto.
Vice Mayor Juliana Inman wrote back, thanking Holden-Soto for her note and saying, “I do hope that you find a suitable location for your getaway.”
Holden-Soto said she was shocked to read the response. “It was like she didn’t care.”
Inman, who recently had surgery and didn’t attend the meeting, said she didn’t know of any cities in Napa County that had approved such a resolution, so she didn’t understand why Holden-Soto was so upset.
“If it is important for her to have a getaway in a place that has supported this resolution, then she should find one, and that’s where she should go,” the vice mayor said in a phone interview, noting the majority of Napa residents opposed Prop. 8. “I’m sorry she feels that way, but if you look at election results, I don’t think you will see there is a lack of support for gay marriage.”
No, but there is a lack of empathy, decency, and common sense among the city council.
Jiminy Cricket on a crutch, Ms. Inman, are you really as clueless — and ice-cold stonehearted as you sound? Or are you just masking some deep-seated bigotry behind a veil of feigned ignorance?
Holden-Soto also wrote to several Napa bed and breakfast hotels telling them how she felt.
“They assured me that the council doesn’t represent them and they are gay friendly. I’m kind of torn. I don’t want to do business with the city, but I don’t think the inns should be punished.”
Bethany, I think the council made it perfectly clear it would prefer you take your business elsewhere. To be concerned about “punishing” the business owners is very gracious and considerate (far more considerate than the city has been in its official dealings with you), but you are not doing the business owners any favors by caving in — and I’ll tell you why: If you do not make a stand against the city council’s appalling devil-may-care dismissiveness, Napa business owners are going to continue to be represented, and governed, by a council that has demonstrated in no uncertain terms that it does not care about the success — or failure — of those businesses.
As I see it, the primary job of a city council is to keep the money flowing — to spend what needs to be spent to keep the town operating, and to make sure the local businesses have what they need to keep money coming into the city coffers.
The Napa City Council is failing to work for the best interests of its local business owners, and in turn, shortchanging the residents who rely on the health of local business to keep their city functioning.
You won’t be “punishing” the inns, Bethany — the city council is already doing that. You have already made the inns understand that their city council is not representing them well, not working on their behalf, and in truth is actually working against them. If you cave in and stay in Napa now, your words will mean nothing. But if you take Ms. Inman at her word — and you should, as Ms. Inman is speaking in her official capacity as the face of Napa — you should be looking for another place to spend your weekend. (I suggest Guerneville!)
You’ve already done your job, Bethany; now it’s time for Napa business owners to do theirs — that is, decide if nonchalant bigotry is the face they want their city to show the world.
In the meantime, I know my wife and I won’t be visiting Napa anytime in the foreseeable future — at least not until the city gets a new council that doesn’t seem quite so eager for homos to take their business elsewhere.
And you’d think the Rapture Reptiles would be grateful we were working to bring on their Armageddon, so they can fly up to Heaven on a cloud with Jesus.
The Minnesota Family Council has introduced an amendment to ban gay marriage, which it claims will stop the world from ending.
The group made the announcement at a press conference, accompanied by religious leaders from all major faiths who said that gay marriage would trigger the end of the world.
“If everyone is a gay, this world will cease to exist in ten years,” said Ikram ul-Huq, the imam and religious director of the Muslim Community Center of Bloomington.
Andre Dukes, pastor of Shiloh Temple church in Minneapolis, said: “This is not a political issue, or an issue of choice or rights. It is an issue of life.” …
Seriously, what’s their “logic” here? That if we marry, God will end the world? Isn’t that what these people want?
Or are they saying that if we don’t marry MOTOS, we won’t pop out babies (and, presumably, there won’t be enough heterosexuals left to keep popping out babies, because, I guess, all you hetero folks will suddenly turn gay and stop multiplying, or just go sterile)? Do they want us to breed? Isn’t the numero-uno argument against marriage equality that a child needs two parents with heterogeneous plumbing? (Never mind those of us who aren’t having kids in the first place; we don’t fit anywhere into their lunatic arguments.)
Is Ikram saying he hates homos, but he’d want one to marry his sister, just to keep overpopulating the earth?
Are these people insane? Stupid? Attention whores? Rhetorical questions, all.
My cousin is mentally retarded. He is 43 years old, four years younger than I am, and closest to me in age of all my cousins. He cannot make change from a dollar to save his life, but he can quote professional sports stats so quickly and accurately that John Madden would weep with envy, and he knows exactly what he wants off the menu at the steakhouse (any steakhouse; he loves steak). He works for the City of Hope, stuffing envelopes and labeling boxes. He goes to dances. When he comes over for dinner, he watches the clock obsessively to be sure he takes his pills on time.
When he was small, he was as obnoxious and annoying as any other small child. His motor skills have always been shaky at best; when he was about four, he knocked out his front teeth on the rim of the bathtub when he tripped and pitched forward, and didn’t have the coordination to put his hands up to break his fall.
He has beautiful dark eyes, with thick eyelashes I would kill to have myself. He doesn’t tell jokes, and you wouldn’t think he has any sense of irony at all, until he laughs out loud when I tease him about being prematurely bald, and blows me off when I tell him he should grow back the goatee he used to wear. He reminds me, every time he sees me (and repeatedly throughout our visit) how old he is, and how old I am, and how old we are both getting. He’s tall, very tall.
His was reportedly a “normal” birth, right up until delivery, when the umbilical cord, wrapped around his neck, cut off his oxygen and caused permanent brain damage. He lives in a group home in a suburb about 10 miles from us, where they treat him with the dignity he deserves — and to which he has had to direct me when driving him home, because my sense of direction is horrible.
He came to my wedding, and he understands that Buffy is my wife, and he has never questioned the nature of our relationship. To him, what is, is.
My cousin will never be able to live on his own. He will never drive, or cook for himself, or hold down a regular job, or get married, or have children. He will never read a book, much less write one, and he will never make any greater mark on this world other than that which he will leave on whatever family members may survive him.
He is my cousin, and there is nothing I would not do for him — especially as there are many, many people who would, deliberately or unwittingly, take advantage of his trusting nature and complete inability to defend himself against those better armed for battle in this very cruel world.
You do not disparage your own lack of skill at a particular task by comparing yourself to my cousin, by holding up my cousin as a thing of ridicule, by making my cousin an example of something defective. You do not do that.
You can say what you like about me — call me evil, call me a sinner, call me a cancer on society — but you do not mock my cousin, who is possessed of more kindness, more compassion, more gentleness, and more simple human dignity than most people with IQs three times his.
There’s a box on the sign-up form (optional) if you have any questions for AG Brown. I have only two questions for Jerry — neither of which I expect will be asked or answered:
1. Was Chris Krueger completely unprepared for the March 5th Proposition 8 court hearing?
2. Why did you send Mr. Krueger in your place?
I can’t think of another question I have for our attorney general; it’s all out of his hands now… and I really want to know why he sent a boy in to do a man’s job. (See: “CA SC Prop 8 Arguments: Live Blogging,” March 5, 2009)
Yeah, I’ll blog the call — not live, but afterward, recapping from the furious notes I’ll be taking during the call, the way I did for the Obama LGBT conference call last June. (Speaking of which: Hey, Steve Hildebrand! I’m still waiting for that “follow-up” conference call, with Obama, that you said would happen within two weeks. It’s been nine months, Steve-O, and— oh, wait, I forgot: President Obama doesn’t need to pretend to give a damn about homos anymore, the way Senator Obama did. Never mind.)
Fred posted his new letter to California Fair Political Practices Commission chair Ross Johnson at Californians Against Hate. The whole thing is a must-read — and only begins:
Many additional items have come to my attention regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) since I filed my complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) on November 13, 2008.
My sworn complaint alleged that the Mormon Church made significant non monetary contributions in support of California’s Proposition 8 which they did not report as required by California election law. The FPPC sent a letter to me on November 21, 2008 stating that “the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission will investigate the allegation(s) under the jurisdiction of the FPPC of the sworn complaint that you submitted.” That investigation is ongoing (FPPC File No. 08/735).
The Salt Lake City Deseret News reported on November 14, 2008 that Church spokesman Scott Trotter said the allegations are “false” and the complaint — filed by Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate — has “many errors and misstatements.” Trotter said The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints “has fully complied with the reporting requirements of the California Political Reform Act. Claims that the church has violated the act and failed to report political expenditures made by the church are false. The church has, in fact, filed four reports with California authorities; these reports are a matter of public record. A further report will be filed on or before its due date, Jan. 30, 2009,” Trotter said.
Then on January 30, 2009, the Church filed a campaign report indicating that it made $190,000 in non-monetary contributions. The Mormon Church claimed that most of its contributions occurred in the 2 weeks prior to Election Day.
This information supplements my complaint, and I hereby request that the FPPC consider those additional allegations as part of its investigation of Mormon Church campaign activities in support of Proposition 8.
The supplemental information is set forth in two parts. The first part includes official Mormon Church documents detailing the Church’s involvement in creating a “front group” in Hawaii to fight same-sex marriage in a very similar election 10 years ago. The Mormon Church did the same thing in California. In 2007, the Mormon Church set up another front group, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) to qualify and pass Proposition 8.
Secondly, I dispute the veracity of the January 30, 2009 campaign report filed by the Church. Attached is the full transcript of the Mormon Church’s much publicized October 8, 2008 simulcast to Church members throughout the Western United States. This satellite broadcast served as a call to arms for the Church member action during the last 4 weeks of the campaign to pass Proposition 8.
HAWAII BACKGROUND
In 1995, at the request of then Mormon Church President Gordon Hinckley, Church leadership identified the type of committee they wanted to create to stop same-sex marriage in Hawaii, and they set it up.
The attached documents tell the story of how the Mormon Church established their front group in Hawaii to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in that state after the Hawaii Supreme Court heard the case. The Mormon Church established its front group called Hawaii’s Future Today (HFT) in the fall of 1995, 3 years before the election to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Hawaii.
They hired lobbyists, consultants, campaign managers, attorneys and had one very high ranking Mormon on the Board, Jack Hoag, the recently retired Chairman of the Church-owned First Hawaiian Bank. They were able to get money into Hawaii’s Future Today (HFT) that would go unreported (documents attached to this complaint and on our web site: Mormongate.com). These actions hid their direct involvement while creating a coalition to lead the effort.
They raised nearly all of the money from Utah and other mainland Mormons. Eventually the Mormon Church gave $400,000 directly to the campaign committee close to the election, but received much criticism for that large contribution. They switched strategies after that campaign and in subsequent elections, did not contribute directly to campaigns opposing same-sex marriage. Instead, they sought contributions from their members directly as they did last year in California.
The attached documents reveal exactly how the church created Hawaii’s Future Today. They recruited the Chair, Debi Hartmann (see recent Bay Area Reporter story by Dan Aiello), and Co-chairs, Jack Hoag and Father Marc Alexander and other Board members, got the funds to HFT, and ran and funded it from Salt Lake using many top Church officials. Its stated mission was to fight casino gambling, prostitution, and same-sex marriage, but defeating same-sex marriage was its sole objective.
Mormon Church Establishes California Front Group to Qualify Proposition 8
The Mormon Church appears to have done the identical thing in California 12 years later. The Church established the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in the summer of 2007 for the sole purpose of qualifying and passing Proposition 8. …
Much, much more at the link, including embedded links — and a most interesting comment by Chino regarding Debi Hartmann.
Again, this is a must-read-in-full. I can’t begin to do it justice with a summary.
A Muslim cleric who took a 12-year-old girl as his second wife has been arrested for gross indecency with a minor, Semarang [Indonesia] Police said on Tuesday.
“We have collected enough evidence to charge him with underage obscenity under the Criminal Code,” chief detective Royhardi Siahaan said.
He said that Pujiono Cahyo Widianto, who married the girl in August, may face up to 15 years imprisonment for Criminal Code offenses and for breaching the Child Protection Law, namely the sexual and economic exploitation of a child.
The 43-year-old cleric was declared a suspect after police collected documents officially showing the girl’s age, and after the religious court refused his attempt to register the second marriage. …
Oh, I’m so sorry, Anti-Gays — in your book, “freedom of religion” doesn’t apply to non-Christians, does it?
Not that we haven’t been all over this territory before — but then, the gayosphere is usually light years ahead of the curve (why? because we actually care about stuff before it bites anyone in the butt) — but when Time magazine, the decidedly less liberal of the nation’s two not-really-liberal-at-all news weeklies, sits up and takes notice of the possibility of California declaring civil unions for all (and marriage for none), suddenly that possibility seems a lot more… possible:
When a Jewish boy turns 13, he heads to a temple for a deeply meaningful rite of passage, his bar mitzvah. When a Catholic girl reaches about the same age, she stands in front of the local bishop, who touches her forehead with holy oil as she is confirmed into a 2,000-year-old faith tradition. But missing in each of those cases — and in countless others of equal religious importance — is any role for government. There is no baptism certificate issued by the local courthouse and no federal tax benefit attached to the confessional booth, the into-the-water-and-out born-again ceremony or any of the other sacraments that believers hold sacred.
Only marriage gets that treatment, and it’s a tradition that some legal scholars have been arguing should be abandoned. …
Instead, give gay and straight couples alike the same license, a certificate confirming them as a family, and call it a civil union — anything, really, other than marriage. For people who feel the word marriage is important, the next stop after the courthouse could be the church, where they could bless their union with all the religious ceremony they wanted. Religions would lose nothing of their role in sanctioning the kinds of unions that they find in keeping with their tenets. And for nonbelievers and those who find the word marriage less important, the civil-union license issued by the state would be all they needed to unlock the benefits reserved in most states and in federal law for married couples. …
But as Solomonic as the compromise seems, giving up the word marriage may be impossible. For many couples joined in matrimony, having the state no longer call them married may make them feel as if something important had been taken away — even if it’s hard to define just what was lost.
It’s hard to tell if the writer recognizes that we same-sex couples feel exactly the same (at least, my wife and I do), but either way, I’m glad to see that point made — “…having the state no longer call them married may make them feel as if something important had been taken away — even if it’s hard to define just what was lost” — which is certainly not number one on anybody’s list of reasons to retain the word marriage, but is almost always overlooked: While we emphasize the need for legal equality, our opponents wax poetic about intangibles… as if they’ve cornered the market on the “sacred” nature of marriage (a completely atheistic marriage — like mine — can certainly be “sacred” without anyone’s god entering into it), and as if they never give a moment’s thought to the rights and responsibilities they take for granted, and we so desperately need.
Anyway…
And for many others — the folks who feel most strongly about marriage and most passionately supported the expensive campaign to defeat gay marriage — the issue of nomenclature is only the beginning. They are against not just gay marriage but also gay couples — and especially against government sanctioning of those relationships, no matter what they are called.
Glad to see Time point this out, too. What is it going to take to make everyone, especially those with no dog in this fight, understand that killing marriage equality is only the first order of business in the anti-gays’ agenda to strip us of all rights?
And as [Justice] Chin considers whether he can craft a compromise with his fellow justices that would both uphold Prop 8 — and therefore the right of the people to amend the state constitution — and assert the right of gay people to be treated equally, he may find that the folks who cling hardest to marriage are gay couples. After all, what was the most sweeping part of the May 2008 decision Ming and his colleagues issued that granted gays the right to marry? It was the idea that the word marriage is so strong that denying it to gay couples violates the most sacred right enshrined in the state constitution: the right for all people to be treated with dignity and fairness. Just 10 months later, gay couples — whether or not they are among the 18,000 who married in the state before Prop 8 stopped the ceremonies — are loath to lose a word for which so many fought so hard and so long to have apply to themselves.
Another excellent point. I don’t know if I’ve emphasized this point myself as much as I probably should, but my wife and I certainly talk about it a lot: Who values marriage more, those who have laid everything on the line to have it, or those who take it for granted? Not that I’m saying heteros at large don’t value marriage; I’m saying that there’s nothing like having the one thing you’ve wished for all your life — and then having it ripped away — to make you cherish it even more, and to fight like hell to get it back.
It was bad enough when we’d always been second-class citizens, but after having had a taste of real, unqualified, unconditional equality…
As Sophie Tucker said: “I’ve been rich, and I’ve been poor — and, believe me, rich is better.” You’ll never miss what you never had, but when you’ve had it, and it’s been taken away from you, you can never fill that gaping hole with a substitute for the real thing.
Anyway… More at the link. I just wish Time would stop calling it “gay marriage.” It’s marriage, period.
Tweet This Post! 
