Too busy with Base8 to even breath lately, but had to stop and pass this along. If you were ever on the fence about pulling your money out of Citibank, this should put you over the top:
In the wake of the shocking revelation about Bluehost shutting down Web sites of Zimbabwean and Iranian dissidents (and one Belarusian national living and working in the U.S.) on the grounds that Bluehost was just following federal law (which is a crock), this naturally caught my eye:
A Practical Guide to Internet Technology for Political Activists in Repressive Regimes
EFF Releases ‘Surveillance Self-Defense International’ for Iranian Dissidents and Other Protestors
SAN FRANCISCO — July 21, 2009 — The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) released “Surveillance Self-Defense International” (SSDI) today, a practical guide to help activists from around the world use the Internet safely under repressive regimes.
I also received an e-mail with a photo of a very mature fetus’ arm protruding through — what? — a hole in a pregnant belly? A bloody image meant to shock. Turns out the same photo is posted on the FreeRepublic thread about my column, but the contributor, calling himself Revelation 911, confides that it’s actually a picture of in-utero surgery and that the gestation went full-term. …
There are a couple of ugly remarks regarding anatomy and even rape, and a bunch of digs at San Francisco. A few people suggested it was time for another earthquake here. It was supposed to be funny, but it amounts to a wish for my death. There’s a lot of that among pro-lifers, I guess. Someone suggested advocates for choice should commit suicide!
Debby Morse FreeRepugnant.com San Francisco Examiner, February 15, 2002
I guess I’m surprised that anybody else is surprised by the current wave of racism overflowing the cesspit known as Free Republic. Oh, yes indeedy, the latest freeper attacks on Malia Obama are utterly vile, and make me want to throw up all over Jim Robinson’s entire operation (but that’s the problem with virtual communities: there’s nothing to throw up on, save for the Web server dutifully regurgitating the spew from the diseased minds of the perpetually persecuted).
Nevertheless, I don’t understand why anyone should be surprised by this latest display of racist hate. Maybe it’s because they’re attacking a little girl? No… They attacked Chelsea Clinton plenty. Maybe because they’re using some of the worst sort of racist talk? No… They do that all the time. Maybe because they’re slamming a wartime President? No, no, no — that’s what they attacked liberals for doing during the Bush Reign. And they’ve made (and still occasionally make) death threats against Bill Clinton. (I remember, quite clearly, seeing one freeper express the wish to nail Bill’s body to the front door of the White House; I’ll see if I can find a copy of the message I sent to the FBI quoting it.)
Whatever the reason folks are so up in arms over Freakerville this time, it’s good to see JimRob’s Institute for the Criminally Logic-Challenged being exposed, again, in the MSM…
The FBI is taking the unusual step of declaring that Gov. Sarah Palin is not under investigation, as Palin herself left for Western Alaska and communicated to the world through her Twitter account.
“We are not investigating her,” FBI spokesman Eric Gonzalez said on Sunday. “Normally we don’t confirm or deny those kind of allegations out there, but by not doing so it just casts her in a very bad light. …”
Not half as bad a light as Palin has cast herself in. Speaking of which, Shannyn Moore, the blogger Palin has been threatening with a lawsuit (gee, funny how she isn’t threatening to sue The Village Voice or Keith Olbermann), had a few choice words for Cut-”n’-Run Palin (such as “coward” and “bully”) over the weekend — or so it’s rumored… LOL
Very interesting article by Rieva Lesonsky at AllBusiness, which uses the specific example of Proposition 8 (and the transparency of political-donor information — which is as it should be) to illustrate “the consequences of speaking out versus alienating customers, vendors, suppliers, and the like”:
Now if you’re the owner of the business, you can weigh the possible outcomes and make your choice to speak up, contribute, or stay out of it, at least publicly. But what if it’s one of your employees who is involved? Or what if you’re a franchisor and one of you franchisees jumps in the fray? This is where it gets tricky. …
Short version: It wasn’t the AFA’s boycott of Waldenbooks (for selling Playboy and Penthouse magazines), but interference with Waldenbooks’ ability to freely conduct business. (Lawyer-types, correct me if I’m wrong in any way on this super-short summary.)
You have to wonder about people who call themselves Christians, but whose real religion is solely the persecution of gay people:
What if they actually accomplished everything they set out to do — destroy all our rights (because you know destroying our marriages/civil unions/domestic partnerships is only the tip of the iceberg)? What would they do with the rest of their lives? After Teh Gheyz, there’s nobody left to openly hate, marginalize, persecute…
Case in point: The “Christians” up in Washington state, of such laughably-named anti-gay organizations as “Positive Christian Agenda,” “Faith & Freedom Network,” and “Washington Values Alliance” — who aren’t merely “conservatives” as labeled in the article, but Christians In Name Only, With Nothing Better to Do:
Life grows more interesting by the day for officials of the West Bend (Wis.) Community Memorial Library. After four months of grappling with an evolving challenge to young-adult materials deemed sexually explicit by area residents Ginny and Jim Maziarka, library trustees voted 9–0 June 2 to maintain the young-adult collection as is “without removing, relocating, labeling, or otherwise restricting access” to any titles. However, board members were made cognizant that same evening that another material challenge waited in the wings: Milwaukee-area citizen Robert C. Braun of the Christian Civil Liberties Union (CCLU) distributed at the meeting copies of a claim for damages he and three other plaintiffs filed April 28 with the city; the complainants seek the right to publicly burn or destroy by another means the library’s copy of Baby Be-Bop. The claim also demands $120,000 in compensatory damages ($30,000 per plaintiff) for being exposed to the book in a library display, and the resignation of West Bend Mayor Kristine Deiss for “allow[ing] this book to be viewed by the public.” …
The MSM (at least in our neck of the woods) has picked up on the planned National Equality March — a.k.a. LGBT March on Washington V — promoted by the Meet in the Middle folks.
Speaking of which, as you can see, we didn’t go to Fresno today; we have our reasons, which I’ve explained before, and which I’ll probably explain again — but as things seem to be going well down there, I won’t poop on anybody’s good day.
As for Washington, I’m kind of het up on the idea. First, a national march is a national march — not limited to one backwards state that has failed its citizens, miserably, and whose Supreme Court has turned the very concept of equal rights — and itself — into a cruel joke. Second, past LGBT marches on Washington have been a good thing. (Third, it doesn’t hurt that Cleve Jones is in favor of the idea. I trust Cleve’s judgment. If you can’t trust Cleve Jones on a thing like this, who can you trust?)
I don’t know what we’re going to do yet — National Coming Out Day is four months off — but already I like the idea, a lot. If you’re on the fence about going to Washington, maybe these stories of past marches will help you make up your mind:
It’s taken so long because of the research. And it’s not done. And it will be an ongoing project, with no end in sight.
Cutting to the chase:
What: A human-edited database of businesses and individuals who have contributed to anti-marriage equality ballot initiatives, in a format much like the old Yahoo!; i.e., in top-down directory style, and completely searchable (by anything from name to Zip code).
Why: Because we don’t believe in giving our money to people who will in turn use our money against us.
Why it’s different: It is the result of many months of detailed, cross-checked research, which (while using information that is 100% publicly accessible and easily confirmed) reaches far beyond a mere mirror of public records, and begins the laborious process of making sense of the vast web of connections among donors. And, while using a standard, top-down directory format, the information is presented in clear, plain English.
Not much to say, really. It turned out exactly as I expected, but I didn’t think I’d feel so… I don’t know yet. I don’t know what I feel. Numb right now. And not in a good way.
I’m still married… but as Stuart Gaffney said today: “It’s a hollow victory.”
We just got back from San Francisco. We knew how this would turn out, but we wanted to be with family, where it was happening, and I’m glad we went.
While I figure out what to think, and what to say, and while I’m reading the rest of the court’s opinion, I’ll leave you with some pictures I took today (many more after the jump).
They’re not happy about it, of course, and there will always be that core stubbornly stuck in LaLaLand, but we’re seeing more of them come around, and admit they’re losing the war.
From Hot Air — the most aptly-named right-wing blog on the Intertubes, which surprised me to no end with this piece that is essentially rational (albeit shrouded in the ever-present veil of imagined persecution):
I do not follow beauty paegants, nor watch much TV either, but I was appalled to hear the commentaries by one of the Judges of the Miss USA pageant Perez Hilton, indicating that the answer of Miss California to the question about “HER OPINION” regarding same sex marriage had cost her the crown. So let me get this straight, according to Perez, since Miss California Carrie Prejean gave an answer according to her convictions regarding same sex marriage, then he voted against her. How INTOLERANT and simply stupid can that be? That is like asking her what you think about the President, and she said she did not agree with many of his policies, then that would mean she would lose the vote. It was not because her answer did not make sense, it was not because she was shallow, it was not because she did not know what she was talking about, it was simply because she happened to have a different opinion than the judge on this particular question, a view which in fact is the majority of the voters within the state of California, and even more so overwhelmingly the view of most Americans. So who is the intolerant? Who is the irrational? Who are the ones that are really close-minded? The answer is clear, the intolerants by experience are those who actively support the homosexual agenda. Here in the state of California, these same people vandalized Churches, and other establishments when proposition 8 was defeated, these are the people what advocate for tolerance and respect. Except that they will have it their way or no way. Their tactics have now turned to intimidation and media management, and they are doing a good job at silencing people, and even more so, they are doing a great job at belittling anybody who happens to oppose their depraved and corrupt agenda. How sad that even a pageant, is controlled by your views on homosexuality as dictated by many of the attendees to this kind of pageant rather than by beauty and common sense. Where has common sense gone??
My comment:
You’re a priest, and you’re spreading these disgusting lies about “vandalism”? Show me where, Father. Who, when, where, what. Police reports would be nice, but I’ll take mainstream media reports (i.e., not the “Weekly World News” style of “reporting” from LifeSiteNews.com, etc.) Seriously, Father, prove your claims to this ex-Catholic. (And “homosexual agenda”? You should be ashamed of yourself. Some deep self-examination is in order.)
Seriously, this is whack. I do not hold priests (of any variety) to a higher standard (or, really, any standard), but I know how priests talk, and behave, at least in public — and even the most disturbed amongst them do not call anyone else “stupid,” or “depraved and corrupt,” or use Radical Right buzz phrases like “the homosexual agenda.” (That would be a stretch even for Papa “Intrinsically Evil” Ratzinger.) I’m serious — this is not the M.O. of a Catholic priest.
We’ve been paying zero attention to this “teabagging” idiocy that took place yesterday (other than to LOL every time we heard the word “teabagging”; next time, we suggest using a certain other compound word containing “bagging,” as it would be more descriptive of the participants themselves), but this observation from Daniel De Groot at OpenLeft caught our attention (and made us smile):
… I don’t know whether [Amy] Bailliett’s claim of 1 million people worldwide participating in the [”Join the Impact”] protest is accurate, but at the current moment Pajamas TV is estimating the total turnout of the tea parties at 208,000. …
So from 19 February to 15 April, the tea party people only manage to muster 200K for their great cause.
So unless Bailliett is overestimating by a factor of more than five, she was able, without the help of ACORN, Soros or Michael Moore to organize more people in 8 days than all the Koch’s horses and men could do in almost 2 months.
We’re also comparing the tea baggers to a protest about an issue that only directly affects at most 10% of the population (the usual upward estimate of the proportion of the population that is homosexual), including at least one fairly big protest (Boston) in a state where gay marriage is already legal. A whole lot of people showed up in true solidarity even though they had no direct stake in the outcome. …
From the author of Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America (which was “glitched”) who finds (as I do) Amazon’s explanation that “a mid-level employee began to tag books as ‘adult’ using very loose criteria … still troubling.”
If this is indeed what happened, it says some pretty bad things not only about Amazon, but about what probably a large swath of the population assumes but doesn’t always articulate: that things gay are automatically sexual and, by extension, bad. It would be pretty ironic if a book about the censorship of a gay presence — which is what “don’t ask, don’t tell” succeeded at accomplishing — was censored because of its gay presence. And censored by a large company eager to profit from selling that book but all too happy to cave to social conservatives griping about gay themes appearing on a website where millions of books about everything under the sun never warrant a peep. …
Richard Nash wrote that it doesn’t so much matter if Amazon deliberately targeted gay books: “In a world where whiteness and straightness are ‘norms’ and males benefit from our patriarchial [sic] history, it is always the GLBTQ books, the queer books, the non-normative books that get caught in the glitches, the ham-fisted errors.”
This, I think, is where the debate now stands. Too many Americans still can’t separate “gay” from “sex.” And I don’t mean that gays should stop admitting they are sexual beings. I mean gays should be able to be proud and out about our sexuality while not being defined by it, and certainly not being defined by the sloppy assumption that our demand for first-class citizenship is somehow an instance of endemic self-indulgence, an incorrigible impulse toward uncontrollable pleasure-seeking.
As Queer theory has rightly taught, the “problem” with homosexuality in America is really a problem with straight America: until they get over the notion that gay = sex and sex = bad, we’ll continue to face the harmful effects of sexual repression, we’ll remain vigilant about ham-fisted homophobic glitches, and we’ll proudly keep the doors to our gay rights groups wide open.
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.
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.
Trust me: You’ll want to spare just six and a half minutes of your time to watch this video my lovely wife discovered and posted on her blog. And then you’ll want to hack every television satellite in space in order to beam it into the living room of every brainwashed, self-victimizing “Christian” in North America. (Barring that, you might want to pass it along to your favorite poor-little-oppressed wingnut.)
“Winning” — i.e., enshrining your irrational bigotry into the state constitution and destroying our fundamental right to first-class citizenship — just wasn’t enough for you, was it?
You pathetic, typical coward. You probably did it last night, under cover of darkness, ripping it off my wife’s car — parked on our property — which makes you a trespasser as well as a thief.
If you’ve got a problem with us, you ugly little worm, have the guts to face us in person — you already know where we live.
(And don’t anyone tell me it was “just a bumper sticker.” We know what message this cowardly little jerk is sending — and he’s sending it to all of us. Next up: cross-burning?)
No, I’m still not back to blogging, and I owe you all a long post about that (which has been brewing in my head for more than a week), but I’d be unforgivably remiss not to share this bit of good news with you, which just broke about twenty minutes ago:
In the Jim Crow era, Klansmen wore hoods to conceal their identities, not necessarily from their victims — African-Americans would have had little or no legal standing as witnesses against them — but from their white peers who may have supported segregation but could not countenance church bombings, lynchings and the Klan’s other terror tactics.
In a move that is shockingly reminiscent of Klansmen donning their white hoods, activists behind last year’s anti-gay Proposition 8 campaign are suing to overturn California campaign finance laws that require making public the names of donors to political causes. The objective of these professional hate-group organizers is to enable their donors to conceal their bigotry from colleagues and neighbors who don’t share their obsessive hatred of gays. …
Anti-gay activists should take note that Klansmen today no longer hide their racism under bedsheets. They proudly call themselves “white separatists,” and some, like David Duke, even appear on television wearing business suits. It’s puzzling why homophobes don’t feel a similar sort of pride. If they’re certain God is on their side, why does it matter if their neighbors and colleagues shun them because of their beliefs?
They keep wanting to change the rules to fit their own needs.
Not content with working to un-marry the 18000 LGBT people who got married in California, supporters of Prop. 8 now want to get rid of campaign finance disclosure laws that make public the names of donors to campaigns. …
The Prop. 8 folks don’t like the rules — they guess they’ll try to change them to suit themselves. Isn’t that what they did in November?
The ironic twist in all of this, of course, is that these same groups used campaign disclosure laws to target businesses and individuals who supported the No on 8 campaign - including calling for boycotts of Google and Apple and a host of other pro-LGBT businesses, and threatening one San Diego business to give a donation to the Yes on 8 campaign or face “consequences” (or, in other words, we can just call that extortion). …
This lawsuit could not be more hypocritical. During the Proposition 8 campaign, the very same groups who filed this legal challenge sent menacing letters to Equality California’s donors, as well as corporations, labor unions, and individuals who stood up to discrimination and supported the No on 8 Campaign. Now they are calling themselves the victims. What’s more, these groups are arguing on the one hand that voter initiatives like Prop 8 should never be overturned by courts. On the other, they are asking a federal court to void a campaign reform law that was passed by voter initiative in California. They are asking that donations to Yes on 8 and only Yes on 8, even if illegal, be hidden from the public. This leads us to wonder what they have to hide?
The Pro-8 bigots are seeking anonymity. And yet anonymity is one of the things that Proposition 8 denies to gays and lesbians. You see, in several California counties, marriages can be private. That means no one except the couple can pull the vital record. You can be married, anonymously, for as long as you like if you’re heterosexual. You can marry someone of another race, someone of a very different age, marry someone above or below your social class, or any number of things that your peers may not approve of, without having to worry that they might find out. However, if a homosexual wants rights that are similar to (but not the same as) marriage, they must register as domestic partners. The domestic partner registry is a statewide, public database. In other words, we must out ourselves to get our basic rights. We have no anonymity anymore.
I’d say no one deserves a death threat for the way they lead their life… yet this group is concerned about being able to contribute to discrimination anonymously. Across the country, LGBT people face all kinds of harassment for simply existing–everything from name calling to discrimination to the chance of being beaten and maybe killed. Yet, people come out every day because it’s important to live your live honestly, openly and to be counted for what you believe in.
It’s cowardly for the Prop 8 supporters to hide. If you’re going to believe in a cause (even if it’s something as ugly as discrimination and helping to perpetuate hate), stand up and be counted. If you aren’t willing to put up with the heat your convictions can cause, keep your mouth and your wallet shut and be content to just quietly vote for your pet cause rather than actively supporting it.
How about this for a reply: Nobody should have to worry about getting death threats for their choice of who they want to marry. I bet I could come up with a whole lot more examples of gay men and women being beaten, raped, and killed by so-called christians then the other way around. In fact I challenge the AP to come up with even ONE instance of a gay person committing violence against a prop 8 supporter.
But this is just typical propaganda. They want to turn the victim into the victimizer. …
Furthermore, I agree with Bopp that everyone has the right to the secrecy of their vote in this country. That does not, however, extend to contributions to campaigns. Everyone else in this country knows that when they contribute to a campaign that that information becomes public. When I google my name, the first thing that comes up is the donor tracker thing from Huff Post showing exactly how much I donated to Hillary Clinton this year. And while I may regret some of those donations now given her silence on the flagrant corruption and lies of the administration that she is now a part of, I knew going in that such information would be public. Those are the rules, right? Hell, ask Murphy at Puma Pac about people making hay out of your former contributions. Of course the smears against her were ludicrous, but she never said that her privacy had been violated because her previous donations had been made public. That’s because she is not a hypocrite. In fact, even your voting record is public (ask Caroline Kennedy), the only thing that is private is who, or what, you choose to vote for. …
And these [anti-gay bigots] are also the same people, who are SO afraid for their safety that they want special protection under the law, that have been screaming for years that including gays and lesbians under hate crime statutes would not only give gays special, unfair, protective status, it would violate the first amendment rights of every preacher in the land that opposes homosexuality. …
What a bunch of whining hypocrites. If you are going to use your money to support the denial of civil rights to Americans, you should at least have the guts to take it when people question your moral integrity, and in particular choose to not spend their money where it may support you. But these bigots want it both ways. They claim to be victims of discrimination in need of protection from the courts while at the same time wanting to continue their own discrimination against gays and lesbians without repercussions. And in the hypocrisy of all hypocrisies, it is this very discrimination that they want protected.
By donating money to fight Prop 8, these individuals were voluntarily adding their names to public records. They knew, before they signed a cheque, that their names were going to be added to a public tally of who donated to strip away the rights of Californians. And if they didn’t know? Perhaps they should’ve asked questions about where their money was going before following every demand of the Mormon Church. …
And here’s one of our favorite arguments from the lawsuit, according to the AP: “Businesses employing people who contributed to the Proposition 8 campaign have been threatened with boycotts.” Uh, yeah, that’s the point of making these records public. If you want to donate to a cause that marginalizes the queer community, you absolutely shouldn’t expect our dollars in your pocket.
If all that weren’t enough to keep these donor records public — and the names of those who donated money to fight Prop 8 should also remain public — here’s why it’s important to keep those names out there: Because it could limit the pro-Prop 8 organizers’ ability to raise funds to fight gay marriage again.
[Comment, Saturday:] If they really stood behind their beliefs wouldn’t they stick with them no matter how tough things got? It’s funny that as soon as something happens people are so quick to run in the opposite direction and hide.
Maybe they expected us to just drop to the ground and die instead of fight?
[Comment, PatrickD:] It’s typical Bully behavior. Attack folks then when they DARE to fight back, run to “Daddy” to complain of being the one picked on.
[Comment, Kenster999:] Sorry, but the law requires this type of disclosure. We can’t have “activist judges” overturning the law!
So let’s all choose an ending to this post. (1) This lawsuit is nothing more than a horribly veiled attempt to eliminate transparency from the political process and squash the First Amendment. (2) This lawsuit is a sign that the Yes on 8 campaign is worried that the marriage equality movement has more powerful economic clout and knows how to use it to call out people on their discrimination. (3) This lawsuit proves that the Yes on 8 campaign is comprised of cowards who are either too afraid or too ashamed to put their John Hancocks next to their political contributions. (4) A combination of all three.
LOS ANGELES — January 8, 2009 — Fred Karger, Founder of Californians Against Hate today issued the following statement in response to the federal lawsuit filed by Protect Marriage and the National Organization for Marriage:
After taking away marriage equality from millions of Californians and millions more in the other 29 states where they have successfully passed laws banning same-sex marriage, the proponents of Proposition 8 are appealing for pity by filing a federal lawsuit today to keep the names of their contributors secret. They raised over $30 million dollars to take away marriage equality in California last year, and now want to hide the names of many of the over 60,000 contributors who gave all of those millions. This should never have been put on the ballot in the first place, but since that was their decision, they need to comply with all California reporting laws.
These very organizations who were major funders of Yes on Prop 8 like Donald Wildmon’s American Family Association ($500,000) and James Dobson’s Focus on the Family (($623,000) and their allies have been boycotting and blacklisting companies for decades who dared to support the rights of Gays and Lesbians. Companies have been targeted for advertising in gay publications, supporting gay business organizations, giving equal benefits to gay employees, allowing their facilities to be used for gay events, and in the case of Hallmark this past summer, just for making a same-sex greeting card. They have been trying to ruin companies big and small to stop equal rights and fairness.
Well, the Gay and Lesbian community and all of our friends and families are rightfully upset with the over 60,000 contributors to Yes on Prop 8 led by the Mormon Church which raised nearly $25 million from its members. It is completely understandable that we don’t want to spend our hard earned money at businesses whose ownership gave so enthusiastically to take our civil rights away. Our opponents have been trying to bury us for the past 16 years since Utah, led by the Mormon Church, became the first state in the country to ban same-sex marriage in 1993. Well, now we are fighting back and they aren’t too happy about it.
The federal government and nearly every state in the nation have political campaign reporting requirements, most of which were put into effect after the Watergate scandal in the mid 1970’s. Full disclosure is the law of the land and it keeps our political process honest.
For over 30 years, Gay and Lesbian donors have risked repercussions by contributing to fight anti-gay initiative campaigns. Our contributions have been used to identify us, but we have never asked that the law be changed to hide our identities.
These very contributors to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign have spent months gloating about their enormous contributions to take away the rights of a minority and write discrimination into the California Constitution. And now they want to keep these names secret? This is despicable.
The Mormon Church is currently under investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) for not reporting vast amounts of non-monetary contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign. The Salt Lake City based church ran out of state phone banks, established web sites, produced slick commercials, videos and satellite simulcasts, printed campaign materials, bussed in thousands of church members into California from Utah and other states and apparently failed to report these activities. Now the Mormon Church and their allies are hoping to keep secret all of their contributions; this is crazy.
We trust that the courts will see this frivolous law suit for what it is and dismiss it immediately.
It’s good, very good, to see this story getting a lot of traction; the bigots need to be exposed not only for their bigotry, but for their cowardice, and for their supreme hypocrisy in attempting to use the very “activist judges” against whom they rail when things don’t go their way to — yes — “overturn the will of the people” and make things go their way.
We’re especially glad to see that the Associated Press has picked up on the story (even though we still won’t link to AP), which means it will be in hundreds of newspapers across the nation today.
One MSM article we will link to is in today’s Sacramento Bee, in which Fred Karger responds to some of Yes On 8’s ridiculous accusations:
The 26-page suit alleges that groups such as Californians Against Hate exist for the primary purpose of identifying and taking action against supporters of Proposition 8.
The Southern California group made use of state databases to produce a so-called “Dishonor Roll” of donors to the Yes on 8 campaign.
But Fred Karger, the group’s founder, said it was “untrue” that it threatened and harassed supporters of the measure.
“We have strictly taken public information and posted it,” he said. “We have called boycotts against three companies — all major contributors. Other than that, it’s just public information.”
Karger called the lawsuit “a publicity stunt to gain sympathy” for supporters of Proposition 8.
“Campaign reporting has been in effect since 1974, and it keeps the system honest,” he said. “It’s something we support even though for 30 years gay people were harassed for making political contributions to fight discrimination.”
Of course, the story has hit the blogosphere, far and wide; below are links to just a few of the best takes (I won’t excerpt my wife’s short, to-the-point post, which deserves the full read for full impact), beginning with our favorite of the moment, from Popehat:
The Yes on Proposition 8 campaign relied heavily on the argument that the California Supreme Court engaged in “judicial tyranny” when it ruled that California marriage law violated the California Constitution to the extent that it prohibited same-sex marriage. Judicial tyranny, we are often told by some political groups, involves black-robed tyrants ignoring the Will of the People by striking down democratically enacted laws based on an analysis of constitutional rights.
Now the Yes on 8 campaign would like you to know that not all judicial tyranny is bad.
The Protect Marriage Coalition is now suing to overturn democratically enacted California law — specifically, the law that requires public disclosure of donors to California propositions — based on the theory that the law violates donors’ rights under First Amendment, because it leads to donors being harassed. … It’s just amusing that the people who have yelled the loudest about black-robed tyrants overturning the will of the people are now asking for exactly that. Unapologetic naked hypocrisy, like many human foibles, is funny. …
You didn’t hear any howls of outrage about “black-robed tyrants” from conservatives when the Supreme Court struck down a democratically enacted firearms statute in D.C. v. Heller and announced, for the first time, that the Second Amendment confers individual rights. The “OMG judicial tyranny” crowd has a relationship with judicial review rather like Rush Limbaugh’s relationship with the ACLU — happy to shit on it 99% of the time, happy to accept its help when it comes riding in to support your noisy fat ass from government overreaching in a dope case.
Not to mention that some of the justifications offered by the Yes on Prop 8 litigants are rather pathetic:
For example, “Decl. of John Doe #4 (received email that read “I AM BOYCOTTING YOUR ORGANIZATION AS A RESULT OF YOUR SUPPORT OF PROP 8”)”
The choice of venue is also odd, in light of the Protect Marriage Coalition’s stated views on democratic integrity. Say what you want about the California Supreme Court, but it is made up of justices appointed by governors appointed by the people of California, subject to removal by the voters of California during reconfirmation elections, interpreting the California constitution — which in turn is enacted by democratic process in California. Yet the Protect Marriage folks have chosen to file in federal court in Sacramento, leaving the resolution of the matter to a judge appointed for life by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate and thereafter not facing any meaningful democratic impediment. Odd, really. It’s almost as if the Protect Marriage Coalition knows perfectly well that its rhetoric was bullshit.
And then there’s the substance. The Yes on 8 folks think it is terrible, terrible, that donors to Yes on 8 can be harassed or abused or oppressed or annoyed. Yet the Yes on 8 campaign itself sent letters to donors to No on 8 threatening them with public scrutiny if they didn’t cough up hush money…
Personally, I believe that if someone is afraid to be identified with the causes and issues they support, then perhaps they ought not make a contribution. Not so with the Christianist/Mormon cry babies. Not only are they liars, but now we know that they are cowards as well who want to be able to anonymously take away the civil rights of other citizens. Such a system of anonymous donors is frightening and dangerous for democracy. No doubt they’d like to bring back courts of Star Chamber for gays and other minorities they don’t like as well.
One wonders if they’re going to use themselves as an example of why the laws should be tossed.
Further, in yet another act of hypocrisy, the very people claiming that courts should not overturn “the will of the voters” are suing to undo the outcome of the Political Reform Act of 1974 - which, you guessed it, was passed by voters that year as Proposition 9. …
[Comment, dkirk:] Listing all the levels of hypocracy in this maneuver is a daunting task. …
1) Going to court to overturn a ballot iniative when you just finished a campaign decrying a court’s overturning a ballot iniative.
2) Most of these folks support government reform like term limits, and yet they here oppose political reform designed to maked the process more open.
3) Using voter contributions to intimidate supporters of the other side is only bad when someone uses it AGAINST your supporters.
4) If you go to their campaign website, they also claim that the distribution of harrassing flyers is part of the grounds for invalidating campaign disclosure laws. I wonder how this goes along with their repeated campaigns against Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.
5) ‘threats to ruin businesses’ are a part of their complaint as well. What about the Disney boycott, or the Ford boycott, etc?
It’s amusing to note that they are specifically asking that only those who supported Proposition 8 (those holding “similar views”) be excused from obeying reporting requirements. One might almost forget that it was this campaign that sent extortion letters to opponents of the Proposition.
This may seem odd at first. After all, these records have been downloaded and stored by scores of gay individuals and groups. It would take little effort for them to become public knowledge again immediately. …
That’s an awful lot of expense and effort to go through on the off chance that the courts rule in their favor. Something makes me think that there is perhaps a bombshell hidden in the new reports, something that the campaign does not want to go public.
There’s plenty out there well worth reading today; we’ll link to more later.
Next, some flashbacks from our own pages here at the Newswire, which illustrate quite plainly that Proposition 8 supporters were attempting to hide their identities long before the official Yes On 8 camp filed suit. In retrospect, these incidents foretold the tale, whether anyone realized it or not:
One of our crack researchers discovered that several major contributors to Yes on 8 had put down “retired” or “homemaker” under occupation when in fact they appear to be employed. In many instances these contributors show up as owners or CEOs of their companies. Also, when checking more closely there is an unusually high number of homemakers making five- and six-figure contributions to Yes on 8. Could it be that their husbands did not want their names connected to the Yes on 8 campaign?
Steve Largent’s Wife Contributed $2,000 to Yes on 8
A good example of spouses contributing is the $2,000 contribution of Terry Largent. She is the wife of former Congressman and Seattle Seahawks football star, Steve Largent. Steve Largent is now the President & CEO of CTIA The Wireless Association. CTIA is the Washington, DC based international lobbying and trade association for all the major wireless phone companies. The Largents live in Arlington, Virginia, and Steve joined the Board of Directors of James Dobson?s Focus on the Family in 2003 after he left Congress.
Wife of Sharp Healthcare’s CEO Gave $2,350 to Yes on 8
Mike Murphy heads San Diego’s largest hospital and biggest employer. His wife Sandra gave four separate contributions to Yes on 8 between March 10 and October 24, 2008 totaling $2,350. She listed her occupation and employer as “none.” Maybe this was done in order to not draw any attention to her husband.
More recently, while researching Proposition 8 donors for the upcoming database (yes, I’m still working on it), I’ve been getting a kick out of the weird ways some donors attempted to hide their identities when filling out the donation form (I mean aside from listing their employer as “God”) such as one Mr. James Kaupanger who “fills in the blanks for both employer and occupation as: ‘WHY ARE YOU ASKING THIS?????????‘”
Meanwhile — and especially if the Prop 8 suit shows any promise of success whatsoever — expect to see similar actions in both Florida and Arizona, where the anti-gays have been trying to hide their donations to the anti-marriage amendments in those states:
Tweet This Post! 
