Facts from the border

This post has been going around Facebook from Michelle Martin, PhD Cal State Fullerton, with actual facts and citations. 

All it takes for evil to win is for good people to do nothing, so raise your voice at what is happening!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is so much misinformation out there about the Trump administration's new "zero tolerance" policy that requires criminal prosecution, which then warrants the separating of parents and children at the border. Before responding to a post defending this policy, please do your research...As a professor at a local Cal State, I research and write about these issues, so here, I'll make it easier for you:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/8/17327512/
sessions-illegal-immigration-border-asylum-families
John Moore/Getty Images

Myth: This is not a new policy and was practiced under Obama and Clinton - FALSE. The policy to separate parents and children is new and was instituted on 4/6/2018. It was the brainchild of John Kelly and Stephen Miller to serve as a deterrent for undocumented immigration, approved by Trump, and adopted by Sessions. Prior administrations detained migrant families, but didn’t have a practice of forcibly separating parents from their children unless the adults were deemed unfit. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1049751/download?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Myth: This is the only way to deter undocumented immigration - FALSE. Annual trends show that arrests for undocumented entry are at a 46 year low, and undocumented crossings dropped in 2007, with a net loss (more people leaving than arriving). Deportations have increased steadily though (spiking in 1996 and more recently), because several laws that were passed since 1996 have made it legally more difficult to gain legal status for people already here, and thus increased their deportations (I address this later under the myth that it's the Democrats' fault). What we mostly have now are people crossing the border illegally because they've already been hired by a US company, or because they are seeking political asylum. Economic migrants come to this country because our country has kept the demand going. But again, many of these people impacted by Trump's "zero tolerance" policy appear to be political asylum-seekers. https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/568546381/arrests-for-illegal-border-crossings-hit-46-year-low

Myth: Most of the people coming across the border are just trying to take advantage of our country by taking our jobs - FALSE. Most of the parents who have been impacted by Trump's "zero tolerance" policy have presented themselves as political asylum-seekers at a U.S. port-of-entry, from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Rather than processing their claims, they have been taken into custody on the spot and had their children ripped from their arms. The ACLU alleges that this practice violates the Asylum Act, and the UN asserts that it violates the UN Treaty on the State of Refugees, one of the few treaties the US has ratified. This is an illegal act on the part of the United States government, not to mention morally and ethically reprehensible. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/21/us/meatpackers-profits-hinge-on-pool-of-immigrant-labor.html

Myth: We're a country that respects the Rule of Law, and if people break the law, this is what they get - FALSE. We are a country that has an above-ground system of immigration and an underground system. Our government (under both parties) has always been aware that US companies recruit workers in the poorest parts of Mexico for cheap labor, and ICE (and its predecessor INS) has looked the other way because this underground economy benefits our country to the tune of billions of dollars annually. Thus, even though the majority of people crossing the border now are asylum-seekers, those who are economic migrants (migrant workers) likely have been recruited here to do jobs Americans will not do. https://www.upi.com/Top_News/Opinion/2016/10/26/Donald-Trumps-wall-ignores-the-economic-logic-of-undocumented-immigrant-labor/2621477498203/

Myth: The children have to be separated from their parents because there parents must be arrested and it would be cruel to put children in jail with their parents - FALSE. First, in the case of economic migrants crossing the border illegally, criminal prosecution has not been the legal norm, and families have been kept together at all cost. Also, crossing the border without documentation is a typically a misdemeanor not requiring arrest, but rather a civil proceeding. Additionally, parents who have been detained have historically been detained with their children in ICE "family residential centers," again, for civil processing. The Trump administration's shift in policy is for political purposes only, not legal ones. See p. 18:https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/ms-l-v-ice-plaintiffs-opposition-defendants-motion-dismiss-doc-56

Myth: We have rampant fraud in our asylum process the proof of which is the significant increase we have in the number of people applying for asylum. FALSE. The increase in asylum seekers is a direct result of the increase in civil conflict and violence across the globe. While some people may believe that we shouldn't allow any refugees into our country because "it's not our problem," neither our current asylum law, nor our ideological foundation as a country support such an isolationist approach. There is very little evidence to support Sessions' claim that abuse of our asylum-seeking policies is rampant. Also, what Sessions failed to mention is that the majority of asylum seekers are from China, not South of the border. Here is a very fair and balanced assessment of his statements: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/19/jeff-sessions/jeff-sessions-claim-about-asylum-system-fraudulent/

Myth: The Democrats caused this, "it's their law." FALSE. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats caused this, the Trump administration did (although the Republicans could fix this today, and have refused). I believe what this myth refers to is the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which were both passed under Clinton in 1996. These laws essentially made unauthorized entry into the US a crime (typically a misdemeanor for first-time offenders), but under both Republicans and Democrats, these cases were handled through civil deportation proceedings, not a criminal proceeding, which did not require separation. And again, even in cases where detainment was required, families were always kept together in family residential centers, unless the parents were deemed unfit (as mentioned above). Thus, Trump's assertion that he hates this policy but has no choice but to separate the parents from their children, because the Democrats "gave us this law" is false and nothing more than propaganda designed to compel negotiation on bad policy. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-democrats-us-border-migrant-families-children-parents-mexico-separate-a8401521.html

Myth: The parents and children will be reunited shortly, once the parents' court cases are finalized. FALSE. Criminal court is a vastly different beast than civil court proceedings. Also, the children are being processed as unaccompanied minors ("unaccompanied alien children"), which typically means they are sent into the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS). Under normal circumstances when a child enters the country without his or her parent, ORR attempts to locate a family member within a few weeks, and the child is then released to a family member, or if a family member cannot be located, the child is placed in a residential center (anywhere in the country), or in some cases, foster care. Prior to Trump's new policy, ORR was operating at 95% capacity, and they simply cannot effectively manage the influx of 2000+ children, some as young as 4 months. Also, keep in mind, these are not unaccompanied minor children, they have parents. There is great legal ambiguity on how and even whether the parents will get their children back because we are in uncharted territory right now. According to the ACLU lawsuit (see below), there is currently no easy vehicle for reuniting parents with their children. Additionally, according to a May 2018 report, numerous cases of verbal, physical and sexual abuse were found to have occurred in these residential centers. https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-obtains-documents-showing-widespread-abuse-child-immigrants-us-custody

Myth: This policy is legal. LIKELY FALSE. The ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on 5/6/18, and a recent court ruling denied the government's motion to dismiss the suit. The judge deciding the case stated that the Trump Administration policy is "brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency." The case is moving forward because it was deemed to have legal merit. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/aclu-suit-over-child-separations-at-border-may-proceed-judge

BREAKING: Prop8 decision to be released Weds

From Prop8trialtracker, the Prop8 decision will be released tomorrow, Weds Aug 4.

I will update here. Also there will be responses in the community; for sites near you look at www.prop8decision.com.

Remember: regardless of the decision, it will be appealed. This is one stage in the journey, but it is a critical one.

More info:

http://prop8trialtracker.com

http://gaymarriedcalifornian.blogspot.com/

For marches/community responses: http://equalityevents.ning.com/


Update

Chris Geidner has an excellent FAQ discussing the legal issues here. As I understand it, the Big Questions are as follows:

1. Equal protection argument. Are gays and lesbians a minority that qualifies as a "suspect class"?

• If so, then any law disadvantaging us must substantially serve an important government interest. If not, then any law must only meet a "rational basis" test: a much lower standard, but still one that Prop8 fails to meet.

2. Due process argument. Is marriage a fundamental right?

• The bad guys argue that gays are "redefining" marriage which must be man-woman. The good guys argue that (as Ted Olson argued) "it isn't changing the institution of marriage. It is correcting a restriction based upon sex and sexual orientation."

Red state, blue state, and family values

How is it that states with the most liberal viewpoints (same sex marriage, major Obama supporters) do better in "family values" (low divorce rates, low rates of teen childbirth) than states with more "traditional" views? Just what are family values anyway?
This new book sounds fascinating: Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture. From the review by Jonathan Rauch:

Cultural conservatives revel in condemning the loose moral values and louche lifestyles of "San Francisco liberals." But if you want to find two-parent families with stable marriages and coddled kids, your best bet is to bypass Sarah Palin country and go to Nancy Pelosi territory: the liberal, bicoastal, predominantly Democratic places that cultural conservatives love to hate......

Rauch points out that traditional family life was built on early marriages, and the ability of low-skilled men to get jobs with little education. But the global economy changed the game, by demanding high levels of skill and education, and the sexual revolution decoupled sex from children. Women entered the workforce and could postpone child bearing; liberalization of divorce laws made it easier to break up a marriage and gave women options and independence.

Red America still prefers the traditional model. In 2008, when news emerged that the 17-year-old daughter of the Republican vice presidential nominee was pregnant, traditionalists were reassured rather than outraged, because Bristol Palin followed the time-honored rules by announcing she would marry the father. They were kids, to be sure, but they would form a family and grow up together, as so many before them had done. Blue America, by contrast, was censorious. Bristol had committed the unforgivable sin of starting a family too young. If red and blue America seemed to be talking past one another about family values, it's because they were.

.... Blue norms are well adapted to the Information Age. They encourage late family formation and advanced education. They produce prosperous parents with graduate degrees, low divorce rates, and one or two over-protected children.

Red norms, on the other hand, create a quandary. They shun abortion (which is blue America's ultimate weapon against premature parenthood) and emphasize abstinence over contraception. But deferring sex in today's cultural environment, with its wide acceptance of premarital sex, is hard. ....Moral traditionalism fails to prevent premarital sex and early childbirth. Births precipitate more early marriages and unwed parenthood. That, in turn, increases family breakdown while reducing education and earnings.....

This really rings true, as we look at the faces of the angry TeaBaggers protesting change. When we hear the Palinistas, they are not speaking in the measured mature voices of educated people considering evidence and argument and complexity. They are emotional voices of protest, trying to return to a simple tradition that probably never really was. They are being left behind.

I was talking to J., a 20ish friend of my stepdaughter's. She grew up in a poor, rural community and was glad to escape to move to the city and study for her cosmetology license. (Another of Stepdaughter's friends, F., escaped a similar home town by joining the Navy. ) J's home town was scenically beautiful, but economically depressed after the lumber mills closed. Not for them the information superhighway, challenging jobs, travel and books and reading that most of us enjoy. No expectation of college, no office jobs, no nice car. No big city, edgy bands, dance clubs or new people to meet either. People who can leave, do--like J., and F., who don't plan to return. But J's high school classmates who stayed have few options. THey work dead-end jobs with little money, if they work at all, smoking pot and having sex, and having babies. And fulminating against socialism and that black man in the White House as they wait for their checks or food stamps in a world where progress has literally passed them by.

When J told me about her home town, I wondered: how do we bring them along? There are no jobs there; like many depressed communities that have lost mills, mines, and plants, there's no place for them to go. The modern world has cut out the traditional blue collar worker, who made a solid living in manufacturing or resource extraction. A family structure dependent on traditional views of women, sex, and divorce cracks asunder as those views change, but trying to turn the clock back to the sexual mores of the 50s isn't going to work as a remedy. People can't make a life or a family flipping burgers for minimum wage at MacDonald's. High tech companies and high tech jobs aren't going to relocate into these communities. As Rauch points out, the gap between Them and Us is self-enforcing, and growing . And they aren't going away or getting better. No wonder they are so angry.

How to handle Fred Phelps

Fred Phelps, remember him, the hater from Kansas who likes to picket funerals? Apparently he tried to picket in San Francisco (because of the Prop8 trial) and got nailed by an absurdist counter protest. Gotta love it. The best response to him: mockery. More here!

Pride: "Our love to each of you"

Today was the Pride parade in San Diego, and our new friends at the Cathedral persuaded us to march with them. San Diego's Pride parade runs the gamut from bois in speedos and boas, to church and family groups, to labor unions and other liberal causes. Like most pride parades these days, the ratio of mainstream folks to more outrageous types has increased enormously, and there are lots of kids and families. The Cathedral is traditionally one of the biggest groups marching, in their purple t-shirts.

BP and I walked out to the assembly point with the Dean and had a pleasant talk with him. It was a hot day, but he and all the clergy participating wore their black shirts and collars so they were unmissable. As we walked with the Dean, well before the parade itself started, folks assembling along the route waved at him, and shouted "Yay, St Paul's!" or "Thank you Reverend!" They were just joyful that a minister was there.

At one point, we passed a side street that was blocked off. A row of San Diego mounted police sat on their horses, side by side facing the parade route. Behind them were the haters. You know the type we mean, with loudspeakers, and signs all about evil and "homosex" and the Bible. As we passed them, we heard them say something remarkable over their loudspeaker:

"If you think God doesn't hate, then you don't know God!"

Really. That was their message. The Dean and BP had a conversation about the haters' idea of a God that hates, actually hates, people. The Dean and BP were deeply puzzled. "God is about love," they agreed. "How do they get hate out of that message? What are they reading?" and the Dean told us that around Prop-H8 time, a group similar to that had invaded the Cathedral and interrupted the Eucharist in protest of inclusion.

Of course, as BP and I noted, this message of hate was being directed at the rear ends of about 8 unflappable police horses.

As we organized at the assembly point, the group (close to 100 people, straight, gay, white, of color, old, young...) picked up a number of banners. The biggest were two identical ones held on either side by 3 or 4 people:

"Love to Each of You, from St Paul's Cathedral."

As we got underway (we were group number 85 of about 150 participants) first came a couple of guys with big poles and colorful streamers, then a St Paul's banner, then two convertibles each with a couple of clergy sitting on the back waving, then folks carrying TEC flags and a Cathedral sign, then a huge crowd of walkers including the Dean and the rest of us in purple -tshirts, flanked by the 2 big "love to you" banners, and carrying rainbow flags and streamers, and signs for marriage equality, and finally one canon in clericals and big straw hat, who rode a recumbant bicycle and circled back and forth, with bright rainbow streamers flowing behind him.


At various points along the route, announcers introduced the participants, and commented how the huge St Paul's group went on and on. A lot of the observers cheered and clapped. Many were older folks. And many, many of them took pictures of those big purple "Love" banners, and some of them wept, and waved, and thanked the marchers. And we cheered as we passed the sad group of haters, still held to the rear of the stallwart police horses, and we held the banners up for them to see.

Photos from IT, except for the banner, which comes from here

Video: the faces of protest: mad world

I keep watching this video. It really captures so much from my home town. Such a longing in their eyes.

Testifying to Love

Will Scott blogs on his arrest at the protest in San Francisco yesterday:

Testifying to Love - Why I was arrested

I grew up in a small Episcopal Church in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley where that tiny mid-century A-frame building on a hill and its odd mixture of congregants became for me as a gay person an oasis of encouragement, love, and support. When most other churches were campaigning for prayer in schools, we were learning about what we could do to end apartheid in South Africa, other churches encouraged their flock to listen to James Dobson while we were invited to listen to the words of Archbishop Desmond Tutu. There at St. Paul's on-the-Hill, as a young acolyte I first heard about how faith compels us to stand with those pushed to the margins, and to work for justice. Yesterday was not the first time I’ve been arrested seeking to bear witness to a faith that calls us to honor the dignity of every person --- it is not likely to be my last.

How did I end up in the street? I prayed and felt inspired. On Monday night, I was part of a group led by the Reverend Roland Stringfellow, coordinator of the Bay Area Coalition of Welcoming Congregations that organized a interfaith prayer vigil at Grace Cathedral on the eve of the Supreme Court's decision. The first part of the event was filled with beautiful and moving words and music from various people of faith, towards the end things got more explicitly personal and political. A gay couple stood up and spoke nervously for the first time of how inequality and homophobia were affecting them in the workplace, in how they accessed health care (one of them is disabled) and paid their taxes (they would save over $4,000 a year if they were counted the same as a straight married couple). The couple shared that they rarely came anywhere near places of worship, but this event encouraged them to speak up even in a church. As they spoke I thought of how my beloved Matt and I had moved from Virginia to California three years ago to be in a more supportive context for our relationship.
...
Yesterday, on the march from the Castro neighborhood to Civic Center I was joined by an Iraq war veteran, a young Latino man named Joseph carrying an American flag and wearing his badges of honor. He was arrested yesterday as well. When I took my spot in the large circle of a 150 or more in the street outside City Hall I found myself sitting next to David a 19-year-old transgender man who works at the grocery store in my neighborhood. When I stood up to stretch my legs I saw Brendan, a 20 something lay person from St. Gregory’s of Nyssa dancing in the circle to music provided by a visiting folk band on the sidelines. Across the circle was Rabbi Sydney Mintz from Congregation Emanu-el, a synagogue with strong ties with Grace Cathedral and Buddhist Nun Jana Drakka sitting near Episcopal Deacons Anthony Turney and Nancy Pennecamp. Down the way from me was Reverend Dawn Roginski from St. Francis Lutheran Church where the Morning Prayer service prepared us for the day’s work. In the paddy wagon on our way to the county jail, I learned more about Kip Williams, who said when the day started they were praying they would have at least 30 people willing to risk arrest, now there were so many more.
...
LGBT people of faith in San Francisco and throughout the world would do well to remember our connections to other movements --- and gain inspiration, courage and strength for our contemporary struggles. There are many causes, and concerns worth our time and energy --- may we each discern with God's help our place in the dance and testify to love.

Read it all here.

Notes from the march

Well, it wasn't a huge crowd, 5000 people at most? The vibe was suprisingly positive: not angry, more resigned, but resilient. There were all sorts of people there, although overall the group skewed a little older. It was very well organized, as these events have been here. The crowd was polite, though noisy, and the cops were respectful and effective. We marched to the hall of justice for a short rally.

We marched with the Episcopal Cathedral and wore purple Cathedral t-shirts. You can see in the picture that the Cathedral marches with a big banner that says, "love to each of you". BP is the one holding the rainbow flag behind the banner. You can't see her, but you can see the flag. (Click to enlarge).

During the march, we saw someone we know, a young man named C. who we met at party a couple of months ago. BP caught up with him to say hello. "Oh, wow, " he said. "this is so cool, is this your church? "

BP looked at me. "Why, yes," she said. "It is now."

The Cathedral is holding an interfaith service of "consolation and determination" on Monday night. Our friend C. might go.

We got a great letter from the Dean today that read in part,

This ruling creates two classes of citizens. As such, it goes against the core American values of equality and justice for all, and it violates our Christian commitment to respect the dignity of every human being. The clergy and Chapter of Saint Paul's Cathedral continue to call for one relational standard to apply to all people, a standard rooted in the core Christian values of fidelity, mutual regard, and life-long commitment.

Will I still be married tomorrow?

In today's NY Times:

In addition to answering [the legality of Prop8], however, the seven-member court is expected to address the legal status of some 18,000 same-sex couples who were married in California between June — when the legalization took effect — and Election Day in November.

The state’s top law enforcement official, Attorney General Jerry Brown, said last year that he believed those same-sex marriages would be legal regardless of Proposition 8. But opponents of same-sex marriage argue that it is illogical to continue to recognize marriages that can no longer be legally performed here.

Andrew P. Pugno, the general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the leading group behind Proposition 8, said that it was meant to be “a blanket unqualified statement that applies to all marriages."

Please go here for my reflections on what my marriage means to me.

And please, wherever you are, join the Day of Decision rallies throughout CA and across the country.

What are you doing on Tuesday?

We went to Mass this morning and found out that the Cathedral in San Diego will be joining the Day of Decision demonstration on Tuesday. So we will march with our new friends.

The picture below is from the post I did about the march in November. The presence of the Cathedral as an affirming community at that event was one of the reasons BP decided to start attending church there. It seems only fitting for us to be part of it this time.

Now for certain: Day of Decision is May 26th

Okay, folks, here we go. The Day of Decision is Tuesday, May 26th. The court will release the opinion at 10.00 am. There will be demonstrations all around the state; protests, if as expected, it goes against us, celebrations, if we are unexpectedly victorious. For a list of cities, go here (includes cities outside California!). Show your pride, show your love. Wear white if you can. And above all, keep it peaceful! Don't give them any excuses to point at us.

And remember, on Saturday, May 30, road trip to Fresno for Meet in the Middle: take the discussion to the heartland where the battle must be fought.

I will post more at Gay Married Californian this weekend (I have a couple of important posts that should get us ready) and then will repost the protest plans there and here.

Possible outcomes:

• Prop 8 upheld, and 18,000 couples forcibly divorced possible
• Prop 8 upheld, and 18,000 couples "Grandfathered" and remaining legal pundits say, most likely
• Prop 8 overturned, and the 18,000 are the vanguard of the movement. wouldn't that be something!
• Prop 8 upheld, but all marriages (straight and gay) converted to civil unions, would serve them right!

It's coming: preparing for the California decision

By law, the Supreme Court of California has 90 days to release its decision on the Proposition 8 case which it heard in March. That date is fast approaching, in early June. (However, they can release the decision at any time.) They will give us 24 hours warning that the decision is coming at their website. There is a rumor that they will release it tomorrow (update, it is not listed on the docket for tomorrow, Opinions are released on M and Th at 10am and announced on the website the day before).

As we've discussed at length here, there are two questions.

First, does the vote of a majority overrule the rights of a minority? That is, was Prop8 legal on the ballot, and even eligible for popular vote? Ken Starr admitted during arguments that the Pro-H8 view was that any minority right was at the whim of the voters. He actually said no rights are inalienable. The rights of religious groups to practise their faith, or of ethnic groups to vote and fully participate, are, according to Ken Starr, completely reversible. It's useful to remember that if inter-racial marriage, allowed by the CA courts in 1948, and by the US Supreme Court in 1967, had been put to the voters, it would not have become legal until around 1994. It wasn't until then that a majority of Americans felt it was "okay" for blacks and whites to marry. But we don't put the rights of the minority to mob vote, especially when the election is funded by overt religious interests. Do we?

The second question is, are the marriages that were fully legal between May and November of 2008 still legal? Pro -Prop8 advocate Starr says those marriages (which include mine) ceased to exist legally on 5 Nov 2008, making this a retroactive decision. The court seemed less comfortable with this argument.

The general consensus following the arguments in March was the the court was against us on the first issue, and possibly for us on the second issue.

But look what's happened since then. Iowa. Vermont. New Hampshire. Maine. Washington DC. Joining Massachusetts and Connecticut, with New Jersey coming along. And unexpected voices in favor of gay rights. And a recent poll suggesting Americans favor gay marriage by a narrow margin .

Will the California court temper its decision with this groundswell? Some think so. There has been a major change in the climate. Let's also remember that the California legislature passed a pro-gay marriage bill TWICE before the initial decision, which was vetoed by the governor, on the grounds that the court should rule first. The court subsequently ruled, in May 2008, that all citizens have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Very similar to the words used in the landmark Perez v. Sharp decision of 1947, that overturned California's anti-miscegenation laws. It would really be unprecedented for fundamental rights to be eliminated by a mob vote, but of course that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Still, we have work to do. We must assume that there will be a new ballot initiaitve in 2010 regardless. You can support that, and learn more here, at EQ-CA and here, at the Courage Campaign .

We have to respond to the decision, whether pro or con. If you are in California, you can participate here. Many cities will have an event, whether to celebrate or to protest.

We have to claim our rights, and meet in the middle the weekend after the decision, in Fresno. Yes, San Joaquin friends, you are once again on the front line leading the way for justice.

I hate the fact that I still have this insistent little bird of hope. It's tiny, just a little thing. The realist in me expects the worst, and the problem with having a little bird of hope is that it is so agonizing when it is killed, yet again. It is so much worse to feel its death than not to have heard it to begin with.

But agony of waiting is almost over. Work and life have suffered enormously from living in this limbo. Let's get it over with.

Cross posted at Daily Kos and Streetprophets

Ya gotta give 'em hope

Join the fight.


And the battle continues. If you are in Florida, your voice is needed.

If you are in Utah, your voice is needed.

In Hawai'i, in Arizona, in Arkansas, and all across this union, your voice is needed: on DOMA, on DADT, on adoption. Our families need you.

And in California, regardless of what happens today, or in the court decision, the PropH8 supporters will be trying to vote out our SCoCal justices in upcoming retention elections. We must oppose them. And we must say I Do! to marriage equality on the ballot in 2010, regardless of this decision.

For another YouTube video on what's at stake, what this really means, please go here. "It goes beyond the gay community. It's about whether all Californians are equal. "

My name is Harvey Milk and I'm here to recruit you!

Join the fight.

Wear white on Thursday

It's the color of weddings. Wear white to support gay marriage on hearing day....or at least wear a White knot.

Please don't divorce us

From The Courage Campaign :

Infamous prosecutor Ken Starr has filed a legal brief -- on behalf of the "Yes on 8" campaign -- to nullify the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in California between May and November of 2008.

It's time to put a face to Ken Starr's shameful legal proceedings. To put a face to the 18,000 couples facing forcible divorce. To put a face to marriage equality. Because, gay or straight, YOU are the face of the Marriage Equality Movement.....submit your own photo, as an individual, a couple or in a group (perhaps with your family over the holidays). Take a picture holding a piece of paper that says "Please don't divorce us," "Please don't divorce my moms,""Please don't divorce my friends, Dawn and Audrey," "Please don't divorce Californians" or whatever you want after "Please don't divorce..." and send it to: pleasedontdivorce@couragecampaign.org

We'll be sending ours in shortly. If you are a gay couple married in CA, or family or friends of one, please consider participating. To see those submitted so far, go to The Courage Campaign site.

Lighting up the night, and the morning after

A big thanks to Ann for some positive action suggestions of how we can register our dismay at the Obama team's "no you can't" attitude. The GLBT community is conspicuously missing from the transition and the cabinet. Go to the post below this one and DO SOMETHING.

Saturday night Beloved and I went to our local Light up the night candlelight vigil for gay rights. That's us on the right of this frame from a local news video. As has been our experience of nearly all the recent protests, it was very positive. We met many nice people, and what was astonishing to us was at our local protest at the local mall, more than half the participants were straights supporting their gay friends and family. You straight allies rock. (And a big hand for our local San Diego police, who have been present yet positive at all these events, and clearly there to protect everyone. You guys rock too.)

When we were there, we thought they were filming US, but they were actually filming my T-shirt that says "We will not give up and we are not done". I've heard that straight guys are only interested in women from the neck down, but really! ;-) I sent this to my mom and told her my !@#s made it to TV.

Sunday, BP and I continued our exploration of various Episcopal churches. We visited to what we discovered to be a very friendly local parish. BP recognized someone in the choir from her former Catholic parish (decades ago) and said hello after the service. He commented that post-prop 8, there were a number of Catholic refugees looking for a welcoming church. Sadly, I suspect the likes of Rick and Paul will not miss BP and others like her. I thought it was interesting that BP's old colleague said, "we welcome everyone. This is a CHRISTIAN church." Folks there were very nice. I think we might go back.

Light up the Night for Equality

Dec 20: Light up the Night for Equality Quiet Candlelight Vigil, across the country at shopping centers etc, for gay rights. Peaceful. Wear shirts that say "2nd class citizen" or "My friend is a second class citizen".

Join the vigil!

Prop8 opponents compared to Al Qaeda

With full page ads in the NY Times, the Pro-8 forces are trying to suppress free speech by trying to redefine legitimate, peaceful public protests as "mob rule". The Human Rights campaign takes it on at Demand the Truth. The FACT is that there have been only a few isolated incidents of violence against churches. But to say this is part of the movement is a blatant lie. So what else is new from these people? On the KPFA morning show, they did an interview with Seamus Hassan for the Pro-8 side, and our own Susan Russell for the No-on-8 side. Susan reports that pro-8 forces are now comparing gay rights activists to Al Qaeda and saying that any non-gay opponents of Prop 8 are violent radical secularists.

Go read Susan's blog for the transcript.

(Updated) This obviously a coordinated talking point for these guys--they were relentlessly on message for the campaign and now they are relentless on message equating free speech to terrorism. Read here a response to Pat Boone's recent interview, where Boone equated gay activists with the Mumbai bombers, calling us "sexual jihadists".

My more extended comments at Daily Kos and TPM

So we marched. So now what?

There has been lots of discussion about "The New Stonewall" and how the gay community is newly empowered, joined with its straight allies, and moving beyond the latte-sipping, don't rock the boat Human Rights Campaign (note that the HRC doesn't even have GAY in its title). Our young friends at Join the Impact are still working away at all sorts of ideas (some of the better ones summarized here). But postcards?

What the heck. Who would have thought they could mobilize people in 50 states and 8 countries for a simultaneous protest march using twitter and facebook! Click here and give it a go.

The impact

25,000 people in San Diego, which finished in a human rainbow flag. This was the biggest protest by far in any city in California--sleepy surfer-city San Diego! I can't convey to you how amazing it was to be part of this. We are hoarse from chanting. It was intense, and moving, and very very positive.

For you Episcopalians, the Episcopal Cathedral of San Diego hung a huge rainbow flag, and joined the marchers with a massive purple banner stating that all are loved by God. They had many marchers in distinctive purple tee-shirts.

There were straights and gays, families and single folks, kids and grandparents. One older couple stood on a street corner downtown, with signs that read "Christians support gay marriage". Marchers went to them and hugged them. Unlike previous marches, which have been in Hillcrest (San Diego's gay district), this one was right in the heart of the city: we marched down 6th Ave to Broadway, then up Pacific Coast Highway to the County Admin building. Drivers honked with approval. And as we made the turn onto PCH, one of the cruise ships at the Embarcadero a block in front of us blew its horn. I can't believe we got that route, through the middle of downtown! The march was so huge, that it shut down quite a bit of traffic. The police were very helpful and positive. (updated)

I was looking for some comments on Constitutional protection of the minority on the web. I found there remarks from the US State Dept website "Principles of Democracy". These are supposed to tell other countries what we stand for. Only right now, we don't. (updated again)

# Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.
# Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.

# Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country's democratic institutions.
# Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society.

# Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.

YES WE CAN.

Update 2: A screen shot from a Youtube video, with your very own St Paul's Cathedral on the streets with us.



Pictures 1 and 3, credit the San Diego Union Tribune. Picture 2, credit IT. IT, BP and friends were in the purple part of the flag.