Deb Price ponders Log Cabin’s options… 

Gay & Lesbian Leadership SmartBrief | 06/10/2008

The Human Rights Campaign’s “high-stakes strategy” to stop John McCain’s election — a strategy that includes a video warning of the potential of “four more years of anti-gay policy in the White House” — could lead to a gay-community schism if Log Cabin Republicans decide to endorse the Arizona senator, according to columnist Deb Price. However, Log Cabin, which withheld its endorsement from President George W. Bush in 2004, would likely do the same with McCain if he were to choose an anti-gay running mate such as Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee or throw his support behind anti-gay amendments pending in California and Florida, Price writes. Detroit News, The (06/09)

http://www.smartbrief.com/news/lgbt/storyDetails.jsp?issueid=E0F6323C-3642-4A93-B390-CD5639F3BA85&copyid=7046C850-D2A4-47C0-9CC1-29539F4F06E3

Log Cabin will likely make an endorsment decision before the Republican National Convention.  What do you think?  Should Log Cabin endorse without conditions?

What have the democrats been doing about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?  Thanks to The Advocate…

Dems Decry DADT But Fail To Change It
Democrats say the nation should be ashamed of its ban on gays serving openly in the military. So what have the Democrats done about it? Nothing, really.

It is time for Republicans to lead the charge and end the ban.

I agree with the Marriage Coalition’s position that the gay and lesbian community should “Make Change and Not Lawsuits” when couples get married in California beginning on June 17th by not suing in other states to get recognition immeidately and to work on one’s family, friends, and co-workers to accept the concept. But that is as far as my support goes if anyone is forced up against a wall in a horrible situtation.

Breaking news regarding the In re marriage Cases ruling: the California Supreme Court has denied the motion to stay the court’s decision permitting same gender marriage. This means that in just 10 days gays and lesbians will be free to legally be married in California and elsewhere (where recognized).

Much to the chagrin of traditional marriage advocates who would suffer no injury when we get married and the many states with constitutional marriage amendments (who have no claim to how our state’s basic framework set forth in the Constitution works interacts with its people) desparetly petitioned our state’s highest court to stay their marriage decision until November when voters will decide on the “Limit on Marriage” initiative (which just qualified yesterday).

Fortunately, the court has once again decided in the best interest of California.

Unfortunately if the “Limit on Marriage” initiaive passes in November, it will prompt a whole slew of new lawsuits against the state as gays and lesbians married prior to Novmeber will find their relationships in legal limbo.

With today’s ruling, it has become obvious that the Supreme Court is fully aware that Focus on Family and Company would rather impose their religious views on citizens than truly consider the long-term impact of the imposing reliegious views as to who should and who should not be able to obtain a CIVIL RIGHT.

But for today, this is yet another bright spot in the battle fairness, liberty, and justice for all.

And in closing, I ask a simple but mighty favor and that is that you do your best you can   do by participating the this historical process to have true equal rights under the laws of California.

Thank you for reading.

In a coordinated proceeding, the trial court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, challengers to California’s marriage statutes, and against defendant proponents, holding that the statutes violated the California Constitution insofar as they limited marriage to opposite-sex couples. The Court of Appeal of California reversed the trial court’s ruling on the constitutional issue. The California Supreme Court granted further review.

The court held that Fam Code §§ 300 and 308.5, were unconstitutional insofar as their provisions drew a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and excluded the latter from access to the designation of marriage. The right to marry, as embodied in Cal.Const. art. I §§ 1 & 7, guaranteed same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples, including the right to choose one’s life partner. The statutes posed a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples equal dignity and respect, a core element of the fundamental right to marry. The statutes also violated California’s Equal Protection Clause. In finding that sexual orientation was a suspect classification, the court explained that immutability was not invariably required; rather, the most important factors were historically invidious and prejudicial treatment and a current recognition by society that the characteristic in question generally had no relationship to the ability to perform or contribute to society. The state interest in limiting the designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples was not a compelling state interest.

The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and remanded the matter to that court for further action. The challengers were entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate the ruling.

Randy Thomasson and Larry Bowler’s Constitutional Amendment to ban domestic partnerships is in the “raw count stage” but I have been told that this is procedural and insufficient signatures have been submited.  If it had enough raw signatures, the next step would have been to do a random sample for signature verifications, the that is extremely unlikely. 

Thus, there may be two measures on the ballot instead of just the
one to ban gay marriage.

Neverthless, I wrote an opinion piece discussing whether the “Limit On Marriage” initiative was flawed because it amounted to a Constitutional Revision and Not a Constitutional Amendment and therfore subject to pre-election removal from the ballot.

My personal beliefs are that I would like to see a win on the ballot in order to drive a stake through the heart of the anti- same gender marriage foes.  I know it will be had for same gender parent familes to watch the demeaning commercials on TV or the radio but think of it as a lerning lesson in the battle for civil rights.

My legal position is not waived and can be raised post election too.  At that time flaws in the face of the initiatve (which I would rather not get into), can also be raised.  Therefore, if the voters approve of it, we have, what I call, “NUCLEAR OPTION.”

We should rally around the anti-inititve forces and for those couples who it is appropriate, get married and show the fiscal impact we have (that was never addressed in the inititave and is now too late).

If we lose at the ballot box, and win in Court, every year some homophobic member of the legislature will submit a Initiative to the Legislature.  If there is a 2/3rds vote in favor of placing it on the ballot, it can proceed and be voted on by the people by a simple majority vote.  Since some polling suggest that a majority support marriage, I predict that it will go down in defeat but we will still be used as a political device until we send SACRAMENTO A CLEAR MESSAGE: CALIFORNIANS BELIEVE THAT ALL ADULT CALIFORNIANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY.  PERIOD!!!

Will a mailing done by opponents of Len Lanzi hurt or help his campaign for State Senate?  Over $6000 was spent to send out a mailer to voters in this district.  Will voters be swayed?  The mailers charaterize Len Lanzi as a “Code Pink Republican”, supported by Log Cabin Republicans.  The reverse side says that his opponent is a “Red, white and blue Republican”.