Latest News

Prop 8 Opponents Aim for Wallets

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 10:36:50 -0500

by Nicole Brambila

After voters banned same-sex marriage earlier this month, protesters demanded in online chat rooms and e-mails a boycott of Mormon-owned businesses and others who supported the ban.

Protesters have targeted members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because they contributed about half of the $40 million the campaign raised to ban gay marriage.

Some Mormons, such as Rick Seidner, who owns Rick's Restaurant and Bakery in Palm Springs, find themselves caught in the crossfire between their church's support of the ban and their personal conviction.

“I didn't make a contribution. I'm just so exhausted explaining myself,” said Seidner, who has owned Rick's for 23 years and opposed the proposition.

Proposition 8 was a voter initiative that amended the constitution to recognize marriage only between a man and woman, overturning a state Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in May.

As reported on mydesert.com, Seidner's name does not come up in a search of The Desert Sun's financial disclosure database, which uses public information filed with the Secretary of State's office.

Seidner, who says he is Mormon although not practicing, said he was targeted for his faith. Despite the threatened boycott, business is good, he said.

“People are finding out that I'm LDS and that I'm a Mormon,” Seidner said. “They're ignorant. That's all it is.

“I'm starting to understand that it isn't the gay community; it's just a couple of (people).”

Mormon officials called the tactics counterproductive and unfortunate.

“When they try to intimidate our people, what this will do sooner or later is actually hurt themselves,” said Keith Atkinson, a spokesman with the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Los Angeles .

“When they attack the Mormon faith in general, they forget that there were some who stood with them on the other side.”

A costly battle

Coachella Valley activists have called for a boycott of businesses that supported Proposition 8.

Same-sex marriage is important to many in the Palm Springs area, which has one of the largest gay populations per capita in the United States.

On Saturday, the Desert Stonewall Democrats organized an ad hoc committee to compile a list of valley donors, which it released Thursday online at www.marriageequalityindex. com.

Bob Thomas, chairman of the committee, said he hopes the index will encourage residents to support gay-friendly businesses.

Many of the blacklists circulating now, however, appear to be forwarded without verifying the information. Rob Hyatt received one of the e-mails this week about Rick's Restaurant.

“I think this shows, though, that the Internet is something that you have to take with a grain of salt,” said Hyatt, a Palm Springs resident who ate lunch at Rick's on Tuesday.

Others say people are just looking for ways to focus their anger and disappointment into action.

“I think people are very angry and they want to do something quickly and they didn't vet the list,” said George Zander, chairman of the Desert Stonewall Democrats. “It's part of the early anger to the loss. They want something to contribute, all of which is good.”

The Stonewall ad hoc committee expects to release a second list next year after the final campaign filing deadline, which is Jan. 31.

Hot-button issue

Proposition 8 was the most costly battle over same-sex marriage with both sides collectively raising more than $73 million. In the Coachella Valley, opponents out-raised supporters 2 to 1, donating more than $85,000 to one of California's most contentious social issues.

Since the election, protesters have picketed at Mormon churches locally and statewide. Officials report some churches have been hit with vandalism and graffiti.

“It is understandable that supporters of No on 8 are disheartened by their loss in this election,” Sonja Eddings Brown, spokeswoman for the Yes on 8 campaign, said in an e-mail to The Desert Sun.

“These efforts are not building trust with the voters of California. Blacklisting and intimidation and punishing voters is beginning to define the character of the opposition, and I know that this is quite different than the true character of the gay community as a whole.”

Online traffic numbers indicate a strong post-election interest in who contributed to the Yes campaign on Web sites with blacklists such as CaliforniansAgainstHate.com. Since the election, the site has averaged about 5,000 visitors a day, up from 500 a day pre-election.

“My goal was to make it socially unacceptable for people to contribute to what I call a campaign of hate,” said Fred Karger, creator of CaliforniansAgainstHate.com. “They shouldn't be proud of it, and the world should know who they are.”

But some argue the boycotts unfairly single out Mormons when other religious organizations also contributed to the campaign. James Dobson's Focus on the Family, for example, contributed more than $500,000 and the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization, gave about $1 million.

Campaign finance law requires donations of $100 or more be reported.

“I don't think that those laws were ever intended to be used as a weapon,” said Susan Finch, who attends a Mormon church in the east valley. “I think that it might, unfortunately, make people less willing to get involved.”

(end)

Dallas Stonewall Elects New Officers

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:31:09 -0500

by Staff Reports

Erin Moore was elected president of Stonewall Democrats of Dallas at the organization’s last general membership meeting of the year.

Jay Narey was elected vice president, with Mike McCue as treasurer and Kenneth Denson as secretary.

Outgoing president Jesse Garcia said more than 90 Stonewall members were present for the election, and that the full slate of new officers was elected unanimously with no opposition.

Moore promised to “continue the dialogues started by Garcia with communities of color, our newly elected officials and the new members of the Democratic Party to further the understanding and rights of LGBT citizens.”

“This will be a year to harness the excitement created by our victories and move forward together as a community, county and nation,” Moore said. “We have accomplished half of what is required, getting fair-minded officials elected. Now we must work with those officials to do what needs to be done.”

Stonewall Democrats of Dallas is the largest paid-partisan political organization in North Texas with nearly 400 members.

It has launched sister chapters in Collin, Denton and Tarrant counties.

The Dallas chapter also plans to help launch chapters in Henderson and Kaufman counties in 2009.

Garci said he is confident that Stonewall’s future is in “very capable hands.”

“Erin Moore has a lengthy political resume with LGBT advocacy groups. When I first moved to Dallas eight years ago, I read about Erin’s accomplishments in the Dallas Voice. She inspired me like other great LGBT leaders Christy Kinsler, Steve Atkinson and Buck Massey,” Garcia said.

“I hope Erin’s tenure will inspire young people to get involved. Erin will bring her own unique perspective. I’m proud that during my tenure I helped diversify the chapter with people of color. I hope her presidency will attract more women to get involved with Stonewall,” he added.

Moore will be the sixth president in the chapter’s 12-year history. Past presidents include Michael Moon, Shannon Bailey, Tim McMullen-Sullivan and Christy Kinsler.

The organization’s new officers will be presented at the Annual Stonewall Holiday Party at 7 p.m., on Dec. 8, at the Round-Up Saloon, 3912 Cedar Springs Road.

The special guest for the evening will be Dallas County Democratic Party Chairwoman Darlene Ewing.

(end)

Committee Releases Prop 8 Valley Contributors

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:28:37 -0500

by Nicole Brambila

The adhoc group formed in response to calls for a valley boycott of businesses that gave money to support the recently passed gay marriage ban released its list today of local Proposition 8 contributors.

Called the “Marriage Equality Index,” the list identifies contributors to both the Yes and No on 8 campaigns and can be found at www.marriageequalityindex.com.

Proposition 8 was a voter initiative that amended the constitution to recognize only a marriage between a man and woman, overturning a state Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in May.

On Saturday, the Desert Stonewall Democrats organized an adhoc committee to compile a list of Coachella Valley donors that looks at contributions through Oct. 6 gathered from public information published on the California Secretary of State’s of Web site.

Campaign finance law requires donations of $100 or more be reported.

Founded in 1999, the Desert Stonewall Democrats is the largest LGBT political organization in Riverside County.

Bob Thomas, chairman of the adhoc committee, said he hopes the index will encourage residents to support gay-friendly businesses.

“It’s less of a boycott and more, let’s (give) our support to those who support us,” said Jill Pentrack, a committee member.

The ad hoc committee expects to release a second list next year after the final campaign filing deadline, which is Jan. 31.

(end)

Metro Weekly: Interview with Jon Hoadley

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:05:54 -0500

by Sean Bugg

Elections are natural emotional rollercoasters, plunging from heady heights to profound lows.

For the GBLT community, 2008 was particularly high -- and painfully low.

Even as Barack Obama became the first African American to be elected to the presidency -- and with more the two-thirds of gays and lesbians voting for him -- Florida and Arizona voters approved amendments banning same-sex marriage and Arkansas took the retrograde step of effectively barring adoption and foster-parenting by gays and lesbians.

But the lowest moment had to be the passage of California's Proposition 8, a measure to end marriage equality for gays and lesbians in the state. As a result, thousands of gay and lesbian couples find the legality of their marriages no longer certain.

While demoralizing, the passage of Proposition 8 has also proved galvanizing, with protests sprouting across the country, including D.C. And as President-elect Obama begins his transition into the White House, the GLBT community faces a time of great opportunity on the federal level.

We asked the leaders of a number of national GLBT and HIV/AIDS organizations their thoughts on the new administration, what the community can achieve, and what the victory of anti-gay campaigns across the country means for the GLBT movement.

METRO WEEKLY: From your perspective, what is the most immediate effect of the presidential election on the GLBT community?

REA CAREY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE TASK FORCE: The most immediate effect is that for the first time in eight years there is a possibility for the enactment of pro-LGBT policies. It is now possible for us to move forward without fear of immediate veto threat or administrative ideology obstructing our efforts. We have an opportunity to see our work result in real change and tangible improvement in the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in America.

JON HOADLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL STONEWALL DEMOCRATS: From before day one, Obama has had a fully inclusive approach to our community. Even his transition team serves as a model for things to come. Not only did he immediately put into a place a non-discrimination policy for the transition team that was inclusive of both sexual orientation and gender identity, but also he isn't pigeonholing his LGBT staff into LGBT roles. This sends a message that our issues will be addressed and we will be treated as full people.

PAUL KAWATA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL MINORITY AIDS COUNCIL: For me, the election of Obama, and a Democratic Congress, means that Americans are ready for change on so many levels. Though Proposition 8 passed in California, it did not win by the margin that it probably would have even four years ago. We must take heart that our courts are starting to look favorably on gay rights, and that gay marriage was legal in California, even if for a short time. We are on the cusp of a new day. It is up to us as community organizers and LGBT leaders to continue the fight for our rights.

MARA KEISLING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR TRANSGENDER EQUALITY: Clearly we are excited that we are likely to see fewer proactive attacks against all LGBT people from an Obama administration. We have all spent the last eight years fending off very hurtful and unproductive policies, and knowing that meaningful advances in federal policy required difficult uphill battles. We are hopeful for the next four years.

H. ALEXANDER ROBINSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL BLACK JUSTICE COALITION: The election of Barack Obama has important symbolic, political and policy implications. It reaffirms the promise of equality for all Americans. Sen. Obama campaigned on a platform of progressive change where the old political divides of race, gender, sexual orientation and abilities gave way to a movement of the people, for the people. Of utmost importance to our constituency, he has promised to develop and implement a comprehensive HIV/AIDS plan.

PATRICK SAMMON, PRESIDENT, LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS: I think out of the ashes of what is now the Republican Party there is a real opportunity to help rebuild the party in a way that makes it a party of the future rather than a party of the past. What remains to be seen is what President-elect Obama and the Democrats actually deliver on in terms of promises they've made.

AUBREY SARVIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK: The Obama presidency will bring an exponentially greater level of support for LGBT issues and a greater awareness and understanding of our community. Sen. Obama ran opposing ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' (DADT) and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) while openly supporting ENDA and expanded hate-crimes protections. Without shying away from those positions and while mentioning gays and lesbians in his rallies, Obama carried conservative states, including North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana and Florida. This -- along with the election of an African American to the presidency -- shows how far we have come.

MW: Since the 1990s, a small number of GLBT issues have consistently emerged at the federal legislative level: ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell'', ENDA, partner immigration, hate crimes and marriage equality. With a Democratic Congress and president, which of those issues do you believe should be prioritized?

CAREY: The Task Force Action Fund has a number of legislative priorities...but our top legislative priority will continue to be passage of an inclusive ENDA. Leadership will likely move other legislation first, such as the hate crimes bill, and we look forward to working with them on those efforts as well. However, a key focus of our energy and expertise will be on creating federal employment protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

HOADLEY: It's hard to say that only one should be a priority because we as a movement should be far enough long that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. While we're continuing on the work of building support for a comprehensive ENDA that is inclusive of both sexual orientation and gender identity, we can also be working on passing hate-crimes legislation.

We've learned a lesson from the Clinton administration: Even when we have friends in Congress and the White House, it doesn't necessarily mean passing legislation will be smooth sailing. We still have a lot of groundwork that needs to be done. So let's hold Democrats accountable to their campaign promises, but let's also be willing to put some sweat equity into supporting a pro-equality legislative agenda.

KEISLING: Most see the federal hate-crimes bill as being maybe the ripest of the bills we are working on. During the past 18 months it has passed through both the Senate and the House of Representatives, held up only by a veto threat from the White House. We are very unlikely to see such a threat from the incoming president, so most of us are hopeful that the hate-crimes bill can pass. Beyond that, I think that we'll wait and see what ripens when, but internally at NCTE priorities include ENDA and ending unfair federal documentation requirements for transgender people, as well as stopping a Social Security Administration practice called ''gender no-match letters'' that needlessly outs transgender people at their jobs.

ROBINSON: Because HIV/AIDS continues to heavily impact the lives of black, gay men, and thereby our ability to organize and secure our future, access to health care and real reforms in our HIV-prevention efforts is a major priority. Certainly, employment is a high priority for African-American communities as a whole, and LGBT people face the threat of discrimination -- passage of ENDA would be a significant move in the right direction. Anti-gay bias crimes are a plague that must end and a federal bill would not only provide the resources to assist law enforcement in the prosecution of these cases, but it would send an important message about the equality of LGBT people.

Finally, black gay and lesbian families suffer the most when we face discrimination. Consequently, we believe that our movement must build the grassroots support needed to repeal DOMA.

SAMMON: Obviously, we're not going to be the ones setting the strategy here, we're going to be trying to get Republican support on whatever is put forward. My advice is throw out the old playbook -- let's stop looking through the prism of ENDA, hate crimes and ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' Maybe immigration equality will move forward, maybe domestic-partner benefits for federal employees. My concern is that the Democrats are going to treat the gays likes a constituency, that we're going to get one bone thrown our way, one little reward, and then they expect us to be quiet. I hope that reward isn't hate crimes. While that's good legislation, I don't think anyone believes that passing the hate-crimes bill as it's currently written is going to have this transformative effect on the lives of gay and lesbian people.

SARVIS: While we at SLDN are of course focused on ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' there is a very full agenda for President-elect Obama, and we know we will not be first in line. To be successful in eliminating the ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' law, we need a partnership between the White House, Congress and our military leaders. We will work for more hearings on the Military Readiness Enhancement Act. It is important that it be done right this time.

MW: Will Congress be able to pass a trans-inclusive ENDA?

CAREY: We believe that with the existing support for the bill built in past years, additional changes that have occurred in Congress, the support of the administration and the continued efforts by the Task Force Action Fund and others on Capitol Hill and at the grassroots, it is possible to pass a fully inclusive ENDA.

HOADLEY: Yes, if we keep doing the work that needs to be done. The incoming Democrats and the returning sophomore Democrats support equality. Over the last year people have been working on increasing grassroots support. Congressman [Barney] Frank and other congressional Democrats held critical hearings on gender-identity discrimination in the work place. Congresswoman [Tammy] Baldwin and Congressman Frank created the Equality Caucus. These are all signs that the work is happening that needs to be done and we're thinking smarter about doing the ground work that needs to be done to pass legislation.

KEISLING: Absolutely. We were so close last fall. Now, there are a lot of people doing a lot of work around ENDA and I am confident that if we all get the grassroots and D.C. work done that has to be done, we will have sufficient votes to pass ENDA and even overcome any possible parliamentary maneuver from our opponents. That being said, most of us do not expect ENDA to come up right away in this Congress, though I wouldn't want to venture a guess more specific than that.

MW: How do you believe the landscape will change for GLBT federal workers under the new administration? Will Obama's pledge to extend domestic-partner benefits to federal workers come through?

HOADLEY: The landscape is changing because we have an administration that believes that all people are entitled to equal protection under the Constitution. I expect that President-elect Obama's transition team's policies will be models for inclusion moving forward. And with President-elect Obama as a Democrat who has championed the need for equal pay for equal work, I believe the extension of domestic-partner benefits for federal workers is likely in the first term.

KAWATA: We believe that Obama's pledge to ensuring an America for all Americans extends to LGBT people, in the workplace and in terms of domestic-partner benefits. It may not happen tomorrow, but I believe he will do all in his power to make this happen - we have to be sure that we are at the table to continue to educate his administrators and our representatives on these issues, and help push the necessary legislation through both houses. And we cannot neglect to make our opinions as LGBT leaders and community organizers known when it comes time to appoint Supreme Court justices. Legislation impacts everyday life; a Supreme Court decision can shape our way of life.

MW: The Bush administration has been lauded for its work in Africa on HIV/AIDS. How do you think an Obama administration will influence HIV/AIDS policy in the U.S.?

CAREY: We hope to work with the administration on a number of HIV/AIDS issues including, but not limited to, implementation of a national AIDS strategy and a greater focus on people of color, gay, bisexual and transgender people. We'll also advocate for more funding for domestic HIV prevention and a complete elimination of funding for abstinence-only education, which has been proved to be ineffective.

KAWATA: Obama's administration will need to focus on health disparities in the United States. These are directly related to socio-economic inequalities in this country, such as lack of access to health care, poverty, homeless, etc. These conditions have helped fuel HIV/AIDS infection rates in communities hardest hit by these problems - most of which, unfortunately, are communities of color.

NMAC is part of a coalition of national AIDS organizations of color that put together a document called ''Fighting AIDS in Communities of Color: An Action Agenda for the Next President,'' which calls for a multifaceted and comprehensive approach to HIV/AIDS issues domestically. In it, we called on the next president to implement seven points:

Rapidly put in place a National AIDS Strategy, as we require all recipients of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) funding to do.

Collect better data on HIV/AIDS in communities of color, so that we have a better understanding of the epidemic in this country.

Strengthen HIV-prevention efforts in the U.S., which have been under-funded during the Bush administration. Prevention interventions are much less expensive than HIV treatment and care.

Make knowledge of HIV status the norm in communities of color to ensure people know they are at risk.

Ensure universal access to high-quality HIV treatment and care, especially in communities that historically have had limited access to treatment and care.

Address the social determinants of HIV risk and vulnerability.

Help communities mobilize to fight HIV/AIDS.

ROBINSON: President-elect Obama has pledged to develop and implement a national AIDS plan. I believe that this plan will include a serious effort to address HIV prevention among gay men and undo the current abstinence-only efforts in favor of science-based interventions.

MW: What does the loss on same-sex marriage in California -- as well as Arizona and Florida -- plus the barring of adoption rights in Arkansas, say about the state of GLBT issues in America?

CAREY: With so many other bright spots and celebrations coming out of this election -- especially the history-changing election of President-elect Obama, which promises to be the most LGBT-friendly administration ever -- it is particularly painful to have these ballot-measure losses. The anger of many in our community is intense and palpable, but somehow we will all need to dig deep and channel our anger and sadness into fulfilling the promise of marriage equality across the country. Despite this setback in California, we have seen an unprecedented positive shift in public attitudes toward the freedom to marry in California - from 38 percent in our favor during the 2000 vote to 48 percent this election. In the other ballot measures, public opinion is steadily moving in our favor, and in time, with continued work and renewed investment, fairness and equality will ultimately prevail. We will get there.

HOADLEY: We need to do things differently if we expect different results. As someone who has run these types of campaigns before, I know the heartache that is felt after the campaign. However, we also need to hold people accountable for the results. Let's find out what worked and what did not work.

But let's also not delude ourselves. The majority of people in America don't support marriage equality yet. If we think they do, we're lying to ourselves.

KEISLING: I think all of us can be so proud of all of the education that we have done with the American public. The results were much more favorable to us than the last time -- and that is progress. Still, it is obvious that we haven't yet finished that job. Consider Congress: While clearly education of Congress around transgender issues and especially gay issues has been strong, there are still quite a few closeted, gay members of Congress. There may even be closeted trans members of Congress, though we are not aware of any or even any rumors.

ROBINSON: As a political matter these losses should be viewed as setbacks on our march toward justice. However, for LGBT people living in those states, for the children in Arkansas who need a home and a family now, and for the couples in Florida whose families are at risk, these are significant blows. The American dream has not come easy for women, people of color, the poor and the disabled. However, I am more hopeful than ever that we will continue to make progress.

SAMMON: It was incredibly disappointing. Particularly from my perspective, I was hoping that California was going to be the silver lining of the election. But it's certainly a wake-up call to the community that we need to keep working one person at a time to move people in the right direction. We made a lot of effort and investment to help defeat Proposition 8 with our Republicans Against 8 campaign. But there was this complacency that somehow victory was assured in California. I don't think enough gay and lesbian people understood the threat from this and I don't think enough people did all that they could to defeat Proposition 8.

MW: A number of rationales have emerged for the California loss -- minority voters supporting both Obama and Proposition 8, low turnout in some areas such as San Francisco, ''No on 8'' messages that avoided being too ''gay,'' etc. What do you think needs to be addressed among those in order to move forward in that state?

CAREY: The close vote was heartbreaking. In the end, the scare tactics and lies of the other side won out this time. We need to look at all the circumstances that led to the resulting loss. It will take time and careful analysis to understand all the variables that led to this outcome. That careful analysis has to happen so that rather than pointing fingers at any specific group or groups we can focus our energies on the development of winning strategies in the future. This unjust and disappointing outcome for tens of thousands of loving, committed couples and their families will now have to wait longer to be treated fairly under the law.

HOADLEY: Let's look at the data and find out what worked and what didn't work instead of all trying to be arm-chair pundits. It's easy to criticize in retrospect -- and we all love to do it -- but that's not fair to the campaigns. That said, clearly something didn't work right or we would have won. It doesn't do our movement any good moving forward if we pretend we won when the voters said we didn't.

KAWATA: Many people are still uninformed abut LBGT issues in this country out of ignorance. It is up to us as community organizers and LGBT leaders to educate the public and bring LBGT legislative concerns to the public consciousness. We should take to heart that Proposition 8 did not pass by the margin it probably would have four years ago.

KEISLING: We need to continue doing the public education that has taken us this far. I am very optimistic that we are winning and will ultimately prevail, but it means LGBT people and allies everywhere need to step out and step up even more.

ROBINSON: Our message must be clear, our team must be diverse and our resolve unwavering. We cannot win with an arm's length campaign. We must take our campaign in to the neighborhoods, homes, churches, synagogues and clubhouses throughout the state. In the end, we must win hearts and minds and never underestimate the power of fear.

SAMMON: It doesn't mean we're pointing fingers at anyone, but you have to acknowledge the numbers. The fact is Sen. Obama's presence on the ballot increased turnout -- four years ago, African Americans were 6 percent of the electorate in California, this year they were 10 percent and they voted in huge margins [for Proposition 8]. So let's figure out as a community how we can do better to engage people of color and really have a comprehensive strategy to gain allies for equality among African Americans.

SARVIS: Our community needs to work together to assess how we move forward now. There were heartbreaks and setbacks, but we start again. It's one vote at a time. We rebuild and we come back when we are ready.

(end)

No on 8 Official Grilled Over Campaign

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:43:02 -0500

by Dan Aiello

Underestimating their opponent's resources, an LGBT community lulled into complacency by an inaccurate Field Poll, a "pathetic" Web site that at times was not fully functioning, an under-funded initial media buy, and a campaign lacking statewide cohesion are just some of the reasons for Proposition 8's passage, a senior official with the No on 8 campaign told Sacramento LGBT Democrats Monday, November 10.

Members of the Stonewall Democrats were skeptical and frustrated with the remarks made by Steve Smith, a principal with Dewey Square who managed the No on 8 campaign.

"To win you have to define the issue, and we didn't do that," said Smith, who claimed that the campaign was "under-resourced" relative to Prop 8's proponents.

The No on 8 campaign raised an estimated $37 million, according to preliminary state records, while Yes on 8 raised approximately $35 million.

But the No on 8 campaign also failed to predict the proponent's argument, Smith said, and he believes that was in large part because the Yes on 8 campaign wasn't sure itself.

"If you watch their first ad, they had three different messages," Smith said. Those messages were, definition of marriage, a church's tax-exempt status, and kids, explained Smith.

In the end, the issue of kids and schools became the focal point of Yes on 8, and that left opponents scrambling and on the defensive.

"Why did we lose? It really boils down to three or four things. From the beginning we said we had to get on TV first and we had to define the issue. We got up on TV four or five days before them, but we got up on TV, frankly, under-resourced than, in fact, where we needed to be."

Smith said that although the Yes on 8 campaign got up on TV almost a week later, "They did so at about twice the buy that we did. And their ad was a screamer - 'whether you like it or not!' I mean, if I never hear that phrase again ... it was a real grabber. It actually didn't say almost anything at all. What it did do was communicate a message 'all those goddamned politicians and all those judges.' That's what it did. And people are so mad at politicians."

Speaking to the Bay Area Reporter before the meeting, Smith admitted that he was caught by surprise both by the resources of the Yes on 8 campaign as well as by its strategy.

"When we planned the campaign, we thought they'd have $15 million. When it became clear that they didn't, that they had a lot more than that, we retooled," he said.

Smith claimed that the No on 8 campaign first realized it had underestimated its opponent's resources with the Yes campaign's first ad buy, "which was 50 percent more than ours."

As the campaign intensified, Smith himself was relieved of some of his authority in October, when Patrick Guerriero was brought in from Massachusetts as campaign director for No on 8. Smith said that he was fine with the change, and that more people were needed to help run the campaign.

Money

Smith defended the campaign's first ad, which featured Sam and Julia Thoron, the parents of a lesbian daughter.

"The Thoron ad was a good ad, it worked, it grabbed people's emotions quite well. It especially worked among women," he said. "For the four or five days it was up by itself we moved poll numbers our direction. The problem was, the minute they put that grabber up, within three days it started evening out and then they put up the next ad with the kids."

"The second problem was, simply, money," said Smith. "And I'm not saying we didn't have a lot, we did, we had plenty that we should have been able to win. We ended up spending very nearly $40 million dollars, more than anybody had ever spent on this kind of race. What stunned us was we planned a campaign thinking we had to raise and spend $20 million, maybe 25, and they'd have $15 million."

Smith claims that after the first TV buy where the Yes campaign bought nearly twice the No campaign, he "thought something was up."

"Then about a week later the reports got published and we found out was happening," he said. Smith claims the Mormon Church had asked its members to donate through the Internet in amounts just under the reporting requirement of $1,000, which effectively hid the donations from the No on 8 campaign.

"So there was just a ton of Internet contributions and checks that we had no idea were there. So that was mistake number two."

Smith said a turning point came in early October, after the campaign held an emergency conference call with LGBT media outlets, announcing the No campaign was behind in polling and fundraising.

"We did it late," said Smith, who said such a call was counterintuitive. "We said 'here's our polling data and we're behind.'"

Smith said the resulting coverage immediately brought in both financial and personnel resources.

"The community woke up. We should've done that earlier. It felt bizarre to do it, but it worked."

Web snafus

Smith acknowledged to a Stonewall member who criticized the campaign's Web site as "pathetic" and "a Web site someone would've been proud of in 1996," that the campaign initially failed to effectively utilize the Internet. According to Smith, it wasn't until six to eight weeks before the election that the Web site was fixed by volunteers supplied by Google, and the results were immediate. In the months prior to the Web site fix, the No on 8 campaign raised "only about $1 million in Internet contributions." In the last six weeks, "we raised approximately $22 million," said Smith.

Smith told the B.A.R. that an early Field Poll showing Prop 8 losing by 10-15 points "was pure fiction. We were never that far ahead."

Smith explained that polling showed Californians favored same-sex marriage by about two to four points before the May 15 Supreme Court ruling.

"After the court ruling we actually fell behind by a few points," he said. "We fought our way back up on 'marriage day' to where we were just slightly behind."

Then for those four days when the Thoron ad was up on television alone the campaign edged four to five points ahead. That was the last time Smith believed the campaign enjoyed a lead. A week later, "when they hit us [with the Newsom ad], we fell behind by 10 points."

Ads

The third mistake, though Smith wasn't sure if it was a mistake or not, was "a judgment call" on the campaign's second to the last ad. Smith explained that polling had told them they needed to avoid using the word "discrimination," because minority communities, especially African Americans, were offended by it. The phrase "treat people differently" consistently polled nine to 10 points higher than using the word "discrimination," he said.

The discrimination ad, featuring the voice of actor Samuel L. Jackson, compared Prop 8's discriminatory language to the discrimination experienced by Japanese Americans, Armenians in the Central Valley, and interracial couples prevented from marrying each other under California's anti-miscegenation statute that was repealed by the state Supreme Court in 1948 (Perez v. Sharp). That ad also showed images of same-sex couples. The lack of gay and lesbian couples in the campaign's ads was a chief complaint by Stonewall members, and was a complaint made often by community members in San Francisco and elsewhere in the weeks leading up to the election.

Smith defended the ads run by the campaign, which he said were developed by three different firms, one in San Diego, one in Los Angeles, and one in Sacramento. "The Thoron ad moved numbers. The [Jack] O'Connell ad moved numbers. The [Dianne] Feinstein ad moved numbers."

Smith said that the campaign's last tracking on the Sunday before the election had the race at 47-47.

Smith believed that the primary goal of the campaign, to "define the issue," was never reached, and if the electorate isn't convinced of change, they will vote down a proposition.

"We were never the 'No' campaign," contended Smith. "In voter's heads, going into the voting booth, we were the side asking for change." Smith also believes that in poor economic times voters become more conservative. Had the economy not tanked before the election, "It might have been harder for [Barack] Obama to win, but it would have been easier for us."

Smith's strategy focused on only 20 percent of Californians, believing that 40 percent were always "with us" and 40 percent were always against us. "Ultimately, the other side was successful in scaring that 20 percent into believing this would turn their children into homosexuals. They preached fear and played to intolerance and won."

Smith said this was a particularly "hard loss because the other side won by bullshitting."

Another Stonewall member questioned the campaign's strategy of focusing on the coastal areas and not campaigning statewide in all 54 California counties, comparing it to Obama's 50-state strategy.

"If I had it to do over again I'd have begun advertising in the Fresno market earlier, but Fresno's only 10 percent of state voters," Smith said. "We didn't lose because we lost a few points in Fresno. We lost because we missed seven or eight points in L.A."

Smith remained optimistic, despite the loss, and pointed out that the gains made in the eight years since Proposition 22 passed is "the largest movement on a social issue" he's seen in his entire career.

"The trend is so far in our favor," he said. "Whether the court overturns it in three months or the voters overturn it in two years, I guarantee you we will look back on this" as only a temporary setback.

Smith asked everyone to get the message out to the community not to act out. "It's hard not to act out, but I'm telling you, don't act out. The spray paint on the Mormon Church, that hurts us. Any violence, that hurts us."

Smith, who is straight, encouraged the LGBT community not to despair.

"Things are trending our way. Even [the Yes on 8 folks] think it's going that way, and they're scared."

Smith said that the No on 8 resources, including a list of thousands of donors, "including a lot of straight money," an incredible network and the religious and other allies gained over the course of the campaign will be instrumental in any future battles.

(end)

Stonewall Strategy: PAC'em in!

kbailey — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:01:36 -0400

Make no mistake about it, the future of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights movement is at stake in this election. If McCain wins, ENDA, hate crimes, domestic partner benefits for federal employees - all those issues so critically important to us and to the strength of our families - will stall or even fail.

Not only must we win at the top of the ticket with Barack Obama and Joe Biden, we need to elect pro-equality Democrats up and down the ticket from coast to coast and build our numbers in government and advance progressive legislation that creates greater opportunity for all Americans.

CLICK HERE to review the Stonewall Strategy for Election 2008.

Please consider a generous contribution of $5000, $2500, $1000, $500, $250, or $100 to the National Stonewall Democrats PAC to ensure we have the resources necessary to invest in our local chapters, elect pro-equality Democrats and defeat anti-marriage equality ballot initiatives across the country.

CLICK HERE to make a secure online contribution to the Stonewall Democrats PAC.

Your PAC contribution will be put to work immediately in the remaining 30 days of this election to ensure pro-equality Democratic pick-ups in the U.S. House and Senate, as well as in targeted state legislative races across the country, including in Texas where Democrats are down by only 5 seats in the state house.

Paid for by National Stonewall Democrats PAC. 1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20005. Stephen Discoll (Pembroke, MA) and Laurie McBride (Sacramento, CA), Co-Chairs. Jeffrey Tooke (Buffalo, NY), Treasurer. Contributions not deductible for tax purposes. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Solicitations to National Stonewall Democrats Political Action Committee are reserved for dues-paid members.

Response to CT Marriage Ruling

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:42:57 -0400

Washington, DC - Today, the National Stonewall Democrats applauded the Connecticut Supreme Court for recognizing the freedom of all Connecticut couples to marry. In today's ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court declared that state statute, which denies equal access to civil marriage is unconstitutional under the equal protections and due process guarantees of the state constitution.

"All couples in Connecticut should enjoy the freedom to marry, and we recognize that this ruling allows thousands of committed couples to take the legal steps necessary to secure their unions and deeper their responsibilities to one another," said Jon Hoadley, Executive Director. "This ruling is not only good for thousands of Connecticut couples, but it is good for Connecticut itself as this ruling legally stabilizes existing families and encourages others to take on the legal responsibilities of marriage."

In its ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court citied the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Loving vs. Virginia which overturned that state's prohibition on interracial marriage. In that, the Connecticut Supreme Court declared that current civil union law of Connecticut "'entitles same sex couples to all the same rights as married couples except one, that is, the freedom to marry, a right that "has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men [and women]' and 'fundamental to our very existence and surrival'." (Loving vs. Virginia)
Connecticut now joins California and Massachusetts in recognizing civil marriage for same-sex couples.

The presidential campaign of John McCain and Sarah Palin continue to support anti-marriage initiatives on the ballot this year in Arizona, California and Florida. In previous years, John McCain and Sarah Palin have personally campaigned for anti-marriage initiatives in their home states of Arizona and Alaska. In 2006, McCain cut a television commercial which pleaded for Arizona voters to pass such an initiative. Voters rejected the plea and rejected the initiative at the ballot box.

Candidate Profile: Democrat Matt Heinz

Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:51:58 -0400

by Arizona Star staff

Name: Matt Heinz

Office seeking: State Representative, District 29

Party registration: Democrat

Age: 31

Occupation/employer: Physician (TMC)/IPC Hospitalists of Arizona Inc.

Family: Single

Religion: Lutheran

Residence: Armory Park

Education: Residency/internship, internal medicine, University of Arizona, 2006; Doctor of Medicine, Wayne State University School of Medicine, 2003; Bachelor of Arts, chemistry with Spanish minor, Albion College, 1999

Offices held/run for: Ran unsuccessfully for the state House in 2006

Civic activities/organizations: Healthy Arizona, treasurer; Democrats of Greater Tucson; Southern Arizona Stonewall Democrats; Equality Arizona.

Why are you running? I am running to serve the needs of Southern Arizona families, especially to assure access to quality health care and to strengthen education. As a healer, I feel that it is my obligation to do whatever is necessary to enhance the health and wellness of my community. Given the state of our medical system in Arizona, the best place for me to advocate for real solutions is in the legislature.

The biggest issue facing my constituents is: Continued rapid growth in the context of faltering health-care and education systems with limited water resources

Favorite local hangout: The Cup at Hotel Congress

NPR or Fox? I get my news from a variety of sources, but I prefer the programming on NPR

How long have you lived in Arizona? 5 years

What kind of vehicle do you drive? 1999 Toyota Camry Solara

What kind of mileage does it get? 19 city/27 highway

If I could have dinner with any living person, I would choose: Sen. Edward Kennedy. Ted Kennedy is one of the longest-serving U.S. senators, and he has demonstrated tremendous ability to work with members of both parties to achieve progress on many issues over the last several decades. He is an especially passionate advocate for the health-care needs of our people.

If I had my own reality show, it would be titled: "E.R.: The Real Deal"

First job: Paper route

(end)

NYC Stonewall Dems Revoke Three Endorsements

Fri, 3 Oct 2008 12:50:17 -0400

by Joelle Quartini

The Stonewall Democrats of New York City (SDNYC) met this week to rethink its political endorsements. Activists and statewide advocacy group Empire State Pride Agenda had criticized the club for backing candidates who haven’t supported the LGBT community.

Stonewall Dems stood behind some of the previously disputed endorsements, but revoked three that had been approved before the primaries. They are:

• Assembly member Karim Camara, District 43, who was absent for the vote on same-sex marriage equality when it was on the floor last summer, and who voted no on the Gender Expression Non-discrimination Act (GENDA) this summer.

• Assembly member William Colton, District 47, who voted no on marriage but yes on GENDA

• Assembly member Barbara Clark, District 33, who voted yes on GENDA but stood up during the marriage equality vote and denounced gay marriage.
“There was a much more informed vote this time,” said Stonewall Dems’ president Matthew Carlin.

The club’s Sept. 24 ballot listed whether the club had previously endorsed the candidate, the candidate’s vote on GENDA and marriage equality and recommendations from the Stonewall Dem’s board.

Club members sustained endorsement for Nettie Mayersohn, District 27, who voted yes on GENDA and marriage equality but has been criticized for controversial HIV/AIDS bills, and Steven Cymbrowitz and Ruben Diaz Jr., who both voted no one marriage but yes on GENDA.

Margaret Markey, District 30, who voted yes on GENDA, and is believed to be moving toward Marriage, is now being endorsed, although she was not endorsed in the original vote.

Carlin said the club decided not to reject candidates simply based on their marriage equality vote.

“Their vote on GENDA can be used as an indication that they do believe in civil rights in our community, and we want to work with them in the future on marriage,” Carlin said.

Helen Weinstein, District 41, voted yes on GENDA and marriage equality, and is now being endorsed, as well as Aurelia Greene, District 77, and Carl Heastie, District 83.

Carlin said the organization will take steps before the next election, when more than 100 City Council candidates will be on the ballot, to include a voter’s guide or at least indicate where the candidate stands on LGBT issues.

“We’ll be paying more attention to endorsing in races where the candidate requests the endorsement,’ Carlin said.

“This could have been avoided if we hadn’t endorsed in every race,” he added. “Some of the candidates may not have wanted it.”

(end)

Gay Democrats Unhappy with Palin

Fri, 3 Oct 2008 12:48:43 -0400

by Sachin Seth

The National Stonewall Democrats are angry with Gov. Sarah Palin over a remark she made branding sexual orientation as a personal choice.

In her recent interview with Katie Couric of CBS News, Palin was asked to clarify her stance regarding sexual orientation since it had been discovered that Palin’s church still promoted controversial “conversion therapy” for gays and lesbians.

Palin answered, “I am not going to judge Americans and the decisions they make in their adult personal relationships.”

The NSD responded with a statement, obviously outraged that Palin perceived sexual orientation to be a personal choice.

“For Governor Palin to suggest that individuals randomly choose their sexual orientation based on nothing but a whim is wrong,” said executive director Jon Hoadley.

There has been much evidence to the contrary of Palin’s opinion in the scientific community, and the NSD also beleives that being gay or lesbian is not a personal choice.

The NSD supports Sen. Barack Obama for president because of his pro-equality views regarding gays and lesbians.

This outrage from the NSD won’t really affect the campaign, but Palin’s view on gays and lesbians may. Obama and Biden are more pro-equality than Palin is, as witnessed in last night’s debate where she tried to dodge the issue when asked on her stance.

She and Biden both share the same view, that the traditional values of marriage should remain between a man and a woman, but while Biden supports equality on every other stage, Palin was a little hesitant; a sign of her disapproval.

Personally, I believe the tradition of marriage lies in what it symbolizes not the technicalities of its definition, so for me, gays marrying is OK. But I do believe that the decision should lie with the state not the federal government.

Check out my live blog of the VP debate for more info on the candidates’ personal views.

(end)