NO BACK SEATS

STAND UP AND BE COUNTED!!!!

Did you know that Disney’s Grand California Hotel is hosting the Pacific Justice Institute’s annual gala on April 2? Dick Morris & Michelle Bachman are keynotes and VIP reception hosted by Focus on the Family.

http://www.pacificjustice.org/events/celebration-justice

Mickey is not pleased. It just so happens that April 2 is also mini-Gay Day at Disney (hah!) and the park will be replete with LGBT folks.

If Disney is going to continue to cal itself a welcoming place for LGBT people and our families, they need to know that hosting this group sends the exact opposite message.

Here are some links to PJI messaging about LGBT people and our families:

http://www.pacificjustice.org/search/node/homosexual

Please take a moment to contact Disney and let them know that we are very hurt by their decision to host these groups whose message is that there is something wrong with LGBT people and whose aim is to make sure LGBT people do not have equal rights.

You can call and email and let them know the following:

Disney Parks and Resorts have been a welcoming place for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people and their families. The Pacific Justice Institute has a proven track record of endorsing harmful rhetoric about LGBT people and families and opposing equality for all families. Therefore, hosting a Pacific Justice Institute event would contradict and call into question Disney’s ongoing commitment to creating positive experiences for all families and inclusion of LGBT people. We urge Disney Parks and Resorts to reconsider their involvement with this event which will contribute to harming families.

The contact number for booking meetings such at this Disneyland: (714) 520-7025.

E-mail: disneylandgroupRFP@disneyonline.com

Next up - Gay Day at Disney and a possible welcoming committee for PJI and Focus on the Family… Could the timing be any better???

Feel free to share this info!

I have a sincere question and I hope people will provide me some insight on this one. How do those of us who call ourselves Progressives, Democrats, Compassionate, and JUST, reconcile waiting for our government to be ready to grant LGBT people full equal rights in this country, in this time in history? 

How can people pay hundreds, even thousands of dollars to go to a fundraiser and sit there, eating overcooked dead meat, without actively acknowledging that their family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, are denied equality on a daily basis?

I appreciate the victory of each step; like the healthcare rights memorandum Obama just issued. I believe we must continue to protest loudly as long as people are being denied equality. It seems quite simple to me.

I hope my friends can provide me some enlightenment here…

This year, for the first time ever, LGBT groups marched in Westminster’s TET parade, celebrating the Vietnamese Lunar New Year.  A couple of groups, including Knights of Columbus, chose not to participate (boo hoo) in the parade because the LGBT groups were marching. From all reports those groups lost out on a wonderful parade and the opportunity to celebrate California’s Vietnamese community.

(Photo by Mark Miller)

In addition to marching in the Parade, LGBT groups were also represented for the first time at a TET festival booth all weekend. The booth was shared by Courage Campaign and Equality California and in a bizarre twist of irony (or because whoever determined the festival booth locations has a curious sense of humor), our booth was located right next to the Orange County Republican Party booth! What a perfect opportunity for lots of courageous conversations. I spent the afternoon there today, handing out info and stickers. It was a very busy booth. So many people stopped by - young and old and in between (but I would say mostly young). What was also very cool were the many young parents who came by with their children in tow, and some young LGBT folks with their parents, and a few teenagers rallying around a gay or lesbian friend.

The resistance to having the LGBT groups march in the parade and the decision by some groups not to participate landed  like a thump that went nowhere - that kind of attitude just won’t fly anymore.  On the other hand, the warm reception the marchers received and the uplifting energy that surrounded the Courage Campaign/EQCA booth will resonate long after the festival ends.  It is a sign that much has changed, and a colorful one at that!

I am so grateful to Minh Nguyen, an Orange County Courage Campaign Team Leader, and to Team Courage OC, for having the courage and vision to have a table at the festival and for all involved for supporting the brave marchers at yesterday’s parade. Today I was proud to be from Orange County!

Their tweet: @protectmarriage “Lesbian who married during legal window in CA said she did so in “defiance of the war-mongering, fundamentalist regime in DC.” #prop8”

My tweet: Didn’t we all?

Here is one of very few tweets by the Yes on 8 side (as the expert testimony today are witnesses for the plaintiffs, No on 8 side) - wait - background - the witness, Dr. George Chauncey, (no, not Peter Sellers) is a gay history expert & is discussing crimes & discrim. against LGBT people; Yes on 8 tweet states: “Plaintiff’s expert on history of homosexuals, Dr. George Chauncey, on stand tlkg abt homosex crimes, discrim, etc.”

Now, if this is all you read, what do you think Dr. Chauncey is talking about?

More to come.

POUND PROP 8

day 1, morning session, part 1

I was a bit obsessed with todays tweets about the Prop 8 trial.  I was so glad to find that there were people live tweeting from inside the courtroom, after waking up to the disappointing news that the trial would not be televised/YouTubed (at least until Wednesday).  Those tweeters became our eyes and ears today, and I wanted to capture and share as much of what they saw and heard as possible. So, I created a twitter list of only those people tweeting from within the courtroom, and then copied and pasted their tweets into a word doc in sections.  It was massive, and I had to go through each tweet to get rid of all the extraneous stuff and I wasn’t able to make sure the tweets were all lined up with the right twitterer, so I just kept the tweets. I did not change a single tweet. There are some great quotes in here. The twitterers are listed below, and I thank them for their amazing tweets; they seemed to be able to capture all the right moments.

I think the tweets tell an amazing story; about what was said in the courtroom, what the twitterers heard, and what they thought was most relevant to report.  I did cut out tweets that had nothing to do with trial, but you will see that there were many times the tweeters couldn’t help but add a thought or two of their own.

The thing is, unless someone can find me a way to reverse the order, you have to read it from the bottom up! So, here is part one. This is like one hour of tweets from the start of the trial until the first break.

I will try to get more done soon.  I’d love to know what people think.

The Tweeters:

@ilona

@FedcourtJunkie

@ACLU_NorCal

@NCLRights

@TheAdvocateMag

@rebecca_f

REMEMBER, sometimes there are different tweets by different twitterers about the same thing, and you have to START AT THE BOTTOM and READ UP!

END Part 1

On short break now, reconvene in a few

Cooper: Marriage equality, through which more people would be allowed to marry, will lead to fewer marriages

Olson: Prop 8 relegates people to “second-class citizenship”

On my way out of the court bldg: scruffy guy alone holding a badly-written sign: “no gay rights.”

Opening arguments are finished in the #prop8 trial. Signing off live tweeting.

Cooper last line: “People of cal entitled to make decision for themselves, and they have.”

Cooper: Marriage discrimination is OK as purpose of marriage is “procreative activity”

Cooper is working hard to distinguish racial restrictions on marriage from #Prop8 - not really succeeding.

Cooper: “Yes, restrictions on women in marriage have been elminated. But those have largely fallen away thru legislative process.”

Olson: Pre-Loving v. Virginia, our president’s parents could not have married in VA at time of his birth

Cooper is trying to make marriages for same-sex couples seem somehow less important than hetero marriage.

Cooper keeps drawing a distinction btw plantiffs’ view of marriage (“personal fulfillment”) and traditional view (social institution)

Cooper: plaintiff claims that #Prop8 products of animosity are “unsupported and unsupportable”

Defendants will deliver “predictions” about the damage same sex marriage brings.

Marriage rates down. Cohabitations rates up. Pro child institution. Blah blah blah.

Cooper: (Thinks bisexual means having two partners: 1 man & 1 woman.) Worried about future bi rights claims.

On questioning from Judge, Cooper says he will present evidence of his “harms” arg. Says plaintiffs can’t prove there isn’t harm.

Now we’re talking about bisexuals who want to mary two people.

Olson: when individuals are treated differently…excluded from our schools…or cannot marry…they come to the courts

Cooper: there’s a link btw marriage for same-sex couples and harm. e.g., lower marriage rates.

Cooper: “Prop 8 will likely lead to more divorce, more cohabiting, more children raised outside marriage.”

Cooper: “Question is, is marriage pro-child or about personal fulfillment?”

Cooper: evidence from foreign countries like holland shows marital rates have declined after ssex marriage approved

Cooper: Same sex marriage is “too novel an experiment”

#prop8 if upheld will lead to lower marriage rates, Cooper says

Olson: Each of the rationalizations for Prop 8 fails; no good reason to justify its discrimination

Walker: what evidence that ssex marriage will harm children? Cooper: because it will make marriage no longer “pro-child”

#prop8 supporters have said “pro-child institution” about 500 times in the last 2 minutes

cooper: The debate is whether this institution will remain pro-child or whether it will be for personal fulfillment

Olson: “plaintiffs are being denied the right to marry and equality under the law”

Cooper: marriage is all about natural procreation. Back to the argument that children are best off with hetero parents.

Cooper: def of marriage hasn’t changed for 1000s of yrs. Judge: What about prev ban on interracial marriage?

Cooper: marriage increases the chances that a child will be raised by both its mother and father

Cooper: marriage is socially approved sexual intercourse

Judge asks: is that the only reason for marriage

Cooper: CA has passed comprehensive non-discrimination laws for gay people. Higher level of scrutiny should not apply?

Cooper: marriage is for procreating. It’s a pro child societal institution

Cooper: marriage “is a pro child societal institution.”

Racial restriction have nothing to do with the definition of marriage says Cooper

Cooper: gay people have lots of political power in California.

Cooper: “Racial restrictions were never definitional part of marriage.”

Cooper: 14 million Californians voted in Nov 2008 election and 52% voted yes on 8

Cooper says that’s different. Race based marriage restrictions were of an entirely different nature

Cooper: Prop 8 reflects not hostility to gays but “special regard for this venerable institution.” #prop8

Judge Walker: Pres. Obama’s parents couldn’t have married in some states. Why is this similar law OK?

Olson: Law “based on characteristics of an individual” is “not constitutional”

Charles Cooper, lawyer defending #Prop8 on behalf of Yes on 8 has started his opening statement.

Judge notes obama’s parents couldn’t have married in virginia, so hasn’t the definition of marriage changed

Bad guys quoting obama now from his campaign on marriage btwn one man and one woman

Yes on 8’s Chuck Cooper is up now: says gays and lesbians have been “immensely successful” in achieving goals thru politics

Cooper: calif is strongly supportive of gay rights and gay people have significant political power.

Olson: “In short, in the words of the highest court in the land, marriage is the most important relationship in life.”

Neither CA Gov nor state AG are making any opening statements. AG’s atty concedes that the AG’s position = #Prop8 unconstitutional.

Cooper stumbles over saying “LGBT community”

Cooper (attorney for the bad guys): Calif voters corrected the calif sup ct’s misunderstanding on marriage in #prop8.

Charles Cooper giving opening stmt for Prop 8 proponents: “People of CA have been generous to gays & lesbians.”

Cooper, lead attorney for the defendants (ie #prop8 supporters) is up. Boo.

Stewart: “Health care, when denied, that health care coverage has to be provided by someone”.

Sf’s Terry Stewart: denial of health care benefits, hate crimes born by discrimination cost gvt money

Therese Stewart (City of San Francisco, an intervenor) discrim & stigma for same-sex couples = higher costs for local gov.

Stewart: Tell the parents of the murdered oxnard teen, to parents in arkansas who can’t adopt that anti-gay discrim isn’t real

Olson in closing: The purpose of the Constitution is to ensure equal protection of laws, especially to minorities.

Terry Stewart giving opening for City of SF. Judge Walker trying to keep focus on economic effects of Prop 8 on govt.

Olson: plaintiffs will put on evidence that gay people just as good parents as straight people.

TedO last line: “We have courts to declare those measures unconstitutional.. That is why were here today.”

Olson: #prop8 labels gay people as different and inferior.

YesOn8 cited parenting: CA should be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples b/c ideal parents are a hetero couple.

Walker: “Why shouldn’t the courts just stand back and let this develop? TedO (with voice hushed): “Because that is why we have courts.”

Olson: this is why we have courts.the 14th amendment . The constitution. #prop8 (judge asked why courts should weigh in)

Ted Olson: “Idea that taking away marriage is OK because they still have domestic partnership is a cruel fiction.”

Worth noting that state of CA - Governor and AG represented separately - are not defending law.

Olson is now describing the rationales presented by defendant-intervenors in defense of prop8

Olson: Circumstances around #prop8 passing in CA make it unique - more like the CO amendment struck down in http://bit.ly/8e2YQJ #calgbt

Olson: The quality of parenting is not determined by gender but by the content of the heart

TedO: “Quality of a parent is not measured by gender but by the content of their heart.” That line got a “mmmm” from some in the courtroom

Olson: procreation cannot be a justification for #prop8 . Civil marriage in this country has never been tied this    

Olson: #prop8 perpetuates discrimination and for no good marriage.

Olson: Domestic partnership compared to marriage is a badge of inferiority (like corporate status not loving union)

Olson: Interracial marriage was once outlawed extensively, and only struck down by the Supreme Court in 1967.

Ted Olson: Domestic partnerships as badges of inferiority

TedO: Domestic partnerships sound like “something akin to a commercial venture,” not a loving relationship

Judge Walker: If #prop8 unconstitutional, what about the Defense of Marriage Act?

Judge: if #prop8 is unconstitutional, what about the defense of marriage act?

Olson: attitudes change when people are educated. Hopes the sup ct will allow people to hear from the plaintiffs how discrimation harms …

Olson: discrimination weakens the institution of marriage. Mentions obama’s parents & miscegenation.

Ted olson: the institution of marriage has changed over time.

Walker: If same sex cples can marry, will it change institution? TedO: Won’t change it. Will fulfill it.

Olson: laws based on moral disapproval or animus of certain indiv characteristics [race/sexual orientation] aren’t constitutional.

ted olson: allowing same sex couples to marry will fulfill the institution of marriage

Olson is describing the evidence plaintiffs will put on trial. Prop 8 was motivated by animus.

RT @ACLU_NorCal: Judge Walker and Ted Olson discussing whether CA could get out of the marriage biz altogether

Olson: the state could do this [nix marriage], but the people wouldn’t want to.

Domestic partnerships for everyone?

Judge Walker and Ted Olson discussing whether CA could get out of the marriage biz altogether

RT @ACLU_NorCal: Ted Olson, lead lawyer for plaintiffs, is describing what marriage means in his opening statement.Ted Olson, lead lawyer for plaintiffs, is describing what marriage means in his opening statement.

TedO: “That may solve the prolem. That will never happen. The people of California…will not get out of the marriage business.”

Olson: sanction from the state of a relationship is tied to societal acceptance.

TedO: Yes it could

Judge has questions right away. Seems to be asking about the issue of marriage vs issuing marriage licenses.

Walker jumps right in with questions during TedO openings. “Could the state get out of the marriage license business?”

Opening statments begin. Ted olson up first.

Judge announced no video or audio recording of trial until Supreme Court has chance to review in more depth on Wed.

judge: public’s right to access court proceedings is important.

Judge reports 138,542 comments received as of 5pm Friday supporting #prop8 trial being televised. 32 comments were opposed.

Walker is cleaning up the record re: cameras in the court. Sez there was a ndca court meeting after 9thC approved pilot to change local rule

Court now in session. All attorneys have introduced themselves to Judge Walker.

Judge talking about sup ct stay of #prop8 trial video being posted on you tube.

introductions of attorneys for both sides.