The underutilization of gay affirming clergy has always been a strategy dismissed by the secular activists who militate against who is always seemingly in the forefront of homophobic activism.

Gay-affirming clergy was used quite successfully in Canada...where the United Church of Canada, the largest Protestant denomination.....actually support same-sex marriage and perform them every day.

They stood, along with Anglican and other clergy and the MCC, against the diatribes and malevolence of the Assemblies of God in particular and of course, the Roman Catholic Church.

This is a secular, humanistic, legal and civil rights issue primarily, but you dismiss the theocrats at your own peril always. The Dutch understood it with the Calvinists....as did the Spanish and the Belgians with the Catholics.

The two largest denominations in the US are the Roman Catholics and the Southern Baptist Convention. I would not consider either allies, would you?

Now segue.....incrementalism is the problem with many of our activist groups. The message of equality is often diluted behind other needy issues that fall in line when marriage equality exists.
That is not the problem with activist groups whose mission statement is marriage, obviously. However, with the HRC, it certainly is a secondary track. It offends so many of their clients they lobby.

I feel the passage of Prop H8 was a defeat that was larger than California, and that is saying almost everything. It gives impetus to our enemies, and their success elsewhere proves it.

As goes California, so goes the nation...........eventually !

It seems that when push comes to shove, President-elect Obama quietly moves to fit his " no drama " moniker.

In the case of Senator Burris, the solution was to not accept his loud disruption, and he is now seated, or soon to be. Reflect upon the way that we acquiesced to first, his Saddleback appearance and emphasis upon the heterosexist homophobic definition of marriage and then the Warren invitation. Our answer was three outstretched fingers asking us to ST*U and read between the lines.

There is NOTHING that the Democratic Party will do at the DNC, in Congress, and soon the WH, that will not have the overt or covert hand of Barack Obama calling the plays.

Barack Obama is a neo-liberal and a Corporatist. His appointments and decisions reflect this fact already. The Elite have been assured that he knows and understands who truly yields power in the nation, and how they are tied internationally.

The great concern with both neocons and neolibs is wealth and greed and economic hegemony. Psychosexual orientation and equal justice connected with the last minority has that part of the base, usually classic liberals, acting out passive aggressively for a short period of time before their leaders redirect their anger.

Will we get, first repeal of DOMA? Then, there would be a Federal Civil Rights act that says that states decide marriage or union and that regardless, full federal taxation rights and other privileges devolve upon same-sex couples?

Or will they give us hate crimes as the only sop, along with ENDA until they divide the community over transgender?

I don't know. But what is sure, and bears repeating. The neolib and neocon compromise will be the only means toward our rights.
Rest assured, we both will be very unhappy.

 I think it's great to have multiple ways to mobilize the supportive community. I agree with the article, though, more needs to be done to involve the "grassroots" folks way ahead of time, and keep them involved.
Frankly, I was surprised GLBT rights were not upheld in this election, it seems a no-brainer for most Californians I know.
So, I think the article is correct.
The way the proposition was worded confused a lot of people, too i.e " Vote Yes for No", and it's entirely possible that many people who thought they were voting "FOR" GLBT rights voted "yes".
I know a lot of people --hmmmmm- who don't throughly read their voter pamphlets.

Since I'm not GLBT, I have to admit these issues aren't usually in the forefront of my consciousness, although I do support them.
Therefore, I rely on my friends who are affected by these laws to help me understand what's at stake , and to get informed/prepared when it's time to vote. I think there's a lot of potential voters in just my situation.

So just getting it out of the GLBT community to the general public needs to happen,sooner--- more so in smaller towns/areas where there might only be a handful of GLBT who understandably don't want to make themselves personal targets for potential backlash from hatemonger. The internet is a great way to do this, but also maybe hetero friends and relatives in front of their local supermarket handing out leaflets every so often for several months before the election.

I have just finished reading excerpts from the report. I hope to read the entire text soon.

What I have read seems to suggest that the LGBT forces were aware that the Mormon/Catholic/Assemblies coalition was formidable, and that people and resources would excite low information voters and theocratic ideologues to vote for PropH8.

Implied in some suggestions was that there was too much reliance upon the Obama presidential campaign "support" of No on H8 without appreciating the damage done with his Saddleback reaffirmation of heterosexist marriage.

Of course, my essential concern is always that there are too many competing organizations with primary goals other than the primacy of marriage equality. The information consumer who is heterosexual and gay affirming often wonder whether or not the sole definition of LGBT human rights is civil marriage.

It was in Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, South Africa, Norway and soon Sweden and Nepal  and guess what?

QUESTION - WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT WILL REPEAL PROPOSITION H8?

First of all, California is a state where the California Constitution can be amended by a simple referendum vote. Name me another state without huge safeguards to their most prestigious document?

Her name was Rose Bird. She was chief justice of the California Supreme Court. She and two other associate justices were opposed to the death penalty. Of course, the right wing was incensed that she would stay executions. A referendum had all three expelled from the Supreme Court.

Ever since then, the California Supreme Court justices are very careful and take politics into consideration. After all, who wants to lose a lifetime appointed tenure. Many US states elect their state supreme and lower courts for a set term running as a Democrat or Republican.

There are seven (7) members of the CA Supreme Court. All but one were appointed by Republican Governors Schwarnegger, Pete Wilson, or George Deukmejian.  Only ousted Governor Gray Davis appointed one associate justice.

All of them are over 60. Chief Justice Ronald M. George (R) and Associate Justice Marvin Baxter (R) are both 69 this year. Associate Justice Kathryn Werdegar (R) 66,  Associate Justice Ming W. Chin (R), 64 while three are 61 -Associate Justice Joyce Kennard (R) , Associate Justice Carol Corrigan (R) and the sole Democrat Associate Justice Carlos Moreno (D).

It is wrong to assume that the Democrat is a liberal, or that all the Republicans are conservatives. Yet, having read their many decisions, it seems that one eye is peeled on law and the other firmly on the political winds. I am sure they remember the Infamous Three.

The case will reach the court for actual discussion in March of 2009, and I suppose that it will take whatever time they have to accurately take the political pulse to keep their jobs.....and .....er....I say cynically, to establish justice in the land.

The above posting was a question ? What am I missing when I believe that the CA Supreme Court will wait until summer or fall of 2009 in order to decide the Prop H8 case?

Will it take another referendum to repeal the former proposition? How strong is the legal case. Our moderator is a Harvard Law School graduate. What do you think, Michael?  Any other legal eagles out there? CA activists? What kind of legislative history does the George Court have that I have not discerned?