jaysays.com |

because simon isn’t cool anymore.

Anti-Equality Messiah, Maggie Gallagher, Wants Her Equal Protection and to Eat it Too!

June 17, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Marriage Equality

National Organization for Marriage - the Anti-Gay NOM NOM NOMAssuming yesterday’s closing arguments are any indication of which way Judge Walker will rule in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger Prop 8 case, it looks like an obvious victory for marriage equality advocates.  In a statement on the National Organization for [Heterosexual Only] Marriage’s website the group’s messiah, Maggie Gallagher, seemed to admit this defeat, stating:

Americans have a right to vote for marriage. Ted Olson doesn’t seem to understand the argument, and judging from today’s exchanges neither does Judge Walker. I expect Judge Walker will overrule Prop 8.

But what makes marriage different from other things on which Americans don’t really have the right to vote, like for president in the landmark case, Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)?  In that case, the Supreme Court negated the recount of votes (cast by Americans) which effectively secured the previously certified win of George W. Bush in Florida and gave him the necessary electoral votes to be President (like it or not).  Why was that ruling “ok” but a ruling to grant civil rights to a suspect class of people that were taken away by voters not “ok?”  I’m sure Attorney Cooper would answer with something about the natural creation of children – as that’s about all he could come up with in the closing arguments for any question posed by Judge Walker.

The real parallel of the two cases is the rationale used by the Supreme Court in determining George W. Bush was the winner.  In its decision, the Court declared, in part, that the method for recounting ballots used in Florida was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states, “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  That clause was included within the Constitution of the United States in an attempt to prevent violations of the well known standard, “all men are created equal.”  The Supreme Court decided that there was no “equal” standard for counting votes in Florida so votes in one county might be counted one way, while votes in another county might be counted another.  This logistical problem was enough to invalidate the right to vote based upon the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution (as least in the Court’s opinion at that time).

In the Prop 8 case, we clearly have a much more blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause than we saw in Bush v. Gore.  There is no hypothetical “it might happen” in the Prop 8 debacle, there is an “it did happen and will continue to happen.”

Fundraising 101 – Gay, Inc. Uses Grassroots Momentum but Not Its Power.

March 26, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Commentary, Featured, Thought of the Gay

gay, inc. HRC, Courage Campain, Equality California and a 2010 InitiativeLast night on Rachel Maddow’s show, Rachel exposed the republican email scams using healthcare reform and fake election candidates as a platform for raising funds.  Unfortunately, using the momentum of others to raise funds for your cause isn’t just a republican strategy; it’s also being used by “Gay, Inc.”

You may recall that the Human Rights Campaign (“HRC”) was more than happy to ignore the National Equality March until it was deemed a success and they felt they could use that success as a platform to get more money.  Apparently, the HRC underestimated the power of a grassroots movement.  You’d think that Gay, Inc. would have learned from that lesson, but as Restore Equality 2010 continued pushing hard for a 2010 ballot initiative, Equality California, along with other major “gay rights” groups, were spending money to persuade Californians that a 2010 ballot initiative to repeal Proposition 8 was a bad idea.  In fact, Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign announced that, because polling looked bad, we have to wait until 2012 for equality.

After nearly a year of hard work, signature gathering, canvassing and debates by many grassroots groups and organizations, the Public Policy Institute of California has revealed that polling shows California is ready to repeal Proposition 8 – with a whopping 6% increase in support of marriage equality in just a year.  Can we say, unprecedented?

Unfortunately, Equality California still doesn’t get that we are tired of waiting – but they understand perfectly the opportunity to raise more money.  In a March 25, 2010 email blitz, Equality California announced that they, proved skeptics wrong about the perception that we could not sway voter opinions significantly enough to overturn Proposition 8 and that they need more money in order to, “keep this effort going and have millions of conversations so we can secure majority support and win marriage back.”  They then make the ominous declaration that they can only secure equality if we stand with them today, linking that declaration, as well as 6 other links, to the donation page.

While some in the community who have worked so very tirelessly to sway public opinion are outraged at this latest tactic of Gay, Inc., I’m not so outraged.  In fact, I find it very amusing that they sent an email asking “us” to stand “with them” by donating money, when they so quickly turned away when we asked “them” to stand with “us” and overturn Proposition 8 in 2010.

It’s important to remember; however, that Equality California, the HRC, Courage Campaign and the rest of Gay, Inc. may be wrong, but they aren’t our enemies… well, not in the same way that the American [Heterosexual Only] Family Association; the Southern Baptist Convention; the National Organization for [Heterosexual Only] Marriage and their cohorts are our enemies.

Perhaps soon, they will wake up and fil the momentum.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 6

January 28, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Headline, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

To begin with, let’s take a brief quiz.  For each statement listed below, answer which person made the statement

By increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families.

Was it:

(A) George W. Bush;
(B) Barack Obama;
(C) David Blackenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values;
(D) Joe Solmonese, President of HRC;
(E) Lady Gaga;
(F) Rachel Maddow?

Gay marriage might contribute over time to a decline in anti-gay prejudice as well as, more specifically, a reduction in anti-gay hate crimes.

Was it:

(A) George W. Bush;
(B) Barack Obama;
(C) David Blackenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values;
(D) Joe Solmonese, President of HRC;
(E) Lady Gaga;
(F) Rachel Maddow?

Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion.

Was it:

(A) George W. Bush;
(B) Barack Obama;
(C) David Blackenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values;
(D) Joe Solmonese, President of HRC;
(E) Lady Gaga;
(F) Rachel Maddow?

Same-sex marriage would meet the stated needs and desires of lesbian and gay couples who want to marry. In so doing, it would improve the happiness and well-being of many gay and lesbian individuals, couples, and family members.

Was it:

(A) George W. Bush;
(B) Barack Obama;
(C) David Blackenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values;
(D) Joe Solmonese, President of HRC;
(E) Lady Gaga;
(F) Rachel Maddow?

Gay marriage would extend a wide range of the natural and practical benefits of marriage to many lesbian and gay couples and their children.

Was it:

(A) George W. Bush;
(B) Barack Obama;
(C) David Blackenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values;
(D) Joe Solmonese, President of HRC;
(E) Lady Gaga;
(F) Rachel Maddow?

The answer may just surprise you.  All of the above statements were part of David Blackenhorn’s book, The Future of Marriage.  Mr. Blackenhorn is an “expert” for the Defendants in the Proposition 8 trial – which means that he is against same-sex marriage in spite of all of the above statements being, in his opinion, true.

Therefore, it seems as though Mr. Blackenhorn would concur with the view that same-sex marriage will significantly benefit many gay couples (as well as many single LGBT people by way of reducing hate crimes and social stigma).  Unfortunately, Mr. Blackenhorn makes an amazing leap of logic from those points.

He then goes on to tell us, by way of his testimony in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case that he believes it is “almost certainly true” that:

…gay and lesbian couples and their children would benefit by having gay marriage.

In spite of all this, he does not support same-sex marriage because:

…the rights of gays and lesbians take second place to the needs of an existing social institution. *** I will choose marriage as a public good over the rights and needs of gay and lesbian adults and those same-sex couples who are raising children.

In other words, in spite of the fact that there are enormous benefits of marriage that are currently being denied to same-sex couples and their children, the rights of those people are secondary to those of heterosexual couples simply because same-sex marriage doesn’t provide a benefit to the public… or rather, it isn’t part of the public good.

Mr. Blackenhorn elaborates on what he means by public good, by stating that it, “serves important public purposes.”  By way of his agreements and statements on the benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples, he seems to contradict himself in asserting that such marriages won’t “serve an important public purpose.”

Look back to the quotes above and we can see those things that Mr. Blackenhorn believes don’t serve important public purposes:

  • According to Mr. Blackenhorn, it is not an important public service to have “fewer children growing up in state institutions and more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families.”
  • According to Mr. Blackenhorn, it is not an important public service to have a reduction of violent crimes (i.e. “anti-gay hate crimes“).
  • According to Mr. Blackenhorn, it is not an important public service to embrace the ideas of “tolerance and inclusion.”
  • According to Mr. Blackenhorn, it is not an important public service to “improve the happiness and well-being of many gay and lesbian individuals, couples, and family members.” [emphasis added]

It seems then that Mr. Blackenhorn’s testimony in the trial embraced the following as important public services: (1) to have more children growing up in state institutions; (2) to increase violent crimes; (3) to become intolerant and exclusionary; and (4) to diminish the happiness of a large percentage of American families.

Are those the “family values” they keep telling us about?

o being with, let’s take a brief quiz.  For each statement listed below, answer which person made the statement

By increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 4 – The $ Game

January 14, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

Many of the ridiculous arguments being used by those that support discriminatory laws banning marriage between two consenting adults based solely on the gender of those adults don’t apply specifically to the “gayness”; however, those arguments have been created solely to exclude same-sex couples from marriage and therefore seem to qualify as things being said about gays.

On Day 4 of the Proposition 8 trial, the Defendants (those opposed to same-sex marriage) attempted to make the Plaintiffs’ expert, San Francisco’s Chief Economist, Edwin A Egan, say that allowing gay marriage will increase the costs to the city.  The theory of the Defense being that clerks will be required to use their time to issue marriage licenses to more people and print more marriage licenses increasing paper and ink costs.

This argument not only fails at “common sense”, but also fails economically speaking, because there is a fee to obtain a marriage license in California (as pointed out by Egan).  That fee covers the costs associated with the clerk’s time, printing and other such expenses that would otherwise be borne by the city.

Let’s review, just in case we don’t know how much time/money would be required to issue a marriage license. Here are a few points that those stretching their imagination to prove that gay marriage will cost the city more money should consider:

  • A marriage license is a one page document.
  • 50 pages of nice quality “certificate” paper is about $10.00 (about $0.20 per page).
  • A high yield, rather expensive, black toner cartridge costs about $60.75 and will print approximately 7,000 pages (give or take depending on density) – that’s less than $0.01 per page, but will bulk it up to the full penny for this argument.
  • According to my local county clerk’s office, if I were to come with the completed marriage license application in hand, all required documentation and the correct fee, the total time required to have the license issued will not exceed 15 – 20 minutes (minus my time spent in line should there be one).
  • The median salary for a county clerk in the United states is $27,300.00.  But for this one, we need to make some assumptions: we will increase that median by 20% due to the high standard of living in California (particularly San Francisco);  assuming that the Clerk has worked for the city for some time and has a lot of education and experience to back them up, we’ll increase the salary another 10%.  In that case, our hypothetical clerk makes $36,036.00 per year – roughly $18.77 per hour.
  • At $18.77 per hour, the cost in salary for the clerk to spend 15 – 20 minutes issuing a marriage license would be approximately $6.26 (on the upper end).
  • Making another assumption to inflate the numbers even further in favor of those that oppose same-sex marriage, let’s assume the clerk must spend an additional 15 minutes scanning and properly filing the marriage license, that’s about another $4.70 cents to pay the Clerk – for a grand total of $10.96 being paid to the clerk for issuing one marriage license.
  • The fee that a couple must pay to have a public marriage license issued in San Francisco is $93.00.

At this point, the argument they make starts to get very boring in trying to disprove them – why?  Because it’s obvious there is no logical argument in the “money” game.  Gay marriage = money to the city and local businesses through marriage tourism.

Crunching those numbers further though, the total cost to the cityfor the issuance of one marriage license would be approximately $11.17 indicating that, when the City of San Fransisco issues one marriage license, it’s profit is approximately $81.83.

All that being said, how much should our government stand to profit before it gives full, legal recognition to all citizens?

NOTE: For more of the column, Stupid Things People Say About Gays, click here.

LGBT Lessons for Straight People: The Quota System for the Right to Marry

January 14, 2010 By: geekgirl Category: Featured, LGBT Lessons for Straight People

Like many others, I have been following reports from the courtroom of Judge Walker. I’ve really appreciated the highly detailed reporting at Empty Wheel from Fire Dog Lake.

I could not help but be both bewildered and intrigued by the line of questioning regarding the percentage of straight relationships and gay relationships that are stable, the percentage of couples that want to be monogamous and how long these relationships last. Even more odd, the defense attorney wanted to compare relationships in domestic partnerships compared to marriage. So, the anti-gay marriage crowd wants proof that gay people want to be married, will stay married and will stay monogamous. That’s going to be tricky IF YOU DON’T LET THEM GET MARRIED.

Sorry. I had to get that point about the twisted logic out of my system.

Are we going to apply this same standard to heterosexual couples? Are we now going to legislate whether or not to grant marriage based on how long people stay married? Because if we are, a 50% divorce rate is a failing grade in any class I ever took.

Are we now going to legislate whether or not to grant marriage based on the number of people that want to get married? “Sorry gays, we need for 99% of you to want to get married, stay married and promise to be monogamous, or we won’t give you the right to marry.” Will we have this same quota system for straight couples?

Monogamy? The line of questioning contains a section about a study that shows that not all gay men want to be monogamous. First, the studies are very old. Second, the gay men mentioned having open relationships.  Hmm, so the gay men who answered this study, twenty years ago, were being honest with their partners? We straight people have a better method. It’s called cheating. In other words, adultery. You know, that act that right wing conservatives always seem to be caught in. Mark Sanford? Hiram Monserrate, State Senator of New York? Can someone please tell me the last time somebody went to jail for adultery? Are there even laws against it anymore? Oh yes. Biblical law, right there in the Big Ten Commandments. Yet, that one seems to be ignored by groups like National Organization for Marriage, a well known anti-gay marriage group.

Straight people decide if they want to get married. If you are above the age required in your state and meet the requirement for however biologically unrelated you need to be (i.e. not first cousins), you can get married. No one asks if you intend to be monogamous. No one asks how long you plan to stay married. No one asks why you want to get married. There’s no training, no test. It’s a whole lot easier than adopting a dog from a shelter. Just fill out the paperwork, wait a few days, get married. No church required.

None of  these standards have ever been applied to heterosexual marriage. A 50 percent divorce rate could be an excellent argument for getting rid of marriage all together. Yet, somehow, I think straight people would be up in arms if anyone suggested this.

If only one gay couple wants to marry, that is enough for me. If that couple wants an open relationship with others, that is their business and theirs alone. If one cheats, that is their business and theirs alone.

If their relationship doesn’t last, how is that the government’s business? Britney Spears was married for less than three days. If the government can process a marriage and a divorce in three days, why is it taking 40 years to give same sex couples the right to marry?

jaysays.com contributor geekgirlgeekgirl: Jude, the author of this post, is a straight woman, a mom and has been married for 32 years to the same wonderful man. She believes in Buddhism and attends the United Church of Christ. She is a molecular biologist, her best friend is a lesbian, and she believes that every human deserves equal rights, respect and a life free from hate, fear and discrimination. The only thing she hates is pickles. Her science blog can be found at LGBT Latest Science.

God has Spoken… to me

January 12, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Commentary, Featured, Thought of the Gay

Atheists for JesusAs many regular readers know, I’m an atheist; therefore, when I say this, please don’t take it lightly.  It was after much contemplation that I decided to go public with this very personal moment in my life. Tonight, I spent many hours in the kitchen working on making some candy.  It’s a long process and messy – so the clean up often takes as long as the making.  Thereafter, I was a bit tired and stepped outside for some fresh air.  I began thinking hard about things in the world – the economy, marriage equality, the criminal trial against the cop that beat Duanna Johnson, and other things relevant.

It was then that God spoke to me.  I’m not sure why I was chosen, but after much consideration, there is no logical explaination for what occured other than it was the voice of God.  While it isn’t freezing outside, it is chilly; however, a warm wash came over me and I began to see a light – slowly growing brighter and brighter.  Then the voice came through, clear and in English (not some weird tongue).  At these moments, one would expect something extraordinarily profound, perhaps even a burning bush or two, but that was not the experience at all.  Instead, it was simply a kind, warm voice.  God spoke only one word, “Now.”

Either God wished to promote the National Organization for Women, or there is a message in that word.  I haven’t discovered the message yet, but I hope to.


All that being said, I now wonder how many of you are thinking, “Jay has lost his mind.”  If that is what you are thinking, you may be right – or perhaps, I’m destined to become a prophet…

or perhaps, I’m lying.

How would you know if God spoke to me?  You’d simply have to take my word for it, wouldn’t you?  Just like we take the word of Moses, or the word of Joseph Smith who founded the Mormon Church a scant 180 years ago, or even the word of Maggie Gallagher, the founder of the National Organization for [Heterosexual Only] Marriage.

So why don’t you believe me?

Of course, God didn’t speak to me.  God has never spoken his word to my ears.  I’m either not worthy, or there is no God.  But those that fight hard against same-sex couple and invoke his words likely haven’t spoken to God either.  In fact, any that claim a direct link to God would likely either be considered “crazy” or a “liar”.  What changed in the past 180 years since the founding of the Mormon church that made us stop believing that humans can speak directly to God or angels?

I suppose the right wing would argue that the gays are to blame for that, too.

Goodnight, and God speed… or is that speak.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 2

January 12, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

Yesterday, the judge and lawyers assembled in the courtroom at 8:24 a.m. Pacific Time to debate, and ultimately decide, upon the rights of same-sex couples to marry.  The case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, resulted after a “majority” of California voters decided that the judicial granting of equal marital rights to same-sex couples violated their sense of… uhm… of… well, ego.

Since the trial started (and even before) we’ve heard the opponent’s of equality claiming that the majority spoke and such majority rule must be honored.  In fact, the news keeps repeating an annoying little phrase whenever they talk about the case, referring to Proposition 8 as a “voter approved” measure.  Unless the manipulation of the vote allegations are true, then “voter approved” measure and “majority rule” are correct terms to use when referring to Proposition 8.  It is true that a small majority of voters decided to approve a measure that would stop recognizing a civil institution for some of the population.

Those that voted in favor of Proposition 8 have been bemoaning activists against the discriminatory measure and argue that, in a Democracy, majority rules.  Opponents of Proposition 8 retorted that majority rule over a minority results in tyranny (among other things), and that if majority had ruled with respect to interracial marriage, 90% of Americans would have denied the right based solely upon the race of those wishing to enter into marriage.  In other words, Barack Obama, being a mixed race man, would not be allowed to marry Michelle Obama, being that she is not mixed race if “majority” had ruled rather than the Supreme Court (presuming, of course, our President even came to being).

But that’s just a little clarification to bring us up to date.  The majority spoke again last week with regard to the televising of Proposition 8.  In fact, according to the Courage Campaign, 138,574 people, at Judge Vaughn Walker’s request, provided their vote with respect to the televising of the trial.  Of the 138,574 votes, 138,542 supported the trial being televised, 32 opposed.  (Note: The “for” votes do not include those that sent letters or called outside of the petition hosted by the Courage Campaign and CREDO Action, thus the numbers “for” televising the trial are likely substantially higher).

Those that have been arguing for majority rule lost… BIG TIME.  Unfortunately, in spite of this loss, the trial is not being televised.  The losers (those not in the majority) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the televising of the trial.  The Court is set to rule tomorrow based upon the law – not the “majority opinion.”  Oh the hypocrisy.

So, today’s stupid thing people say about gays is, “majority rule.”  While not specific to LGBTQ people – it certainly is applicable in this instance.

[Another Note: The column, Stupid Things People Say About Gays (of which this post is part of) uses the term “Gay” inclusively.  It’s always been so and will always be so.  jaysays.com and all of its contributors strive to be fully inclusive and leave no freak behind.  More Stupid Things People Say About Gays can be found here.]

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 1

January 09, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

The trial that may repeal the disgustingly discriminatory Proposition 8 in California (which denies couples of the same sex from entering into the civil contract of marriage) begins January 11, 2010.  With that trial will come many “stupid things” that people say about gays.  The opposition will be presenting their ridiculous arguments (including one where they claim gay marriage will result in children having sexual fantasies about their same-sex friends).  Thus, it’s a proper time to start the Proposition 8 Series for Stupid Things People Say About Gays.

Let’s get things started (even before the trial begins): Hak-Shing William Tam intervened in the much talked about Perry v. Schwarzenegger case as an official litigant to defend Proposition 8 and continue to oppress same-sex couples.  After doing so, a sad thing purportedly happened, Tam’s family began receiving threats and had property vandalized.

Although I completely understand the urge to beat the living hell out of those that oppress any people, I disagree with actually doing it.  However, that’s a discussion for another time and place – we have to get to the stupid things people say about gays before I run out of typing space.

On Friday, Tam appeared in court and advised the justice:

Now that the subject lawsuit is going to trial, I fear I will get more publicity, be more recognizable and that the risk of harm to me and my family will increase. [emphasis added]

It sucks, doesn’t it Tam – to feel that people are targeting you and your family because you believe differently than they do or because you feel differently than they do?  It’s a sad way to have to live your life.  No one should ever feel their family is in danger because of their political opinions or social class.

In fact, I shouldn’t have to feel that way either.  Unfortunately, I’ve felt that way the bulk of my life. I can recall very specific situations where my sexual orientation has nearly killed me.  I can recall each and ever death threat, each hate email, and more particularly I recall the day I discovered the word “FAG” scrawled in the paint of my car door.  I live with that fear every day because of people like you who think you deserve more than I deserve.

Now, please accept my most sarcastic apology if your tyrannical behavior has caused you to feel, even for such a brief period of time, the way you  and those like you have made me feel since I was a young, scared little “sissy” boy.  But there is a key difference in what is happening to you and what has happened to me.  You have put yourself out there to attack and oppress a group of people; whereas, I just came out as a gay man.

Oh, and did I mention that Tam is the one making the claim that the kids will fantasize about their same-sex friends?

NOTE: For more of the column, Stupid Things People Say About Gays, click here.

The Little Engines that Wouldn’t – Courage Campaign and Lambda Legal Refuse to Fight.

December 01, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Featured, LGBT News, Marriage Equality

LittleEngineThatWouldntRick Jacobs, founder of the Courage Campaign (Los Angeles), has announced that polling indicates that overturning Proposition 8 via a ballot measure in 2010 looks bad. According to the Courage Campaign sponsored polling, providing equal rights to all Americans is not supported financially, with strong leadership or with an edge in public opinion.

While the leadership problem could easily be solved if the Courage Campaign would step up and lead, that doesn’t seem to be in the organization’s plan.  Instead, they have given up on a 2010 ballot initiative preferring instead to waste the valuable human resources, passion and drive available to the organization after over a year of rallies, protests, marches and lobbying days.

But Courage Campaign isn’t alone in its criticism of the 2010 ballot initiative.  Lambda Legal declared that, although it will do anything to gain equal marriage rights for LGBT couples, it won’t support this effort.  Why?  Because a loss could “polarize voters” and “hurt and anger supporters of same-sex marriage.”

Well, this supporter of same-sex marriage is more hurt and angered by organizations unwillingness to fight.  The entire scenario smells like garbage to me.  It wreaks of “If it turns out they may actually win, we’ll throw our name in the basket and ride the glory to our next fund drive.

The coalition of various small organizations sponsored by Love, Honor, Cherish, known as Restore Equality 2010, is refusing to give up on their rights.  They intend to press forward in spite of the lack of support from the large, well-funded organizations and continue to seek out volunteers using social media outlets to help them gather the 1,000,000 signatures needed to put an overturn of Proposition 8 on the ballot.  Jo Hoenninger, chair of the interim Executive Committee for Restore Equality 2010, said:

This is a movement for equality. Harvey Milk didn’t wait for research. He hit the streets year after year. We honor his memory by gathering signatures now so our rights can be restored in 2010 not at some later time when it might be an easier struggle.

The end of the year is quickly approaching and with that will come the tax season.  As you consider which organizations deserve your hard earned money, consider which organizations are fighting the hardest, loudest and most resiliently for your rights.  Should your answer be Restore Equality 2010, here’s a link to make your contribution.

Restore Equality 2010: When They Fight, They Give Us Hope

November 16, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Headline, LGBT News, Marriage Equality

Restore Equality 2010Perseverance may will pay off in California next year.  Restore Equality 2010 officially launched its petition drive along with a social networking site, today.  The statewide group is a coalition of organizations committed to repealing the unconstitutional Proposition 8 which narrowly passed last November, damaging thousands of families in the state and destroying what could have been the election’s most prized lesson: prejudice and discrimination are a thing of America’s past.

Restore Equality 2010 has not been without critics, including some within the LGBT community.  Many large, well-funded state and national groups have taken the position that a 2010 ballot initiative won’t give organizations and activists enough time to prepare.  However, the passion, enthusiasm and promise of the people behind Restore Equality 2010 remind this blogger that “…there is hope that the system can work for all minorities if we fight. We’ve given them hope.” — Harvey Milk

According to Jeffrey Taylor, spokesperson for Restore Equality 2010, “This is the moment activists across our great state have been waiting for. Restore Equality 2010 is thrilled to mobilize in support of SignForEquality.com and Love Honor Cherish’s inspiring and unwavering stand for the immediate restoration of marriage equality in California.”

Proponents of the ballot initiative have until April 12, 2010 to gather approximately 1 million signatures.