Yessir, that's our Gubernator

Meanwhile, back in sunny Cali:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did not get the election results he sought. Now he seems determined to show California voters the consequences.

In a special election on May 19, voters rejected a batch of measures on increasing taxes, borrowing funds and reapportioning state money that were designed to close a multibillion-dollar budget gap. The cuts Mr. Schwarzenegger has proposed to make up the difference, if enacted by the Legislature, would turn California into a place that in some ways would be unrecognizable in modern America: poor children would have no health insurance, prisoners would be released by the thousands and state parks would be closed.

Nearly all of the billions of dollars in cuts the administration has proposed would affect programs for poor Californians, although prisons and schools would take hits, as well.

All his cuts target the poor and the disenfranchised, but, well, gosh, there's a good reason for that:

“Government doesn’t provide services to rich people,” Mike Genest, the state’s finance director, said on a conference call with reporters on Friday. “It doesn’t even really provide services to the middle class.” He added: “You have to cut where the money is.”

Blinded. I'm blinded. Fucking brilliant.

All I have the energy for today

in light of the decision that is not a surprise:

At what point do the reactionaries notice that the couples who've been and continue to be married legally haven't destroyed the institution or sent the state sinking into the sea? Is there an exact number it needs to hit before the tipping point? Or was Traditional Marriage (tm) -already- destroyed during those few months and we just didn't notice? Is it -partly- destroyed, now? Did we turn straight marriages into a newt? Awful sorry.

"I got better."

Should be busy around this neck of the woods today.

More later, probably.

ETA: Oh, I lied, adrenaline's already going again, people are out in force and they're arresting, including clergy and a 19 year old trans kid...following it on Twitter, not even outside right now. #prop8protests, don't think you can link directly.

Today's bigotry in the name of creeping theocracy brought to you by one Howard Ahmanson.

In case you were wondering who was behind Prop 8, The Daily Beast has a profile:

The campaign for Prop 8 has reaped massive funding from conservative backers across the country. Much of it comes from prominent donors like the Utah-based Church of Latter Day Saints and the Catholic conservative group, Knights of Columbus. Prop 8 has also received a boost from Elsa Broekhuizen, the widow of Michigan-based Christian backer Edgard Prince and the mother of Erik Prince, founder of the controversial mercenary firm, Blackwater.

While the Church of Latter Day Saints’ public role in Prop 8 has engendered a growing backlash from its more liberal members, and Broekhuizen’s involvement attracted some media attention, the extreme politics of Prop 8’s third largest private donor, Howard F. Ahmanson, reclusive heir to a banking fortune, have passed almost completely below the media’s radar. Ahmanson has donated $900,000 to the passage of Prop 8 so far.

...Few Americans have heard of Ahmanson—and that's the way he likes it. He donates cash either out of his own pocket or through his unincorporated Fieldstead & Co. to avoid having to report the names of his grantees to the IRS. His Tourette's syndrome only adds to his mysterious persona, as his fear of speaking leads him to shun the media. While Ahmanson once resided in a mental institution in Kansas, he now occupies a position among the Christian right’s power pantheon as one of the movement’s most influential donors. During a 1985 interview with the Orange County Register, Ahmanson summarized his political agenda: “My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives.”

The campaign to teach “intelligent design” in public school classrooms, the Republican takeover of the California Assembly, and the rollback of affirmative action in California—Ahmanson has been behind them all. He has also taken a special interest in anti-gay crusades. Ahmanson’s most controversial episode related to his funding of the religious empire of Rousas John Rushdoony, a radical evangelical theologian who advocated placing the United States under the control of a Christian theocracy that would mandate the stoning to death of homosexuals. With Prop 8 organizers claiming in a virtual mantra that their measure will not harm gays or take rights away from heterosexual Californians, Ahmanson has good reason to conceal his involvement in the campaign...

What the world needed: A Batman for "The Handmaid's Tale."

While we're on the subject of rightful finger pointing, can we please put a proposition on the next ballot to invalidate the marriage of Frank Schubert? Or, I don't know, take away his right to go to the toilet unsupervised, something? I mean:

Democratic legislators ask state Supreme Court to void Prop. 8

Reporting from Sacramento -- Forty-three Democratic legislators, including leaders of the California Senate and Assembly, filed a brief Monday urging the California Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and incoming President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg signed the friend of the court brief, filed with the state Supreme Court.

No Republican legislator signed the petition, though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, denounced the anti-gay marriage measure over the weekend.

..."This is a Hail Mary, no question about it," said Frank Schubert, manager of the Proposition 8 campaign.

..."Proposition 8 seeks to effect a monumental revision of this foundational principle and constitutional structure by allowing a bare majority of voters to eliminate a fundamental right of a constitutionally protected minority group," the brief says.

"If Proposition 8 takes effect, this court will no longer be the final arbiter of the rights of minorities," it continues.

The action contends that the ban, created by the initiative that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, cannot be done by a mere constitutional amendment. Rather, it must be done by a revision of the entire Constitution and the Legislature would have to be involved.

As advocates of same-sex marriage turn to courts, protests, and perhaps a future ballot measure in an attempt to overturn Proposition 8, Schubert declared that the vote is "as over as Barack Obama's election."

...One of the closing ads featured Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Popular though she is, Schubert said, it was odd that Proposition 8 foes would select Feinstein to lecture voters, including minorities, about discrimination.

"It had the feel of a lily white, liberal campaign," Schubert said.

FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING FUCK.

Oh, this is Frank Schubert: (whose image I can't seem to be -positive- I'm connecting it to the right Frank Schubert--there are several--but I am 99.7% positive he himself is "lily white," surprise):

The parents of two children featured most prominently in video footage in a Yes on 8 ad have repeatedly asked the campaign to stop using images of their children to promote changing the California Constitution to eliminate same-sex marriage. They've written letters. They've made phone calls. The Yes on 8 campaign has refused to pull the footage.

The parents are at their wits' end. So two of them came to Sacramento on Thursday to appeal to legislators and to Yes on 8 campaign manager Frank Schubert in person. I followed them on their journey.

To legislators, their message was: "I don't want to see another parent have to go through this." Assemblyman Mark Leno told the parents that under current law if the ads were for a commercial purpose, consent to use the images would be required. But ads for a political purpose don't require consent. Leno continued that the Yes on 8 use of children's images, however, reveals a tension between First Amendment rights to free speech and the right to privacy. This is a particularly sensitive issue because the campaign did not use images of adults, but of young children -- without the knowledge or consent of the parents. He made a commitment to explore solutions in the upcoming legislative session. But that doesn't do anything now.

Then the parents went to Schubert's office at Schubert Flint Public Affairs at 14th and L. "I've heard he's a father," said one parent. "I want to ask him how he would feel if his children were manipulated like this." She wanted to appeal to him as a moral human being. "This is our last hope," she said.

Neither Schubert nor others in his office would speak to the two parents. Schubert's office called security and a guard escorted them out of the building. The parents left a letter saying, "We appeal to your sense of decency as a parent to take those ads off the air and off your website."

Okay, the "Black people cost gay people the right to marry in CA ZOMG" meme needs to stop, NOW.

Go read Pam Spaulding (yes, Virginia, some people are gay AND black AND women, TOO, AT THE SAME TIME) on just a whole shitload of reasons why.

I'm also reposting now, with permission, a letter sent to an email list I'm on.

Dear Friends,

I am writing because I am disturbed by the string of articles, blog entries, and list serve threads that have come out in the last few days suggesting that the high turnout of African American and Latino voters for the presidential election was responsible for the passage of California's proposition 8, which dealt a heavy blow to LGBT families by banning gay marriage.

These articles mistakenly imply that the struggles for civil rights for LGBT people and communities of color are separate or even at odds with each other. They deny the work that LGBT people of color do to combat homophobia and transphobia in their families and communities, often while facing racism within the queer community as well. These articles deny homophobia among white people, and they displace blame away from those who actually have the power to consistently deny others civil and human rights, and instead, charge that when communities that have long been disenfranchised and alienated from political processes begin to participate, that the results with be negative for LGBT people.

I believe all communities need to be held accountable for their homophobia and transphobia. I want to acknowledge the suffering and hardship that the passage of Proposition 8 has caused for LGBT couples and families. But, while the media casts blame on communities of color for the failure of civil rights for LGBT people, it is imperative that we struggle against the logic that tells us that struggles for LGBT civil rights and racial justice are separate, and that we examine our strategies for advancing LGBT civil rights and gay marriage and, in particular, look at places where LGBT communities have failed to align our struggles for civil rights with ongoing struggles for racial justice.

In the months leading up the election, I saw a massive mobilization within the queer spaces in which I spend time in San Francisco to get people to vote no on 8. We live in a state that has one of the highest incarceration rates in a nation with the highest incarceration rate in the world. Studies have estimated that at any time, 40 percent of black men in their 20's in California are under control of the correctional system. Criminalization affects many LGBT people, in particular, those that may be experiencing addiction or who, lacking familial support, move to expensive cities where they may have a hard time accessing affordable housing and living-wage work. Despite this, I saw little or no public discourse among LGBT people about very important state propositions: 5, 6, and 9, all of which potentially impacted things like funding for prisons, alterations to sentencing for drug crimes, or the trying of minors as adults in this state.

In the last months, we have seen raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) throughout the state and in San Francisco. Many people immigrate here as a result of the US foreign policy of destabilizing foreign economies. Additionally, San Francisco is home to many LGBT immigrants who have come to the country seeking safety and asylum. While my inbox was flooded with emails pertaining to Prop 8, I heard from very few queer people who were seeking to mobilize around the October 31st demonstration to protest ICE raids, or other work pertaining to ICE raids, and San Francisco's establishment as a sanctuary city.

The November ballot contained several important city initiatives that could have affected the livability of our city both for low-income people of color and for many queer people. Proposition K, an initiative to decriminalize prostitution would have helped sex workers in this city to make major strides in their ability to organize for their rights and safety, allowing them to better protect themselves against violence and police harassment. Despite the fact that many, many young LGBT people in this city earn their livings as sex workers and daily face risks to their safety, and that two trans women working as sex workers lost their lives while working in San Francisco in 2007, I saw shockingly little effort among LGBT people to educate themselves on the realities facing sex workers or the background on Proposition K, let alone to spread any word about it.

Similarly, proposition B, which would have mandated that the city set aside part of its budget for affordable housing was defeated by SF voters. In a city with a history of racist schemes of redevelopment and displacement (SOMA in the 60's, Justin Herman's redevelopment of the Fillmore, illegal evictions in the Mission in the 90s, contemporary cuts to county welfare, and most recently, the gentrification of Bayview—to name a few), San Francisco voters have failed to stand up for working families' ability to live affordably in this city—a city with where remaining working class communities of color face major threats of displacement. Despite the fact that white LGBT people often play complicated roles in the gentrification of the city and displacement of communities of color, I saw no media reports released on November 5th scrutinizing the voting trends of white LGBT San Franciscans on Propositions B, N, K, 5, 6, or 9, as juxtaposed to the numerous articles scrutinizing the voting habits of Black and Latino voters on Prop 8. And despite the overwhelmingly negative outcome of several important local and state propositions, outcry among the wider LGBT community seems to have been reserved only for Prop 8.

As a young, queer, person living in San Francisco, I feel very strongly that affordably in this city is vital to the creativity and well being of the LGBT community of San Francisco. As a white person living in the Mission, I have to think and act critically in regards to the complicated role I play in the gentrification of this neighborhood and the larger schemes of displacement within this city. I love my queer life and love living in this city. I get to witness the ways of living and congregating, making new families, new cultures, and envisioning new worlds that are possible living in a city with so many other brilliant and creative queer people. While I would like to lend my support and compassion to the people who lost the right to marry this week, I also question the logic that tells me that my only struggle as an LGBT person centers around my right to marry, rather than my ability to live and create in many other ways within a city I love. Affordable housing is central to the vitality of the LGBT community in San Francisco, to all communities, and while I sign petitions to support marriage as a right, I would like to see LGBT Californians take a serious look at the fact that housing, healthcare, and freedom from incarceration are also civil and human rights.

I would like to see LGBT Californians talk not only about their right to receive their partners' health benefits but about universal healthcare. I would like to hear us talk not just about how many LGBT people's partners cannot receive citizenship rights because of a lack of marriage rights, but connect this to struggles for immigrant rights in this state. I would like to hear LGBT people not only talk about how their families are discriminated against, but think about how many families in California are living in alternative family structures because of the mass incarceration of parents with children.

The passing of Proposition 8 is a sad day and indicative of the work that lies ahead, however, as we heal from these blows, I would like to challenge us to consider how our struggles are bound up with struggles for racial and economic justice, and how our fight for civil rights, and the health of our communities could be strengthened by taking these connections more seriously. Above all, I would like to challenge us to resist racist media schemes that, during our moment of need and a moment of possibility, are attempting to pit LGBT people and supporters against communities of color in California.

I apologize for the hasty construction of this, but time is of the essence. I welcome your thoughts.

In struggle,

Adele Carpenter

And speaking of my gay agenda: California's Proposition 8

to wit, "Let's you and me duke it out some more over whether your marriage is valid, even though mine is completely safe no matter what happens and the state Supreme Court already ruled in your favor: fair's fair."

No, okay, the basics:

A number of developments arose in the wake of Mayor Gavin Newsom's 2004 decision to perform same sex marriages in San Francisco. The marriages were soon annulled by the courts, but San Francisco began a legal challenge that was consolidated with other cases as In re Marriage Cases. On May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court, by a vote of 4–3, ruled in that case to strike down Proposition 22 and all other prohibitions on same-sex marriage, as violating the state constitution, and ordered the state to begin processing same-sex marriages as of June 17, 2008.[5] The court subsequently refused to issue a stay of its order. [6]

While the case was under way, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed two legislative bills approving same-sex marriage. Anticipating that either the courts or the legislature might overturn Proposition 22, opponents of same-sex marriages introduced a number of unsuccessful attempts to place a constitutional amendment before voters that would prohibit same-sex marriages—and in some cases, domestic partnerships as well.[7] Prior to 2008, none had made it to the ballot.

In late 2007 and 2008, at least four different groups sponsored new ballot initiatives for a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriages. The one that did obtain enough signatures,[8] is the "California Marriage Protection Act"[9] (officially titled the "Limit on Marriage" Constitutional Amendment by the California Attorney General), sponsored by ProtectMarriage.com[10].

...If passed, the amendment would override the ruling in In re Marriage Cases that struck down both the 1977 law and Proposition 22.[14] The Constitution, as amended, would add a new section (Section 7.5) to Article I, placing it between the state Equal Protection clause and nondiscrimination in business and the professions. This new section would read:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Interestingly,

According to Joan Hollinger, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, "Constitutional scholars agree that the amendment cannot be effective retroactively, so anyone married before November would be protected.

You can see how there'd be no bureaucratic headaches associated with trying to explain to various agencies how no really, YOUR same-sex marriage is valid, check the dates and the jurisdiction, etc. here, can't you? I mean, already it's clear as mud, the whole thing. You realize that because of the "state's rights" business, we're going to be going through this, if we haven't already, in every. single. state. over. and over. and over...

anyway, meanwhile, so, this one: well, you'd think it'd be a forgone conclusion that this prop's not gonna fly. Lot of people who won't go to the mat for gay folk as such aren't too jazzed about actually amending the constitution, even at the state level. The Gubernator, for instance:

] Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated that although he has opposed and has vetoed legislative bills that would legalize same sex marriage in California, he is opposed to the initiative and other attempts to amend the state's constitution.[34] Schwarzenegger released the following statement on May 15, 2008 regarding the ruling:

I respect the Court's decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.[35]

and some other surprises (well, depending on your POV I suppose it mightn't be):

Republican political activist Ward Connerly, the author of Proposition 209 (California's ballot initiative to ban affirmative action), stated, "For anyone to say that this is an issue for people who are gay and that this isn't about civil rights is sadly mistaken. If you really believe in freedom and limited government, to be intellectually consistent and honest you have to oppose efforts of the majority to impose their will on people."

Three of the four judges who ruled in favor of striking down Prop 22, etc. were Republican appointees.

And the ballot that's going in front of the voters in November, thanks to Attorney General Jerry Brown, reads as follows:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

Predictably enough,

Proposition 8 supporters immediately mounted a legal challenge to the changes, contending that Attorney General Brown had inserted "inflammatory" language that would "unduly prejudice voters against" Proposition 8.

That legal challenge was denied, and the proposition remains on the ballot as worded. Noting, of course, that challenges to the legitimacy of having the proposition on the ballot at all from the other side did not play either.

These are the poll numbers over the last few months, roughly:

Field Poll in both May and a later one in July has 51% "no," 42% "yes," and 7% "undecided."

There's also an L.A./KTLA poll with the majority in favor of the amendment, but that's from May.

Still, not exactly a done deal, here, particularly since apparently they only need a simple majority win to go ahead and amend the state Constitution.

Oh, btw, McCain's in favor.

"I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions."

...and Obama's agin' it.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages.

In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."

"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote.

The explanation of -why- a bunch of people are fighting tooth and nail to make sure that longterm same sex relationships such as this one of 51 years are not recognized as -marriage-, if you want to know, goes something like--well, here's the official campaign headquarters for this round, "Protect Marriage:"

http://www.protectmarriage.com/about#consequence

The Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage did not just overturn the will of California voters; it also redefined marriage for the rest of society, without ever asking the people themselves to accept this decision. This decision has far-reaching consequences. For example, because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.” This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.

...Proposition 8 is NOT an attack on gay couples and does not take away the rights that same-sex couples already have under California’s domestic partner law. California law already grants domestic partners all the rights that a state can grant to a married couple. Gays have a right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else.

So, briefly:

1) The "will of the voters" is required in order to decide whether to -include- more marriages as, well, marriages; it is a terrible affront to some people that other people think they can get married just like Some People, without even asking Some Peoples' permission or ANYTHING: this is what is known as "demanding special rights."

2) This is especially terrible because, even if Jill and Jane are now a respectable married couple instead of shady deviants lurking in the margins of society, kindergarteners deserve to be protected from the knowledge that this is so.

3) Anyway, you don't really -need- marriage, domestic partnership gives you all the same benefits. It's just the word we want. RLY SRSLY TRUFAX. At the same time, the word is REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT, enough so that we're going to spend zillions of dollars making sure you can't share it with us, because otherwise it'll mean the end of "traditional marriage" (which apparently has nothing to do with rights or legal recognition), and the state is going to crack off and fall into the sea, or something.

4) The Prop 8 authors are not haters so STOP SAYING THAT.

...and why o why does all this sound so strangely familiar...going to the mat over language while swearing it doesn't mean anything -really-...convoluted explanations of why certain borders must remain policed...we only want such a tiny small thing for ourselves, you militants are ruining everything... -think think- Eh, it'll come to me. -glances vaguely downward over the scope of the blog for the last while-


Oh, and by the way? Domestic partnership? Ain't the same, and not just because of the symbolism:

The law does not give same-sex couples any of the more than 1000 rights and benefits that the federal government gives to married couples, including:

the right to sponsor a partner for immigration purposes;
the right to family-related Social Security benefits;
the right to federal income and estate tax breaks; and
the right to purchase continued health coverage for a partner after the loss of a job.

Right now, the federal government wont let any state extend these federal benefits to same-sex couples, no matter what the relationship is called.

Even under California law, same-sex couples are not completely equal. Domestic Partners cannot file joint state income taxes and state employees are not entitled to the same benefits under the states long-term care benefits package. (This could be an advantage. See below.)

In addition, if you enter into a California domestic partnership, many of the protections will not exist if and when you are outside California. For instance, if you or your partner are injured in another state, you are [not, one assumes this is a typo] allowed hospital visitation or the right to make emergency medical decisions on behalf of your partner.

States' rights, see. Rarely a good thing.

More on this later.