Equality California’s Win Marriage Back TV Ad Campaign

MAMMA, Middle-Aged Mothers for Marriage Equality, says sit your anti-same sex marriage friends down with a warm cookie and a cold glass of milk, and show them these videos. Then have a nice chat.

Michael and Javier

Frances and Cynthia

Ruben and Hector

From Faith In America

The Tradition and Sanctity of the Right to Marriage

“Traditional marriage” … “sanctity of marriage” … “protecting marriage.”

The next time you hear these phrases think code language – words or phrases that are used to conceal a hidden meaning or motive.

The motive of those who use these phrases is quite clear – they want to punish gay and lesbian citizens by denying not only their human dignity but their individual pursuit of happiness.

And why do they want to do that? Because their religious perspective is such that they see homosexuality as a sin, an abomination before God and therefore seeing a twisted moral appropriateness in rejecting, condemning and even discriminating against a minority group of Americans.

Some will even go as far as saying their opposition to marriage equality has nothing to with religion. That’s hardly the truth.

Everyone knows it’s all about religion — or certain church teaching to be more precise. All we have to do is take a look at the millions of dollars that the anti-gay religious establishment is pouring into Maine. It’s why those same anti-gay religious established have tried to organize North Carolina churches in support of writing discrimination into that state’s constitution.

There’s a reason why these anti-gay religious groups do not want you to think they are using your religion to oppose gay and lesbian citizens having the right to marry. It’s because religion has been misused many times in the past to deny minority groups their human dignity and equality and every time society in the end has rejected such religion-based bigotry and prejudice as wrong and morally corrupt.

And that really speaks to the crux of the anti-gay religious and political opposition to marriage equality for gay and lesbian citizens — forcing a majoritarian religious perspective on the lives of all Americans and using church teaching to look down on a particular segment of the population.

Fair-minded Americans, particularly those within faith communities, know how wrong that is.

People within faith communities understand this perhaps better than some because they are reminded every Sunday or Saturday as they sit among their Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Muslim or Jewish peers. They understand the reason they are allowed to practice their various different forms of religious worship is because we do not live under a government that forces any particular religious belief on its citizens.

Societies have tried that before and some still do. When was the last time you met someone who wants to go live in countries ruled through theocracy.

The father of what we know as Protestantism today was Martin Luther, who challenged the majority position in his day that one state-sanctioned religious perspective should be forced upon all. Luther was not that far behind America’s founders who went to great lengths to make sure our Constitution clearly forbade the establishment of one religion over another.

History is full of examples of when majorities tried to use church teaching to justify treating others in hurtful and unkind ways.

Church teaching was used to mistreat African-Americans by promoting the notion that the Bible justified colonial and post-colonial slavery; it was used to justify saying different races should not marry; and it used to justify treating women as inferior.

And today, church teaching is again being used to look upon gay and lesbian individuals as unworthy and unequal and to deny them the human dignity of traversing life’s journey with a soulmate of their choosing.

The longest surviving tradition of marriage is having the freedom to experience life with a partner of your choosing. That is the sanctity of marriage. And it is that right which we as a society must protect.

But first, we have to make sure everyone is allowed to enjoy that right.

Learn more:

Whom God Hath Joined Together an essay by Bill Sinkford

Marriage: Who, What and Why? a sermon by Rev. Mark Gallagher

©2009 Faith In America

From Café des Artistes

Customer: May I take a picture of the mural?
Proprietor: You’re actually asking? You’re not from Fallbrook, are you?

Manhood in the Art Center parking lot

License plate frame: Fight like a man — get on your knees and pray.

A stunningly tacky political sticker:

Read more Fallbrookisms. …

Repeal Prop. 8 in 2010 or 2012?

California advocates and pundits are deep in debate over when to attempt to repeal California Prop. 8, in 2010 or 2012. The anti-same-sex marriage initiative passed in November 2008 with 52.3 percent of the vote. Then the California Supreme Court heard a challenge to the measure.  And, while the Court was making its unhappy decision to uphold California’s gay marriage ban, Iowa, Maine and Vermont said go for it. Go figure.

So, now we need to determine a strategy for returning the right to Californians, and it’s proving a challenge despite other states’ success. The following links will take you to a variety of news coverage and opinion about when to pursue equal marriage rights for same-sex couples in California.

While MAMMA believes Prop. 8 was hit with the stupid stick, we also encourage the kiddies to measure twice, cut once.

2010? 2012? The Fight in California Continues

By Amita Parashar, Advocate.com
27 July 2009

Prop. 8 Opponents Mull 2010 Campaign

By Nathan Black, The Christian Post
28 July 2009

Repeal Prop 8 Leadership Summit: The Expert Point of View

By Karen Ocamb, The Bilerico Project
28 July 2009

Gays squabble over Prop 8 repeal debate

By Seth Hemmerlgarn, Bay Area Reporter
30 July 2009

Advisers urge foes of Prop. 8 not to rush

By John Marelius, San Diego Union-Tribune
03 August 2009

Repeal Prop. 8 in 2010

By Love Honor Cherish

Welcome to MAMMA’s first post.

We are a group of middle-aged mothers who want our every son and daughter to grow up and be able to marry a nice girl or boy — or boy or girl. Yes, we’re talking same-sex marriage — marriage equality — so gird your loins and join us. You don’t have to be a MAMMA to be part of our family (that’s Middle-Aged Mothers for Marriage Equality).

Some of us have gay children, gay relatives, gay friends, and we all treasure our civil rights enough to fight for them, like a mother for her babes, except we do battle with literature and poetry, images and discussion.

In fact, joining us means talking about same-sex marriage with people who don’t support it. If that’s a scary thought, not to worry, Sweetie. MAMMA’s here to help. You can subscribe to automatically receive our posts and visit our pages for more resources. We have some nice content to help you start conversations with opponents of marriage equality — even those who haven’t yet learned to play well with others.

We might be profound or profane on occasion, pert or pedantic, prissy or pissy (too many ‘p’ words to keep that going), but whatever else we are, we are passionate about equal rights for all.

Even nose pickers. Now just imagine if folks tried to prohibit nose-picker marriage. We wouldn’t have enough mouths left to feed misinformation — no, homosexuality does not equate to pedophilia, it’s not contagious, your kids cannot be converted by their gay teachers and it’s not a chosen lifestyle! Hmm, do you suppose nose picking is genetic, too?

Anyway, yes, we are passionate about equal rights for all — especially in Fallbrook, where California’s anti-same-sex marriage ballot measure, Prop. 8, passed in November 2008 with 67.9 percent of the vote (compared to 52.3 percent statewide). That’s 11,298 voters whose hearts and minds can be changed to extend equal rights to all — as can hearts and minds across the country. Think of our effort as just a little attitude adjustment.

Or we could turn same-sex marriage opponents gay by close association. (Yes, of course that’s a joke! If you take life too seriously, Dear, you won’t have any fun at all.)

We will try anything, though, whatever it takes to jog memories of the poignant U.S. civil rights movement of the 1960s and encourage folks to step beyond their fear, to internalize our nation’s heroic invitation to diversity — and our charming knack for becoming better for it.

To keep this effort vibrant — and heart- and mind-changing — please submit your suggestions for content to your MAMMA. We’ll post new content as often as our motherly duties allow. Original poetry, short fiction or essays; videos and images; anecdotes, articles or links to other folks’ content worth sharing — send it all! The more ways we deliver our civil rights message, the more hearts and minds we will change in support of marriage equality.

We have some treats for you, to kick off MAMMA:

1. For those in Southern California, on Wednesday 10 June at 6:00 p.m., Fallbrook’s Writers Read has a poetry and prose reading in Fallbrook, Come Out of the Closet and Read! Closeted writers, folks already out of the closet; come one and come all.

In recognition of the CA Supreme Court’s recent failure to rule in favor of marriage equality, we encourage sharing work about living gay or having a LGBT family member or friend in your life.

2. If you have not seen former Vice President Dick Cheney‘s recent statement at the National Press Club, or if you’re dying to see it again to better analyze his every nuance, here it is for your viewing pleasure — or obsession. Bear in mind, some folks are critical of his parsing support for same-sex marriage by relegating that “freedom” to the states to offer or withhold, rather than supporting federal legislation. But remember the source  — this is Dick Cheney we’re talking about. This is a pretty darn good thing. MAMMA recommends sending the Cheney video to everyone you know who opposes marriage equality and tolerates Cheney. Hmm. …

Then, on the lighter side, we offer up Stephen Colbert‘s parody of the National Organization for Marriage “Gathering Storm” ad. MAMMA recommends sending this video only to folks with a sense of humor.

So, enjoy the videos, talk about them with others — and join us in supporting marriage equality.

Comment on this post.

(Editor’s note: This piece is cross-posted at www.ivorytowerz.com.)

Heard at Major Market

Shopper 1: Did you hear the court upheld Prop. 8?
Shopper 2: Prop what?
Shopper 3: Did I hear? Oh, yeah, I heard — I got two text messages, half a dozen emails and three phone calls. How can these homophobes not see it’s an equal rights issue? How can they not see that? What is the matter with these people? Are they so insecure, so hateful that they have to trounce other people’s fundamental rights? How can they force the rest of us to take such a damn leap backward? And I can’t even seek comfort at church, because my idiot pastor is one of them! Well he can just suck on his empty collection plate. That’s it for me. I’m not giving one more red cent to bigots. God, I wish I was gay!

Other posts on same-sex marriage:

Sex and the Suspect Class

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Equality

Protecting Marriage and Children? My ass!

Isn’t Love All You Need?

Read more Fallbrookisms…

Wisdom reigns in Iowa:

“The Iowa Supreme Court this morning upheld a Polk County judge’s 2007 ruling that marriage should not be limited to one man and one woman.” – DesMoinesRegister.com

Perhaps the justices of the California Supreme Court will take this wise counsel to heart?

Yippee!

Love,
K-B

From Eileen G., many moons ago

The fundamental difference between men and women is not what’s between the legs but what’s between the ears.

On a church billboard

Happiness is the byproduct of obedience.

From Village European Auto

Customer 1: I like the Obama and No on Prop. 8 bumper stickers on that GMC. Liberals are few and far between in Fallbrook.
Customer 2: Not few and far between enough!

A belly dancer at Heritage Hall

I must be veil impaired!

Read more…

By Kit-Bacon Gressitt

Last October, I posted a “No on Prop. 8” sign on my front gate — with staples spaced every inch along the edge to assure anyone who wanted to steal the thing would have to work hard for it. The general election came and went, but the sign has remained; not because of the staples, but because I am determined to keep it up until we overturn the California ballot initiative’s resulting constitutional amendment that denied marriage to the approximately 6 percent of our population that is gay. OK, and because I’m a stubborn wench.

When I first put up the sign, I expected a neighborly frown or two in response, so I was pleasantly surprised when the UPS driver came to the door, rather than leaving a package in our designated drop-off spot, to tell me he likes the sign. And were I not suffering from middle-aged pee syndrome, I would have jumped up and down when a gal from the opposite side of the block, with whom I regularly swap mis-delivered mail, dropped off a letter and said, “I really like your sign. Thanks for putting it up.”

I was disappointed, though, when none of my local friends posted similar signs or bumper stickers. They feared the signs would be stolen and their property, vandalized. And, indeed, when someone scribbled on my chili-red VW bug, in an effort to reverse the positive message of an Obama bumper sticker, I suspect my friends felt as vindicated as my self-satisfaction was diminished with each angry stroke it took to scrub the black marker from my car.

Nonetheless, while I can understand my friends’ discomfort, given the overt disdain some local leaders, media and letter writers in our town regularly express for gays — along with immigrants, Democrats, feminists and any other designation they find threatening — I believe the failure to challenge prejudice perpetuates it.

So, the other day I ordered a bunch of “Don’t Be Gaycist” bumper stickers and, when they arrived, I taped one inside the windshield of my car and headed to the grocery store. As I puttered down the street, I automatically readied my hand for those little steering-wheel waves we toss in small towns, but to my dismay, instead of reciprocal smiles, my car and I received uncharacteristically averted eyes and even glares from folks who did not acknowledge the cheerful vibes we were putting out.

My wave hand instinctively withdrew to a self-protective posture, and I felt, well, I wasn’t sure what I felt, other than really, really uncomfortable.

I pulled into the Major Market parking lot, did my shopping and returned to my car.

That’s when recognition struck. As I put the gallon of extra-virgin olive oil and the phallic French bread in the passenger seat, it hit me like a ton of fear-fired bricks. I had made myself a target of the angry mobs of “God hates fags” sign bearers. I had thumbed my nose at the downtrodden masses virulently riled up by hate mongers into tying gays to barbed wire fencing and pummeling them into oblivion. I had stood up in proud declaration and rendered myself as vulnerable as a lesbian stumbling into the arms of gang-banging troglodytes who imagine their penises imbued with the power to screw gay women straight. I had plunked down my wheeled soapbox at the figurative Speakers’ Corner of Fallbrook and loudly offended the local populace by proclaiming them prejudiced against gays.

Oh ye gods, had I gone too far? Had my obstinacy overpowered my good sense? I knew what I was feeling: It was fear, and I wanted to get the hell home and remove the offending message before my obstreperous protest proved the death of me!

Except, well, I had to take pause.

The local populace is bigoted against gays to a disturbing degree. Prop. 8 passed with 52.3 percent of the statewide vote; in Fallbrook, it passed with 67.9. That’s a damnable number, and I have to wonder how many of the 11,298 Fallbrook voters it represents acknowledge their votes were discriminatory; I wonder how many people across the country would acknowledge the same intolerance. It’s a prejudice that cries for challenge of some sort or another, fear or no fear — and I happen to have just the thing for it.

I’m not taking the “Don’t Be Gaycist” sticker off my windshield; instead, I’m putting a few more on, and I’m encouraging my friends to do the same. … Then we’ll practice ducking.

Love,
K-B

Note: This column is cross-posted at iVoryTowerz.com.

© 2009 Kit-Bacon Gressitt

By Kit-Bacon Gressitt

“Suspect class.” It sounds ominous, foreboding, as though members of this shady group should be studiously avoided, particularly in places of dark and dismal urban decay.

Except, most of the people I know and adore — or at least tolerate fondly — are subject to this classification system. The term is actually a bit of legalese, defining groups whose very natures make them likely targets of discrimination. The U.S. Supreme Court identifies race, religion, national origin and legal alien status as suspect classifications, and claims of unconstitutional discrimination based on these categories receive the highest level of scrutiny by U.S. courts.

(Gender is afforded the dubious distinction of being a “quasi-suspect class,” in keeping with the quasi-equality women are allotted in the United States. Hence, gender-based complaints receive a lower level of judicial scrutiny.)

Last May, the California Supreme Court added sexual orientation as a suspect class when it opined that the March 2000 anti-same-sex marriage ballot initiative, Prop. 22, violated homosexuals’ constitutional rights to marry and to equal protection. This decision provided one basis for the legal challenges to Prop. 8, another anti-same-sex marriage initiative that won by a small margin in November. Implications of that decision are now among the court’s considerations, having heard Prop. 8 oral arguments last Thursday.

After watching the televised hearing, I imagined the seven justices shuffling their papers and tokheses back to their chambers, where handsome bottles were withdrawn from bottom desk drawers, and the oak-aged relief was judiciously applied to seven burdened brows and Solomonic psyches.

I feel for them, I do. Wisdom does not come easily; neither does its application. Whatever opinion the court renders will bitterly disappoint one impassioned faction and will likely result in talk of, if not actual, replacement of the offending majority of justices.

In the meantime, we wait — and California’s 18,000 same-sex couples, legally married before Prop. 8 passed and threatened their marriages, wonder when they will ever live free from discrimination.

Never, if Ken Starr, lead attorney for Prop. 8, has his way. He essentially argued that a simple majority of the people has the right to change the constitution, even if the change is unwise. This is not a new argument, but it is an increasingly frightening one. If we deny one class of people the inalienable right to be married, what other rights — or classes — will be at risk?

Will we next outlaw parenthood for gays — and take their children away? Will we prohibit homosexuals from teaching professions and take their jobs from them? (Schools are where they purportedly do much of their recruiting — straight kids go for those gay Xboxes like housewives used to go for S&H green stamps!)

And what other classes of folks shall we repudiate at the ballot? Take the words of Prop. 8 — “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” — and spin them around the prejudice wheel. Round and round they go!

We start with “No same-sex marriage is valid or recognized in California,” which confronts us now.

And how about “No marriage between a Black and a Caucasian is valid or recognized in California.” There go marriages left and right — for instance, the many biracial military families with deployed spouses (the military integrated long before the rest of us). Yeah, let’s muck that up.

“No marriage between a Pacific Islander and a Native American is valid or recognized in California.” Who cares? They don’t have the political clout to do anything about it.

Or “No marriage between a Baptist and a Methodist is valid or recognized in California.” And there goes me — my parents have si-i-i-inned and I am annulled!

Of course, “No marriage between a Christian and a Muslim is valid or recognized in California” could win a whole lot of votes — maybe even succeed — so Starr can defend that next.

Ridiculous, right? Unbelievable!

Unless you are gay and Prop. 8 is upheld, making you something less than the heterosexual human next to you.

It’s all too believable, and it’s no better than base, ignorant fear, this prejudice against homosexuals; it’s no more evolved than the fear white men had of blacks touching their women; it’s the crude and irrational fear of a woman’s lips on a woman’s labia, of one man’s penis penetrating another man.

If Prop. 8ers would just get their quasi-family values out of their dogmatic crotches, they could see — truly see and appreciate — the familial and marital love of committed homosexual couples. Gee, they’re just like the rest of us.

In the meantime, I look forward to the day when people of prejudice become the last, solitary suspect class.

Love,
K-B

Posts on this same topic:

Isn’t Love All You Need?
Prop 8: Protecting Marriage and Children? My Ass!

Need a laugh about this? Check out:

Prop. 8 – The Musical
Protect Marriage, Protect Children, Prohibit Divorce

©2009 Kit-Bacon Gressitt

(Photo by Steve Rhodes via a Creative Commons license.)