Proposition 8 foes hold gay marriage boot camps

Determined to avoid the mistakes of their last, losing campaign for gay marriage, gay rights activists are launching the first of what they hope will be many “marriage equality training camps” in Los Angeles this weekend.

The idea is to train activists in “the practical, hands-on skills to organize in their communities to restore marriage equality for same-sex couples to California.”

Though Proposition 8, which amended the constitution to ban same-sex marriage, passed with 52% of the vote in November, both sides expect the matter to come back on the ballot in the next few years.

That  likely will happen no matter which way the California Supreme Court rules on a legal challenge to Proposition 8. The camps are based on training sessions held by the supporters of  Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

This first training in Los Angeles is generously underwritten by Dr. Bill Resnick and Dr. Doug Cordell. Co-sponsors include the 150,000-strong SEIU-United Healthcare Workers-West (SEIU-UHW), led by openly gay president Sal Rosselli; the California Nurses Assn.; and MoveOn.org Political Action.

"The Camp Courage training, inspired by 'Camp Obama,' is based on grassroots organizing models that have developed leaders and nurtured progressive social movements for many years, including the fundamentals of community organizing; volunteer recruitment and management; voter persuasion and more," according to a statement.

--Jessica Garrison

Photo: Los Angeles Times

Comments

[FlexSF]

You stated that both sides expect to see the issue of gay marriage on the ballot within the next couple of years, no matter which way the California Supreme Court rules.

This is exactly what we're challenging in court. Is marriage an issue that should be determined by an ignorant public? I have more faith in the court system and the California Constitution, not the angry majority of voters.

[Rhymes With Right]

Given the Maoist behavior of some Prop 8 opponents, expect them to next round up those who supported the measure and force them into reeducation camps of the kind seen during the Cultural revolution.

[MC]

They might as well start boot camps for polygamists too. Gay marriage in and of itself excludes and discriminates. If Prop 8 is overturned then the polygamists, incest practitioners and others "minorities" will soon be clamoring for their "equal" marriage rights as well.

[John K.]

FlexSF is exactly right. If the Court overturns Prop. 8, it's over. Absent some strange federal appeal that overturning Prop. 8 violated the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION (extremely unlikely), then we'll finally be done with this nonsense in California. There is no way 2/3 of the state legislature is going to vote to put this question back on the ballot, which is what would need to happen if the Court overturns Prop. 8.

I suppose it's POSSIBLE that the anti-gay folks could simultaneously try to oust some Supreme Court Justices that voted to overturn Prop. 8 and collect signatures in direct violation of this Court's decision to overturn Prop. 8 in hopes of winning and then having the new Court overturn this brand new precedent on amendment/revision, but this is probably more unlikely to result in a marriage ban than the federal appeal I just mentioned. At best, they get it back on the ballot (not likely-- it probably wouldn't even be certified since it would directly violate the Court decision. If they ask the Court to force certification, they will lose) and win, and then have it overturned again immediately.

Now, if the Court DOESN'T overturn Prop. 8, it will be back on the ballot at least every two years until one side or the other (almost certainly the anti-gay folks) realizes that popular opinion has shifted so far away from their side that it's no longer worth it. While this, again, will almost certainly be the anti-gay folks who are forced to give up, considering shifting opinions on this issue over the years, it could be a number of years before this shift occurs. We're hovering right around the 50-50 mark right now, and it could go back and forth several times before settling. A waste of time and lots of money, indeed. Another reason why the Court should just end this immediately by overturning Prop. 8.

[MattyMatt]

It's not the first -- Equality Camp happened in San Francisco a couple of weeks ago: http://equalitycamp.com/

[ChrisC]

John K writes: "Another reason why the Court should just end this immediately by overturning Prop. 8."

The court is allowed only (in theory) to judge questions of law not politics. For politics we have our legislature and our executive.

It was the court's misstep in the first place that brought this about. The majority decision to grant equality was legally flawed, founded as it was on RACIAL grounds.

How the majority reasoned from unchanging and unchosen racial characteristics toward changeable and chooseable sexual behaviors, concluding that legal equivalence was necessary, was breathtakingly facile.

Truly the Emperors have no clothes.

[fern]

The power Ezbollah has over the people in Lebanon stems from a strong social help network, just like Hamas in Palestine and this is what the churches are doing all over the world.

[Tom]

Let's just make sure that Geoffrey Kors and Lorri Jean aren't among the "gay rights activists" helping win this fight. Maybe the "Yes on 8" folks would hire them. They've been pretty effective to their cause.

This'll take a few years, perhaps, but plan to see it on the ballot until the same-sex marriage ban is repealed. Plan on it. I know I'll be out there soliciting signitures, and I know your neighbors will be signing my petitions.

[Shadow_Man]

To the guy saying this will lead to polygamy. That is the most laughable argument ever. You confuse a fetish, with sexuality. Let me distinguish this for you. Even polygamists and incest practitioners have their own sexual preferences. For instance, a polygamist can have many wives, showing he is heterosexual. That's the difference. Stop confusing irrelevant things with gay marriage. That argument is highly laughable. You can choose a fetish, but you cannot choose whom you are attracted to or the color of your skin.

Also, your polygamy argument is completely false. In the past, polygamy has widely observed, before gay marriage was even legal. Usually most of the polygamists were males with many wives, it was rarely the other way around. By your logic. heterosexual marriage and heterosexuals lead to polygamy, and hence we should abolish marriage altogether. See why your argument fails?

[Chris]

I'd rather see efforts to support domestic partner laws in other states and on the federal level. As a matter of language, we should have a distinction between the types of relationships. Changing the meaning of marriage in the law has far reaching effects.

In contrast to past restrictions on bi-racial couples, Prop 8 does not invade the bedroom or private ceremonies. Your church or other group can call the ceremony what it wants. My polygamist ancestors did so and just wanted to live their private lives. They were not pushing for government benefits through the court or vote. Even so their bedrooms were invaded and harsh measures were imposed. Their focus was on raising families and their religious beliefs.

With an evolution of domestic partner laws, states and the federal government can resolve what is appropriate legally and economically for benefits and responsibilities. The focus should be on supporting families and building stronger communities.

[Susan]

Marriage is between and man and a woman! Gays are not asking for equal rights they are asking to change the defination of marriage. I guess if an adult says he is only attracted to children, animals, or the dead and cannot change, then he should be allowed to have legally condoned sex with them. G&Ls may or may not always be able to change their sexual preference but it doesn't make it natural, normal, or acceptable . We should never go back to the past where gay people were beaten or killed because they were gay, but slowly going as far as to accept this behavior as normal and not the preversion that it is is going too far.

[Leslie]

"The Camp Courage training, inspired by 'Camp Obama,' is based on grassroots organizing models that have developed leaders and nurtured progressive social movements for many years..."

Missing is a political leader, like Barack Obama, Martin Luther King, or Harvey Milk. Someone who emerges from discovery, not "training." Until one (1) person can focus the multiple "campaigns" in the state or nationally, I expect little effective change out a "movement."

Oh... a leader does NOT come out of paid organizations that "lobby," "organize," "litigate," or pay themselves to stay in business or wait for "experts" to tell them what the next step is, or how to respond to opposition.

A political leader emerges and leads. The static institution and business that has become campaign politics mistakes itself for political leadership at best, a "religion" at worst.

[Leslie]

Chris C: "How the majority reasoned from unchanging and unchosen racial characteristics toward changeable and chooseable sexual behaviors, concluding that legal equivalence was necessary, was breathtakingly facile."

Hey Chris, about as superficial as saying religious beliefs are unchosen and not protected in the Constitution.

[Jim]

Chris, actually Prop 8 DOES invade private ceremonies. It's illegal in California for a registered minister to solemnize a marriage without a marriage license. This has caused many pro-equality churches to stop performing same-sex marriages while the courts sort out the issue. Before Prop 8 passed, churches were free to perform or not perform same-sex marriages at their own discretion. For your proposal to work, we need to end civil marriage for everyone, and once again allow it to be a purely religious ceremony. Since marriage licensing laws were created to prevent interracial marriage, it may very well be time to do just that.

[Jim]

ChrisC, the overwhelming psychiatric and psychological evidence is that sexual orientation is not chosen, and is not changeable. Religion is more of a choice than sexual orientation. Do you propose that we do away with freedom of religion because you can always just choose a different one?

[Teressa Spencer]

"MC" - your comments are offensive and simple minded. Gay rights have nothing to do with polygamy or incest. HOw can you be so obtuse as to think they do?

It is not illegal to be gay, or to fall in love with a person of the same gender, or to start a familial relationship with them. All perfectly legal and happening all around us. Therefore, there is no sound legal basis to treat gay couples differently. The other things you mention are illegal. Can you honestly not see the difference? It's not that complicated.

"Chris" - I take issue with the way you deny gay couples marriage equality on the grounds that separate but equal is good enough. Brown v. Board of Education back in the 60s was the beginning of a big pile of case law that proves in this country it's not good enough.

You sound a lot like someone who in the 60s would have advocated for separate drinking fountains, lunch counters and seats on the bus. Nice try, but equal protection under the law means 100% equal not 90% equal.

Oh and you wrote, "Changing the meaning of marriage in the law has far reaching effects." Baloney. Like what? Everything that's good about marriage--EVERYTHING--would be good for gay couples too. You need to explain why those same good things are not equally good for a gay couple who gets a marriage license. Because I think your statement is a crock of sh*t.

You also wrote, "The focus should be on supporting families and building stronger communities." I couldn't agree more. What better, simpler, faster, easier way to accomplish this than granting marriage equality to gay couples and their families.

[Teressa Spencer]

For anyone who doesn't believe same-sex marriage equality is a civil rights issue, please consider this.

Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, ally and close associate of Martin Luther King Jr., has written this on the subject:

"I have fought too hard and for too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism."

As a straight black man with a 50-year legacy of civil rights work, why would he say that if it weren't the case?

[sitinduc]

Judges are not legislators! They do not write laws, they deem their constitutionality. Where does it say anywhere in the constitution that “all” have the right to be married to whomever or whatever they want. I am so sick of this licentious minority! The founding generation would be appalled by this minority’s view of what the constitution represents!

[MC]

Shadow_Man: What's laughable is your contention that gay marriage will remain an acceptable and safe societal institution if it passes. As soon as it does, group-marriage practitioners, incest practitioners, even bestial marriage practitioners will start clamoring for their marriage "rights". Group marriage, which includes homosexuals AND heterosexuals, is a real movement and they are pushing to be recognized. Hey, they all "love" each other and it isn't "hurting" anyone so they want equal marriage rights. Gay marriage simply opens that floodgate -- that's where YOUR reasoning fails.

[subwarrior]

Right on Chris!!! I was beginning to fear logic and reason are vanishing from this state, and it is good to see that others also can recognize, what those dominated by their lusts cannot.

Sure enough Leslie chimes in right on cue, trying to tie sexual choices with one's choice of church! Let us hope that wiser, cooler minds prevail and this farce of an argument for gay marriage is thrown as far back in the closet as possible.

[Alfred H.]

Susan, I disagree. legal marriage is a contract, a union of two consenting adults in love who are committing to share a home, finances, their life together. Some raise children. People who enter this legal contract are entitled to rights and protections merely by being in this contract. They also bear certain responsibilities.

Up until now, the government only allowed heterosexual couples access to this contract. The whole time gay couples have been around. Gay couples just never got any of the rights, priveleges, or protections no matter how loving they were, no matter how long they'd been together (no common law status comes to gay couples), and without regard to whether the gay couples is raising children.

That needs to change. Churches can do anything they want with the religious institution of marriage because if I don't like it I won't belong to that church.

But in the eyes of the law, gay couples are entitled to equal status no matter who approves or disapproves. We have waited far too long and fought far to hard for this. It WILL happen.

[JDH]

FlexSf said: "This is exactly what we're challenging in court. Is marriage an issue that should be determined by an ignorant public?"

Why do you paint the entire voting public of California as ignorant, just because an opinion was expressed that is contrary to yours? There is so much talk about equality, but unfortunately that equality is not supposed to include anyone with a conservative point of view, who believes that marriage should continue to be defined as a union of a man and a woman. I believe the majority of the voting public made an informed choice. But just a thought: if the public is so ignorant, what does that say for the election of our new president?

[db]

Historically marriage has been to protect women and children, and reasons of inheritance. This is because when a heterosexual couple co-habitate children(with a few exceptions) will inevitably follow. When gay or lesbian couple co-habitate there will NEVER be children. How is this equal? I think the gay and lesbian community are showing their immaturity and hatred toward heterosexuals with this militant behavior at those that backed Prop. 8. Gays and lesbians have civil unions, therefore, they are not being discriminated against. They are discriminating, unlawfully, against hetero's who legally worked within society for a position they believe in, which, as I have explained does NOT discriminate against gays and lesbians. Now, this marriage issue seems to be because gays and lesbians do not "feel" equal. This is a personal psychological issue. I work with many gays who, quite frankly, seem more interested in mocking heterosexuals than living their lifestyle unmolested, while they wish to politically molest people who will not give them what they want.
This is called being childish. Live your lifestyles and leave the heterosexuals alone. Accepting gays and lesbians does not mean having to change every heterosexual custom to suit the gay community. Gays and lesbians: their are other people in society besides yourself, maybe you need to notice this, instead of being so ego oriented, that yourselves, are all that matter. What about the rest of society? The hate of gays and lesbians toward heterosexuals is a sign of personal dysfunction. The insistence of gays and lesbians to intrude on heterosexual lifestyles is a sign of personal emotional problems that gays and lesbians need to resolve in the therapist's office.
If I told someone I will give you the company position of president, but I won't call you the president; yet, you will have the power of the president, the office of the president, the salary of the president, and all the perks of the president; would you turn it down because you would not be call the president? If so, this would be a sign to withdraw the offer of the presidency.
The day that gays and lesbians can have sex and produce a child, naturally, then marriage makes sense, but not until.

[KateNonymous]

"When gay or lesbian couple co-habitate there will NEVER be children."

So I guess you've never heard of adoption, or surrogates. Or leaving your belongings to your spouse.

[Teressa Spencer]

sitinduc, you wrote: "Where does it say anywhere in the constitution that “all” have the right to be married to whomever or whatever they want. "

Glad you asked.

If you read the California Supreme court's ruling it outlines in 173 pages of glorious detail exactly where and how and why our state constitution guarantees that every consenting adult is entitled to marry the consenting adult they love and want to spend their life with. Go read it. It's available online.

You also wrote: "Judges are not legislators! "

I agree. Are you aware that the California assembly, both houses, not once but twice passed legislation (in 2005 and again in 2007) allowing gay couples to marry in California? Both times when it went to the governor for final signature into law he vetoed it. A single man completely shot down the robust legislative process of the elected representatives who are accountable to constituents.

His reason? He said he wanted to leave the matter to the court to decide. His deference to the California Supreme Court is the ony reason we didn't have legal marriage in 2005. And we know how it turned out in the court last May.

So before you get all snippy you should think about the fact that this is not about you, has nothing to do with you, and no one really cares what you think. After all, your right to marry the person you love is not dependent on my approval is it? So what makes you think my right to marry the person I love should be dependent on the likes of you?