Box Turtle Bulletin

Tenners File to Overturn Prop 8

The campaign to overturn Proposition 8, California’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, has officially begun. (LA Times)

The group Love Honor Cherish filed ballot language with the state today for a measure to overturn the ban on gay marriage in the state. That is the first step in getting the question on the ballot.

According to the group, if the state approves the language, they will begin the process of collecting the estimated 1 million signatures needed to get on the November 2010 ballot.

And while the twelvers would very much like to wait another two years to strategize, plan, and prepare, if the coalition of groups wanting to take this issue to the polls next year show that they are achieving signature collection goals, you can be certain that they will seek to become a part of the effort and to ensure that it has the best possible chance of success.

I had the opportunity to have a discussion with an organizer involved with training grass-roots leaders at a “boot camp” a week ago and he reports that those in favor of moving forward are somewhat inexperienced in campaign strategy and methodology. They are also highly suspicious of the counsel given by the boys and girls in suits.

Frankly, I don’t know if the tenners have the organization to get a million signatures and to plan a winning campaign. But I am delighted that they are suspicious of the leaders who arrogantly led a campaign that neither sought nor utilized our community’s best resources: gay people themselves. And what the tenners have today that the leaders of the No on 8 Campaign sorely lacked is passion, commitment, and a belief that the results of this election will have an impact on their life personally.

Should the tenners succeed in getting their signatures, I hope that technical support can be utilized from the larger groups but that the strategic decisions are made by those who are fed up with gay politics as usual.

The language of the ballot measure is:

This amendment would amend an existing section of the California Constitution. Existing language proposed to be deleted is printed in strikeout type. Language proposed to be added is printed in underlined type.

Section 1. To protect religious freedom, no court shall interpret this measure to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person authorized to perform marriages by any religious denomination, church, or other non-profit religious institution to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution.

Section 2. To provide for fairness in the government\’s issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

What’s More Pathetic?

Former California Assemblyman Mike Duvall, who resigned following revelations that he bragged to a fellow unidentified Assemblyman about a couple of dripping-wet affairs with women who were not his wife and one of whom might have been a lobbyist regulated by his committee, is now claiming that he didn’t have any affairs after all. In a strangely headlined statement on his web site — “Assemblyman Duvall Denies Reports that he Had Affair,” even though those “reports” came from his own mouth — the Orange County Republican writes:

“I want to make it clear that my decision to resign is in no way an admission that I had an affair or affairs. My offense was engaging in inappropriate story-telling and I regret my language and choice of words. The resulting media coverage was proving to be an unneeded distraction to my colleagues and I resigned in the hope that my decision would allow them to return to the business of the state.”

Whether anyone believes any of this now is utterly beside the point. I mean think about it: what’s more pathetic? A “pro-family” anti-gay politician bragging to colleagues about all the juicy affairs he’s had? Or a “pro-family” anti-gay politician bragging to colleagues about all the juicy affairs he didn’t have?

CA Anti-Gay Assemblyman’s Drippy Disclosure

Update: Duvall resigns. See the full update below.

A California state assemblyman from Orange County, who strongly supported California’s Prop 8 “so we can end this debate once and for all,” is about to embark on another debate on the meaning of ethics and the sanctity of his own marriage:

[Michael] Duvall, speaking to a relatively mum Republican colleague seated to his left, apparently had no idea his dais microphone became live beginning about a minute before the start of a cable-televised committee hearing. He was captured in the middle of recounting portions of an affair.

“She wears little eye-patch underwear,” said Duvall, who is married with two children. “So, the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And so, we had made love Wednesday–a lot! And so she’ll, she’s all, ‘I am going up and down the stairs, and you’re dripping out of me!’ So messy!”

Very classy. According to this highly sensationalistic report from KCAL9, he’s also into spanking. Duvall was given a 100% rating by the Capital Resources Institute for “time and time again, [voting] to protect and preserve family values in California.” But now, not only has Duvall admitted to cheating on his wife, the vice-chair of the Utilities and Commerce committee is boasting of sleeping with a lobbyist for Sempra Energy, one of the state’s largest utilities — a clear ethical violation.

Who knew “family values” could be so much fun?

Update:Duvall has resigned, and apologized — not for actually doing anything wrong, just for bragging about it:

I am deeply saddened that my inappropriate comments have become a major distraction for my colleagues in the Assembly, who are working hard on the very serious problems facing our state. I have come to the conclusion that it would not be fair to my family, my constituents or to my friends on both sides of the aisle to remain in office. Therefore, I have decided to resign my office, effective immediately, so that the Assembly can get back to work.

‘The LA Times reported that the web site also had an apology, but that appears to have been taken down. That apology reportedly said:

I made a mistake and I sincerely apologize. I deeply regret the comments I made in what I believed to be a private conversation. This is a private matter and I ask that everyone respect the privacy of all involved.

So again, he’s not sorry and resigning because he cheated on his wife with at least two other women, nor that he admitted to having sex with a lobbyiest who has business before Duvall’s Utilities and Commerce committee. His only mistake was in talking about it. You know, stuff like this:

“I’m getting into spanking her,” Duvall is heard to say on the videotape.

The other man asks if she likes it, too. Duvall responds: “She goes, ‘I know you like spanking me.’ I said, ‘Yeah, that’s ’cause you’re such a bad girl.”‘

Oh boy, a straight guy into spanking. Paging Porno Pete…

Heterosexual Menace Update: Google-Eye View Of Sexual Slavery Compound

The whole world is horrified at the story unfolding from Antioch, California. Phillip Garrido, a registered sex offender, and his wife Nancy, were arrested for kidnapping and repeatedly raping eleven-year-old Jaycee Lee Dugard and holding her captive for the next eighteen years. They kept her in a maze of trees, blue tarps, tents, sheds and abandoned vehicles in the back yard of their home, along with two girls, aged 11 and 15, who Garrido fathered with Jaycee Lee.

The Garrido residence is located at 1554 Walnut Ave, Antioch, California. Plug that address into Google Maps like I did, click on Satellite View, and you can see for yourself the hellhole that Jaycee Lee and her two daughters endured.

Garrido had been sentenced to 50 years for kidnapping and life for rape in a separate 1975 incident in South Lake Tahoe. He was released on parole just eleven years later. An investigator recalled, “I asked him after he confessed why he did it, it was the only way he could get sexual satisfaction. I think he had to use force to get sexual satisfaction.”

Heterosexual Menace: Sexual Slavery While Speaking “In The Tongue Of Angels”

Heterosexual rapist and religious fanatic Phillip Garrido

Eighteen years ago, an 11-year-old girl was kidnapped while she was on her way to her school bus stop. This week, she was found after her abductor aroused suspicions of a Berkeley, California  police officer.  Arrested were Phillip Garrido, a registered sex offender, and his wife Nancy. They kept Jaycee Lee Dugard captive in a maze of shrubs, trees, tents and sheds in the back yard of their Antioch, California home. Authorities also found two girls, aged 11 and 15, that authorities believe Garrido fathered with Jaycee Lee, whom he renamed Alissa.

Jaycee Lee has never been to school or saw a doctor in the eighteen years since she was abducted. Neither have the two little girls. Acquaintances described Garrido as a “religious fanatic.” Reporters from The Washington Post found Garrido’s blog, “Voices Revealed,” in which he wrote:

…[T]he Creator has given me the ability to speak in the tongue of angels in order to provide a wake-up call that will in time include the salvation of the entire world.

And you know, the more we look into the Heterosexual Menace, I’m beginning to wonder if every heterosexual in the world is a predator.

You can read more about the Heterosexual Agenda that straights like Garrido have in store for you in our report, The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths.

Olson / Boies Prop 8 Trial Date Set

Federal Judge Vaughn Walker has set the date for the start of the trial over whether Proposition 8 violates the US Constitution: January 11, 2010. He also ruled on whether other parties could insert themselves into the case in order to protect their own interests. (SJ Merc)

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker also during Wednesday’s 90-minute hearing denied the motions of a coalition of three gay-rights groups, as well as of the conservative Campaign for California Families, to intervene as parties to the case. Neither proved an interest not already adequately represented by the case’s plaintiffs — same-sex couples wishing to marry — or the proponents of Proposition 8, he ruled.

But Walker did grant a motion to intervene from the City and County of San Francisco, which he said is asserting governmental interests — lost tourism dollars, and the cost of providing social services to those against whom Proposition 8 discriminates — that the plaintiffs don’t represent.

This leaves Olson and Boies free to craft the discrimination based on animus argument that they feel is most convincing. But it also leaves the defendants free from CCF’s nutcase Randy Thomasson from getting up and proving Olson and Boies’ argument.

It appears that all of the parties are committed to fast-tracking the case, though it will be quite some time before it can be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The January trial is likely to be the first step in a long process before the Proposition 8 challenge can reach the Supreme Court. Even after Walker decides the case, it is certain to be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals some time next year, and that court could take months or longer to rule before the challenge can reach the high court.

Those concerned that the time is not right for this case to be tried before the SCOTUS may wish to consider how the referendum movement to overturn Proposition 8 could impact the case. It appears that this case could reach the Supreme Court between 2010 and 2012. Those who fear a loss at the top of the judicial system may find it beneficial to try and derail the case by reversing Proposition 8 before the case can be heard.

Boies and Olson to go after ‘Yes on 8’ Campaign

I have been following the federal challenge to Prop 8, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and thought I would give BTB readers an update (there’s not much in the rest of the LGBT press).

As you might remember, former Bush v. Gore foes Boies and Olson sparked controversy among gay legal rights groups after teaming up to file a federal challenge to Prop. 8 in California District Court. Organizations like Lambda Legal, which have spent years focusing on incremental legal wins are afraid it’s not the right time to put all the movement’s chips on the table, but seeing as Boies and Olson are going ahead anyway, they want in on the action and have asked to join the suit.

Judge Walker is set to hear opposing arguments tomorrow over whether they should be allowed in, a motion Boies and Olson have opposed. My guess is that the judge will allow Lambda Legal, the City of San Francisco, and similar organization to join the suit, or at least that’s what I hope; these organizations have been fighting the good fight long before the fame-mongering pair came on the scene.

Today, all parties to the suit filed another round of “case management statements,” proposals that outline what the trial will cover, what legal questions will be addressed, and which sort of evidence will be gathered and presented.  What is interesting about these statements is that the case is shaping up to be much broader than the state challenge to Prop. 8, which hinged on the technical distinction between an “amendment” and a “revision.”

Crucially, the plaintiffs plan to go after the Yes on 8 Campaign to show that they were motivated by anti-gay animus. This will involve having the Yes on 8 people testify and hand over documents relevant to the campaign.

If some gay rights groups were frustrated by the legal language and fine lines involved in the state challenge, this is looking like it will be the big fight they wanted.

Stay tuned.

Did EQCA Collect Cash for a 2010 Campaign?

Queerty is reporting the claim that Equality California solicited contributions for a 2010 campaign to reverse Prop 8, only to turn around and oppose such an action.

It’s looking pretty obvious that EQCA benefited, whether on purpose or otherwise, by telling marriage equality supporters they would fight for 2010. They collected cash from Californians — our allies — under a falsehood. And with all the existing in-fighting between California’s gay rights groups, the last thing we need are accusations of fraud aimed at our own groups.

I don’t know whether there’s much fire behind the smoke. This may be more miscommunication than deception.

But I do know that when I was cold-called a week or so ago from EQCA looking for volunteers, I asked specifically which year they were supporting. I was told definitely 2010.

LA Times Says Wait Until 2012

An editorial in the Los Angeles Times endorses the decision by EQCA to wait until 2012 to try and reverse Proposition 8. They also criticize the Courage Campaign for moving forward.

To me, I think that they debate over the date may be partly due to objectives. I think that the LA Times fairly argues from the perspective of EQCA and others who counsel to delay.

The most important objective should be a decisive victory, sending a clear message that this state no longer will tolerate separate but not-quite-equal status for families based on sexual orientation. Given the opinion polls, the lack of a coherent campaign strategy and the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, this most likely means an unfortunate wait. A loss at the ballot box or in the nation’s high court could set back same-sex marriage for years.

If you share the above beliefs about objectives, then waiting until 2012 makes sense. And I think that the language in the editorial highlights the differences in approach, objectives, and goals between those wanting to go in 2010 and those wishing to wait until 2012.

The LA Times – and gay groups urging a wait – are viewing this as an election effort. Their goal is how best to run a campaign, how to achieve votes, how to pass this particular referendum. This is seen as a stand-alone initiative designed to achieve a specific purpose. And winning is everything.

But there is another perspective which I think is motivating those who are urging a 2010 date.

They do not see a reversal of Proposition 8 in terms of an election. They do not view it as a referendum or really in terms of a campaign at all. They view this effort not in terms of politics and elections but in terms of civil rights and a battle in the war for equality.

While twelvers are wondering about funding and strategy, tenners are focused on momentum, energy, honesty, and courage. Tenners want to win in 10, but find it even more important to not concede defeat. While they think victory is possible next year, they are committed to fighting this battle until it is won, even if that means going to the polls every two years.

And there will be an effort in 2010. I spoke this weekend to a leader with Equality Network (a grassroots organization unaffiliated with any established gay groups), and an application will be submitted to the Secretary of State for a proposition on the ballot in 2010. They will then begin the process of collecting 694,354 valid signatures. Should they (or another tenner group) prove successful at this rather daunting task, then they will have earned the right to establish the date.

2010 or 2012: The California Debate Continues

Equality California may have settled on 2012 as the right time to try to repeal Prop 8, but that doesn’t mean everyone’s on board:

John Henning, who heads Love Honor Cherish, an LA-based volunteer organization which helped raised $500,000 last year for efforts to defeat Prop.8 — the ballot measure approved by voters in November which outlawed same sex marriage — says that some 50 activist organizations are already part of a growing coalition signed up for the 2010 effort.

Henning, speaking to the Chronicle today, said there is profound anger and disappointment with the decision of EQCA to hold off a Prop. 8 challenge for the 2012 general election.

On the other hand, San Francisco Gavin Newsom, noting the divisions in the LGBT community over the timing of a Prop 8 challenge, says he’s not convinced such an effort can be successful next year:

With the landmark state initiative outlawing same sex marriage approved by state voters in November 2008 and reinforced by a decision of the state Supreme Court, “it’s a different campaign,” he said. “We can’t rely on the courts..we can’t rely on the legislature, or the executive branch.”

“And so, now, the rights of a protected class of citizens are in the hands of the people,” he said. “And that means it’s a political endeavor. Which it should never, ever be. But it is: those are the cards that have been dealt since Prop. 8 passed.”

“So as much as I’d like to see it happen next year, I’m not convinced that it will,” he said.

As we debate whether Californians should push for 2010 or 2012, let’s keep one thing in mind: Remember Maine in 2009!

Prop 8 Donor Doug Manchester’s Sacred Marriage Is Ending

San Diego hotelier Doug Manchester, whose $125,000 donation to support California’s Prop 8 sparked a boycott against his Manchester Hyatt and San Diego Marriot hotels and Grand Del Mar and White Tail Club Resorts, is divorcing his wife of 43 years.

Manchester said he made his Prop 8 donation to “preserve marriage” because of “my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church” — the very same church that condemns divorce. His Catholic faith doesn’t restrain him from thumbing his nose at the Church in ending his own marriage, but it does serve as a convenient excuse for denying others the right to marry.  There’s a word for that, isn’t there?

It’s 2012 For California

Rex Wockner live-blogged it, and Equality California confirmed it. They hope to spend the time between now and 2012 “changing the hearts and minds of Californians” — specifically engaging LGBT communities of color and faith. Good plan. Both of those critical components were missing in 2008, and we all know where that got us.

Meanwhile, there’s a must-win campaign in Maine that really could use your help right now.

Sailor Accused of Killing August Provost Commits Suicide

Seaman August Provost

The murder case of August Provost, the bisexual sailor who was found dead and burned at his guard post at Camp Pendleton, has taken a surprising turn. The suspect in the case was found dead in his cell yesterday afternoon:

Jonathan Campos, 32, of Lancaster, was found unresponsive in his cell at about 12:20 p.m., taken to the base hospital and declared dead about 1:15 p.m.,the Los Angeles Times reported.

Campos, a petty officer 2nd class, apparently asphyxiated himself with toilet paper. He had been on suicide watch in the brig and was last checked at 11:45 a.m., according to a Navy written statement.

A full statement from the Navy can be found here. Campos was charged with murder, drug possession, burglary and several other crimes. According to Navy investigators, Campos shot Provost, who was standing guard duty at the time, as Campos was trying to get onto the base to destroy property and attack other sailors. Navy investigators say there is no evidence that Provost’s death was the result of a hate crime.

Lawrence King’s Killer Motivated By Neo-Nazi Beliefs

On the second day of preliminary hearings in Ventura County (California) Superior Court, a Simi Valley detective and gang specialist testified that Brandon McInerney was at least partly motivated by neo-Nazi beliefs when he gunned down 15-year-old Lawrence King in an eight grade classroom. Detective Dan Swanson took the stand and offered this testimony yesterday:

A search of McInerney’s bedroom and backpack yielded the notebook, seven of Hitler’s speeches translated into English and a book about SS troopers who had been former members of the Hitler Youth. The collection reflected an interest in the Nazis that was far more profound than the World War II book report McInerney had been assigned, the investigator testified.

Swanson said the teenager’s family was friendly with a white supremacist in Oxnard’s Silver Strand area. The man told Swanson that he and his girlfriend allowed McInerney to sleep in their apartment a night or two before the shooting.

McInerney’s lawyers continue to push the “gay panic” defense, charging McInerney “cracked” when King blew kisses at him and declared his love.

On the first day of preliminary hearings, Oxnard police Sgt. Kevin Baysinger testified that McInerney bragged to fellow classmates that he had guns at home if he ever wanted to kill someone. “Brandon said if he ever wanted to kill anybody, his dad had a bunch of guns and he had the capability,” Baysinger told the court.

Anti-Prop 8 Legal Team to Pro-Gay Groups: Back Off

The American Foundation for Equal Rights has released a letter they wrote to the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU of Southern California, asking the three groups not to intervene in the Boies and Olson challenge to California’s Prop 8 in federal court.  They recounted the many ways in which the three groups had previously opposed the lawsuit and raise a very legitimate concern now that those groups want to enter the lawsuit on the side of the plaintiffs:

In public and private, you have made it unmistakably clear that you strongly disagree with our legal strategy to challenge Prop. 8 as a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution…. Having gone to such great lengths to dissuade us from filing suit and to tar this case in the press, it seems likely that your misgivings about our strategy will be reflected—either subtly or overtly—in your actions in court.

The letter provides an interesting detail surrounding the amicus briefs filed in the case calling for Prop 8 to be declared unconstitutional. According to the letter:

Even after you filed an amicus curiae brief urging the district court to grant our motion for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Prop. 8, you refused to characterize your position as one of “support.” Indeed, Jennifer Pizer of Lambda Legal went so far as to insist that we alter a press release that described your amicus curiae brief as “supporting” our suit. In response, we issued a second release addressing her concerns.

The letter also details several instances in which the Boies and Olsen team and AFER reached out to the three groups. After all that, AFER says that they “remain willing to work closely” with them, but not as co-council:

Your intervention would create a complex, multi-party proceeding that would inevitably be hampered by procedural inefficiencies that are directly at odds with our goal—and the goal of Chief Judge Walker—of securing an expeditious, efficient, and inexpensive resolution to the district court proceedings. As a result of your intervention, we could be mired in procedurally convoluted pre-trial maneuvering for years—while gay and lesbian individuals in California continue to suffer the daily indignity of being denied their federal constitutional right to marry the person of their choosing. … Delaying equal marriage rights in California serves none of our interests.

[Hat tip: Rex Wockner]

Click here to read the complete letter