Box Turtle Bulletin

NY Times: Mormons Church “Tipped Scale” for Prop 8

This morning’s New York Times has a the scoop on the extraordinary role the LDS church played in stripping gays and lesbians of their rights in California:

As proponents of same-sex marriage across the country planned protests on Saturday against the ban, interviews with the main forces behind the ballot measure showed how close its backers believe it came to defeat — and the extraordinary role Mormons played in helping to pass it with money, institutional support and dedicated volunteers.

“We’ve spoken out on other issues, we’ve spoken out on abortion, we’ve spoken out on those other kinds of things,” said Michael R. Otterson, the managing director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormons are formally called, in Salt Lake City. “But we don’t get involved to the degree we did on this.”

While Mormons make up about 2% of the California population, their out-front, leading efforts were far in excess of their numbers:

Jeff Flint, another strategist with Protect Marriage, estimated that Mormons made up 80 percent to 90 percent of the early volunteers who walked door-to-door in election precincts.

…In the end, Protect Marriage estimates, as much as half of the nearly $40 million raised on behalf of the measure was contributed by Mormons.

…Mr. Otterson said it was too early to tell what the long-term implications might be for the church, but in any case, he added, none of that factored into the decision by church leaders to order a march into battle. “They felt there was only one way we could stand on such a fundamental moral issue, and they took that stand,” he said. “It was a matter of standing up for what the church believes is right.”

El Coyote Boycott – My Observations

I promised to post my take on last night’s protest, so here goes:

I stopped by the boycott of El Coyote Cafe last night just to see if it was on target and effective. I found myself drawn in. While I had not expected more than perhaps 30 activist types, I would estimate that more than 200 people took part (at one point – when you could still get from one side to the other – I counted about 150).

Those who were there knew why they were there and a great many were El Coyote customers. There were a great many hand painted signs and most showed an awareness of the facts involved. And while this was clearly seen as a part of a much larger protest effort by those I spoke to, this was not an irrational response to a rumor.

Unlike the mainstream media reports that Margie Christoffersen is “a manager” or “a daughter of the owner” (some even call her “an employee”), those there knew full well that Margie is the face of El Coyote. She is as much a part of the place as the fattening food, cheap margaritas, and bird cages full of plastic flowers.

And there is little doubt that the boycott was effective. During the period of the protest, only a handful of patrons drove into the parking lot and braved the jeers of boycotters. Perhaps not surprisingly, many were blonde. None were there unintentionally.

And while the parking lot was about half full, most of those cars didn’t move all night and I’m guessing that they did not belong to customers.

At one point a bus arrived and a large group of slightly-overdressed people entered the restaurant through a side door. Lisa Derrick identified them as French tourists, but I’ve not noticed another tour bus stop at El Coyote in the 19 years I’ve eaten there and find the coincidence a bit suspicious. Also, my admitedly limited experience with French people suggests that its likely that in a bus load of random tourists there would be several in the group who would refuse to eat at a restaurant being picketed by gays.

Although I had intended only to observe, I found that for this night, this was a boycott protest I could support. I soon found myself helping hold up a giant “boycott bigotry” sign. It’s not the wording I would have chosen, but it was close enough.

I was approached by a young man leaving the restaurant. He told me that he and his friends had a drink in the bar and while they sat there they realized that they just couldn’t stay and eat. “We decided we had to show our support for you.”

Well over half of the cars driving by honked or waved. A few circled around the block to honk again. Only one hasidic gentleman yelled “faggot” and one elderly man flipped us off – otherwise there was no visible negative response.

This was unquestionably a successful night of boycotting. But it was not a happy victory.

Those who work at El Coyote are the victims of the ownerships decisions – both that of Marjorie to contribute to the harm of her customers and the decision of her family to let her stay the face and voice of the establishment. I fear that unless a change is made quickly, this LA landmark will irreparably lose its base of gay and gay-friendly costomers and there aren’t enough busloads of “French tourists” to make up for that loss. And I feel sorrow that the employees – including Roberto and Isabelle, my favorite waiters – could all be hurt in the process.

And I still consider Margie to be a victim of the situation. Her church put her in an impossible position, fund an attack on those you love or lose your salvation. And while I cannot continue to contribute to her further enrichment (she told us her choice), I know she’s terribly hurt.

The El Coyote Boycott

I’m terribly busy this morning and so I can’t share my perspectives about the El Coyote boycott last night.

But until then, here is the LA Times write-up. Don’t believe the part about police in riot gear. Four very friendly and cooperative officers showed up in their usual uniform to remind people to get out of the street. There was no confrontation with officers whatsoever.

Here also is a very informative piece by Lisa Derrick, writing at FireDogLake. Lisa is the one who recorded video of the meeting with Marjorie.

LAist has photos.

Gotta run. More later.

All Of Those Gay Friends You Say You Have? They Are No Longer Your Friends

Yesterday, Timothy Kincaid provided a first-hand account of the meeting at LA’s El Coyote Cafe to listen to Marjorie Christoffersen explain her decision to contribute to the Yes on 8 campaign. This decision was particularly painful to El Coyote’s mix of loyal gay and straight customers. Now, via Queerty, we have video of the event.

The first video is of Marjorie Christoffersen’s talk before the crowd.

So far, so good.

That is, until they decided to take questions from the audience:

Those who voted to disenfranchise their gay and lesbian neighbors have been stunned at the outpouring of anger over the passage of Propositions 8, 102 and 2 (in California, Arizona and Florida, respectively).

It’s mystifying to me, but they seemed genuinely surprised that people that they thought they knew and loved would be angry to see their rights put up to a vote and defeated. It mystifies me because I wonder how many straight people would put up with the idea that their right to marry should be subject to a vote — and they lose that vote? How would they react?

And now many of those people who voted against us and who gave money to a cause to render us second-class citizens, they fall back on the defense that “many of my best friends are gay.”

Well, that doesn’t work anymore. Here’s a news flash: All those gay friends you have? If you supported Prop 8 (or Prop 102 or Amendment 2), they are no longer your friends. You can safely drop that line of defense.

Mormons Protest the Resignation of Anti-Gay Theater Director

Scott Eckern, the Artistic Director of the California Musical Theater in Sacramento, has not had a good week. On Friday, Jeremy at GoodAsYou noted that Eckern had given $1,000 to the campaign to eliminate marriage rights of – let’s be real – a large percentage of people in Eckern’s business.

This did not sit well with Marc Shaiman, the composer of Hairspray, whose show ended the company’s summer season. He called Eckern and told him:

“The idea that your donation came from a salary that for a short amount of time was drawn from profits from a show I wrote upsets me terribly and I would never allow anything I write to play there and will encourage my colleagues to consider doing the same.”

Several others in the theater world were equally horrified. The theater company found themselves faced with a resentful performers, a black-list from creators, and ill will from much of their audience. I think it’s no secret that those who delight in musical theater – gay or straight – are not likely to have voted in mass for Proposition 8.

Eckern did the honorable (and only possible) thing and resigned his position:

“I am disappointed that my personal convictions have cost me the opportunity to do what I love the most which is to continue enriching the Sacramento arts and theatre community,” he said.

His Mormon Church supported his decision.

I may be a bit cynical but I’m inclined to think that the evidence shows that what he really loved the most was adhering to the anti-gay doctrines of his church. Otherwise he’d still be doing all that enriching.

Well the story isn’t over. Protestors have come out to support him.

“This is a witch-hunt,” said Lance Christensen, who says he’s a regular patron of the theater and took off work to show his support for Eckern. “This man has devoted 25 years of his life to theater in Sacramento.”

Something struck me as a bit – shall we say – untheaterish about this crowd. And guess, what. At least some of them have a little extra something in common with Eckern which they didn’t disclose to the reporter.

Take Lance Christensen, for example. Well it turns out that Lance is an alumnus of Pepperdine and BYU and his linkedin “groups” includes the LDS Church. Oh, and that job he took time from? That would be Director of Legislation for the extremely homophobic California State Senator Tom McClintock.

And then there’s that sign in one picture at the Sacramento Bee saying “We love the Eckern Family”. Gosh, most folks never get a chance to know wife and kids of the Artistic Director at their local musical theater.

Hmmmm. Funny coincidence.

UPDATE:

The Chicago Sun-Times indirectly confirms that the “pro-Eckern” rally was not theater-goers but just his friends from church:

“This is not fair – a lot of people wanted this passed, not just Mormons,” said Lynnette Black of Sacramento who rallied in support of Eckern in front of Music Circus last week. “We (church members) worked hard and within the law. It’s very hard to see this attitude toward Mormons.” [emphasis added]

Wouldn’t it be nice if they just told the truth about who they were and why they were there?

K-EARTH Morning DJ Contributed to Yes on 8

Monday through Friday from 5:00 am to 10:00 am, K-EARTH 101 in Los Angeles is DJ’d by Gary Bryan.

After stints in Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago and New York (on America’s most-listened-to station, Z100), Gary took over the morning show on KEARTH 101. Following in the footsteps of one of LA’s greatest personalities, Robert W. Morgan, is a daunting task, but the loyal and friendly KEARTH 101 audience made him feel right at home. It’s been over 5 years, and each day Gary enjoys working with Lisa, Sammy, Tim and Bob, bringing the music and fun to Southern California.

Gary is married (since he was 19) to June, and they have four children: Jack, Kate, Marie and Grace, and two grandkids, Eva, 2, and Jesse, 1.

K-EARTH is an oldies station currently owned by CBS Radio.

The following information is from the database of contributions (Click to enlarge):

This contribution may well be consistent with Bryan’s listeners. But I will not be listening to KRTH in the morning on my drive tomorrow.

(hat tip to reader John)

1997 Mormon Memo Emerges, Revealing Longstanding Strategy

An eleven year old internal LDS memo has emerged which proves that the Mormon church has been plotting against same-sex marriage for more than a decade.

The memo, dated March 4, 1997, provides insight into the late LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley’s strategy for opposing same-sex marriage. It describes a meeting in which Hinckley gives the go ahead, but urged caution. According to the memo, “he (President Hinckley) also said the (LDS) Church should be in a coalition and not out front by itself.”

In fact, the LDS church has been way out front in its battles against gays and lesbians, both in California and in Arizona.

The memo was addressed to Elder M. Russell Ballard, who has played a central role in the LDS’s fight in Arizona and California. He appeared on several closed-circuit satellite broadcasts to Mormon churches with specific instructions on the California campaign for Prop 8. In one such broadcast in late October, he reminded the faithful that the central doctrine of Celestial Marriage was propelling the church’s drive to impose its theology on state constitutions:

“We know that it is not without controversy, yet let me be clear that at the heart of this issue is the central doctrine of eternal marriage and it’s place in our Father’s plan,” Ballard said.

Parts of the 1997 memo were first published on the DailyKos web site on November 3. Those portions reveal that the LDS leadership has been strategizing for California even back then.

Update: You can see the entire memo by clicking here (PDF: 260KB/8 pages).

El Coyote: An Uncompromising Faith

The Meeting
About 75 people showed up for the early lunch at El Coyote Cafe to listen to Marjorie Christoffersen explain her decision to contribute to the Yes on 8 Campaign. Most of those attending were men who had been customers of Margie’s restaurant for many years. Some were children of Mormons or had been raised in the faith. And while there was at least one who just wanted to vent his anger, most truly wanted to hear Margie out and, if possible, find a solution.

Before her presentation, Arnoldo, an employee of 28 years, expressed that the management doesn’t share her views and that she doesn’t talk politics or religion with her staff. All were allowed to believe, vote, or contribute as they wish. He received polite applause.

Then it was Margie’s turn.

The Message
Although Margie is usually a spry woman, today she was breathless, and distraught and appeared fragile, not an easy task for a woman of her height. She stood supported between her daughters and read a prepared speech – most of which had already been released.

She praised the restaurant as a beacon of diversity, people from all places and where everyone doesn’t have to agree, where they can get along even with differing views. She credited her aunt for being sympathetic to the plight of the “gay individual” before there was support and how the restaurant became a safe haven for “that community”. She told of visiting sick people and providing “a healing place”.

She explained that she had been a member of the Mormon Church all her life and that she had responded to their request with a personal donation. She shared that El Coyote had contributed to many gay interests and charities.

Margie told of the 89 employees whose families relied on their job. She expressed how customers were part of the Coyote family. She lamented that this situation could harm a place with such diversity and harmony and joy and mutual respect and diversity of viewpoints.

“It saddens me that my faith will keep some from coming to the Coyote. But I cannot change a lifetime of faith in what I believe deeply. And I cannot and will not change my love and respect for your views”.

She did not apologize or express remorse.

The Response
Billy Schoepner, the Maitre d’, announced that the restaurant would contribute an undetermined amount in the neighborhood of $5,000 to the Gay and Lesbian Community Center and to Lambda Legal. He also expressed an intention to run full page apologies in Frontiers, a gay magazine, and in LA Weekly, an alternative magazine.

But the crowd was more interested in Margie’s response than that of the restaurant.

The first question to Margie was if she would be willing to make a personal contribution to the efforts to reverse the proposition. She responded, “I have to be faithful to my views and my church”, and quickly left the room. Her daughters remained behind, looking angry, dismissive, and indignant that those there would question their mother or them. They answered no questions nor made any statements.

Lucile, a waitress that is much loved by some there, tearfully told how she felt that God had led her to El Coyote. It was there that she met and learned to love gay people, which prepared her to be supportive when her brother came out. She expressed her fears that if Coyote goes down, she goes down.

But it soon became apparent that those present had not been satisfied by Margie’s response or the concerns of the staff.

Our friend Regan stood and spoke about how she had been subject to many people saying wonderful and loving things to her, a black woman, but once she was out of sight they had a different story. She noted that Margie had entered fragile and trembling but had certainly had the strength to rush from the room. Regan was not impressed.

Many there were distressed to know that a tithe of their profits was given by the owners to the Mormon Church, an organization that planned, organized, and funded an effort to take away the civil rights of those who made her business successful.

An executive with the Trevor Project told how 1,200 to 2,000 kids call the suicide hotline each month and that most come from the Midwest and that many many of them were from Mormon families that kicked them out, ex-communicated them, and left them selling their bodies on the streets to survive.

Several people sought a solution. One suggested writing Margie letters to express how she had hurt them. Others wondered if an ongoing contribution to a gay support organization in an amount equal to the tithe she pays to the Mormon Church would not bring reconciliation. Some expressed a desire to help the staff find new jobs should they lose employment as the result of Margie’s stance.

But there seemed to be a consensus that as long as Margie was a visible part of the restaurant, those present could not eat there. She would have to at least stay home and distance herself from the business. Some insisted that she sell her interest in the establishment entirely.

Some with Mormon families told of the difficulty that comes with disagreeing with the Church. You lose all family and all friends and all hope of salvation. The Mormon faith does not allow for disagreement or dissent. Truly Margie had been put in a position by her church’s leadership that threatened her business and her happiness.

But one man spoke of how he was raised Mormon and his family is still in the church. He said that there comes a time when you have to decide whether to hold onto one particular doctrine of your church or whether you will refuse to harm those you know and love.

And sadly, Marjorie Christoffersen has made her decision.

It was a very sad room that left today. I did not speak to anyone who said that they would continue to patronize the restaurant. They felt that they could no longer profit a woman who used their support to take away their rights. Many felt betrayed, some had lost a home.

No one stayed for lunch.

UPDATE
Micah, blogging at Shut Up! I Know! was also present. His observations were similar to mine.

Earlier today the LA Times reported on the controversy

Bob Montoya, a manager at El Coyote, said customers have called and threatened to boycott the restaurant, but it does not appear to have affected business. Montoya said he thought a boycott, if one was called, was misguided, as the restaurant has a number of gay employees and has always been gay friendly.

“I”m gay and I work here, and I’ve been here for 31 years,” Montoya told The Times. “It’s gay friendly. People have been coming here for many years, gay and straight, families and everybody.”

Perhaps Bob has not noticed a change in business. But I drive home past El Coyote nearly every day. Last night the front parking lot was only about a quarter full, far less than usual.

Prop. 8 Post-Mortem: Was There A Gay Bradley Effect?

Was the passage of Prop. 8 always a foregone conclusion, despite poll results throughout the summer and early fall showing most likely voters opposed it?

Or were the major polls correct, and the sentiment of California voters actually shifted in the weeks leading up to Election Day, from opposition to support?

Throughout the election campaign, supporters and opponents of marriage equality maintained that survey results consistently understate support for antigay ballot measures because many respondents wish not to appear bigoted to a pollster.

The existence of a racial Bradley effect -­ i.e., a pattern in which the polls’ accuracy is affected by significant numbers of racist Whites lying to pollsters and saying they would vote for a Black candidate ­ has been widely disputed, and wasn’t evident in polling this year.

But was there a gay Bradley effect in California?

In my latest post at Beyond Homophobia, I review data from the Prop. 8 pre-election and exit polls and conclude that there is no evidence that survey respondents said they would vote No when they actually supported the measure.

Rather, the polls suggest that the No vote was shrinking in the weeks leading up to the election, and this trend probably continued right up to Election Day. Add to this the unexpectedly high turnout among key voter groups — which increased their impact on the outcome beyond what pollsters had projected — and the fact that many undecided voters ultimately supported the measure, and the final results are not difficult to reconcile with pre-election polls.

Thus, we can use the poll data as a tool for better understanding how the various strategies pursued by each side between May and November ultimately affected the outcome of the election.

You can read the entire analysis at Beyond Homophobia.

CA Supremes to Decide Perhaps by the End of the Week

The Sacramento Bee is reporting:

The California Supreme Court could rule as early as this week on a lawsuit that seeks to invalidate Proposition 8, court spokeswoman Lynn Holton said today.

The decision this week would be whether to put a stay on the State’s enforcement of Proposition 8 until lawsuits could be heard. The lawsuits are based on the argument that Proposition 8 did not amend the Constitution, but rather revised it to do something materially different than it did before. In other words, this was not a change in how something is done but rather a change in an underlying principle of the Constitution: that all citizens are equal and that gay citizens cannot be excluded from the institutions of the State.

If the court finds that removing a fundamental right of a suspect population is a revision rather than an amendment, the process is different. It requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature before submission to the public.

Some scholars are of opinion that this suit is unlikely to prevail. But there are a few indicators – purely from observation and guesswork – that I find encouraging.

First, this court did not find, as some have, that the State did not provide adequate reason for excluding same sex couples. Rather, they found that gay persons are a suspect class and that all laws written for the express purpose of excluding gay persons or couples are presumed to be in violation of the Constitution and can only pass strict scrutiny if they are narrowly tailored to be the least restrictive means for achieving a compelling governmental interest.

Proposition 8 did nothing to invalidate the strict scrutiny requirements or equal protections provisions of the Constitution. And no one pretends that Prop 8 achieved even a vague government interest and it was inarguably greatly restrictive and broadly tailored. Thus, the proposition leaves the State Constitution in a state of internal conflict. The reading of this document now is “Gays cannot be excluded. Gays are excluded.” Such language is clearly nonsensical.

It leaves the legal scholar with a document that is not much different from that painted on the side of the barn in the Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

Next, I’m going to speculate on how a judiciary views precedent. Regardless of the conclusions of a court, jurists hold them as concluded. Those who found other evidence to be compelling do not disagree with whether the court has decided or whether such decisions must be followed.

This court found by a 4-3 vote that gays are subject to strict judicial scrutiny and that marriage is a fundamental right. But – and this is the important part – even the three dissenting judges will uphold the position that marriage is now a fundamental right and that gays are now a suspect class. Once the conclusion is reached, it has the force of law and the backing of both supporters and dissenters.

That voters disagree about the fundamental nature of the right to marriage is not of importance to the dissenting judges. That 52% of voters don’t want gays to have equality does not make the suspect status of gays any less real – even to the dissenters. Those who sought to overturn the decision did not disagree with a few judges, but rather with the right of the court to determine who is included in the protections of the constitution – something that all jurists take seriously. Or so I hope.

Finally, and this may seem counterintuitive, these are not liberal activist judges. They did not come into their position with a “gay agenda” and use creative reading to find a “special right”. Six of the seven judges are Republicans, and they found that gay people are equal out of their understanding of constitutional protections. Their decision was based on their reasoning and contrary to what may have been initial prejudices. They will not be easily swayed by Party, ideology, or the whims of political winds. If they found marriage to be a fundamental right, a 52% vote of the populace is unlikely to cause them to no longer see such a right.

Now I may be unduly optimistic, but I have reason to hope that the California Supreme Court will invalidate Proposition 8. And I have a suspicion that the vote will be greater than 4 to 3.

El Coyote Update

The consequences of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ decision to enter the political arena and seek secular enforcement of their religious doctrines can be measured in part by the chaos and turmoil caused in the lives and livelihoods of their own members.

We know of families who have been torn apart by Mormon theology on human sexuality. We know of suicides and depression. We know of estranged children and miserable holidays. But we respect the rights of churches to select their own articles of faith – even those that bring unhappiness on those adherants who are gay.

But when the Mormon Church decided to spread outside of its own fold, the tragedy expanded to neighbors and employees and friends and customers. No longer can hurt and difficulty be excused as a matter of private faith; now we see and condemn the public policy efforts that have left a trail of victims in their wake.

And not all victims of this agressive effort are gay, some are faithful members of the church that have been caught in the crossfire.

One example of such is Marjorie Chrisoffersen, the family manager of El Coyote Restaurant. Word of her contribution of $100 to the Yes on 8 Campaign has flown by email throughout Los Angeles’ gay community. And with this community – and its friends and allies – as her best customers, this has the potential to severely hinder her business.

Today Margie released a message:

I have been sick at heart that anyone has been offended by me. I have family, friends, employees from the gay community who are treasured people in my life.

I have been a member of the Mormon church all my life. I responded to their request with my personal donation.

For years the El Coyote has financially and generously supported the gay community and its charities.
Please be my guest for an early lunch Wed., Nov. 12th, @ 11:00 am and allow me to personally speak with you.

Please call and make a reservation as seating is limited. (323) 939-2255.
Margie

I don’t believe that Margie acted out of ill intentions. I suspect that she was just obedient to a call put out by her church leadership, a leadership that I believe gave no care or concern to the sacrifice that they had requested of those members with gay friends, families, and customers.

But I may be wrong. She may feel that the profits made from catering to our community can then be spent on civil harm towards us – as long as the motivation is religious.

I have made my reservation for tomorrow. I want to hear whether Margie believes that giving to a charity excuses taking away a basic right. I want to hear whether she will provide statements of justification or a request for forgiveness.

UPDATE

From JazzyJeff63’s Flickr site

11/10/2008 – I had dinner at El Coyote tonight. When Marj finished having dinner with her family, I called her over to my table and asked “What was your position on Prop 8?”, She replied with “I love you guys, I would never do anything to hurt you, I wish I hadn’t done it”.

She was sincerely regretful, I could feel her hurt as she probably felt mine.

But from Eater:

“El Coyote is known for being a melting pot, we love and tolerate everyone. This has nothing to do with the restaurant. I donated through my church. We would never tell our employees they couldn’t contribute to political organizations—as individuals, they do and support whatever they want. El Coyote has donated thousands of dollars to the gay community through charitable organizations. As a rule, we don’t do politics. We have too many varying opinions here, and that’s the staff’s right.”

While the former sounds a bit like, “I’m sorry”, this statement sounds like justification. It’s the age old plea that “my personal actions should not have any impact on my business” and “I’m separate from my restaurant, so just ignore that the profits come to me”.

I do not in any way challenge Marjorie Cristoffersen’s right to contribute to whomever she wishes. But she will not use profits made from my dollar to take away my rights.

And frankly, I’m not all that interested in being “tolerated” at the moment.

So I’m quite interested in hearing what Margie will have to say tomorrow.

There are now over 4,000 google hits for “el coyote” prop 8.

For an update to this story, see: El Coyote: An Uncompromising Faith

More Protests Yet To Come

The protests against Prop 8 continue without any apparent letup. Here are some more scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, including one in St. Paul, Minnesota:

Tuesday, November 11:
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
1:00 p.m.
Corner of Haven and Foothill.

Redlands, CA
4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.
Redlands Mormon Temple
1761 Fifth Avenue

Santa Monica, CA
5:00 p.m.
321 Santa Monica Pier

Fresno, CA
5:00 p.m.
Fink-White Playground
Amador St and B St.

San Francisco, CA
5:00 p.m. – 10:00p.m.
San Francisco City Hall
1 Dr Carton B Goodlett Pl

San Diego, CA
5:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
San Diego Mormon Temple
7474 Charmant Drive

Los Angeles, CA
6:00 p.m.
La Cienega Blvd and Centinela Ave

Saint Paul, MN
3:00 p.m.
State Capitol (Meet on Old Main Lawn)

Wednesday, November 12
Encinitas, CA
4:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
Corner of Saxony and Encinitas Blvd.
Phone: 5305759264
dancewithwolves@wildmail.com

West Hollywood, CA
7:00 p.m.
Santa Monica & San Vicente

New York, NY
6:30 p.m.
Manhattan Mormon Temple
125 Columbus Ave at 65th Street

San Diego, CA
7:00 p.m.
St. Paul’s Episcopal Cathedral
2728 Sixth Ave.
For more info, contact Chris Harris at (619) 298-7261 or harrisc@stpaulcathedral.org.

Keith Olbermann on California’s Prop 8

Click here to read the full transcript

Should I Give Up my Favorite Mexican Restaurant?

I just received a very distressing email. It started:

I wanted to share with you that the owner of El Coyote, Marjorie, donated $100 to the Yes on 8 campaign…

El Coyote Café is a Los Angeles landmark. Over 75 years old, and still family owned, it is perhaps best known as the site of Sharon Tate’s last meal.

Locals know it as a favorite of many of who just want a meal and a drink, and don’t want to pay much to get it. A taco and enchilada with rice and beans is $9.50; pair that up with a margarita and you’re out the door for less than twenty bucks.

El Coyote is also delightfully tacky with a vast collection of “art”, the kind that includes paintings with windows that light up and frames made of shells. The waitresses wear huge Spanish dresses with lots of frills and most have been there for decades. It’s loud, it’s high in fat content and calories, it’s unsophisticated, and it’s always always busy.

But what makes El Coyote a delight is that its one of those places that are loved by straights and gays alike. On any given night, a quarter to a third of all patrons are gay and the rest are singles out together, birthday parties, families with kids, or old married couples.

A search of the website via the LA Times shows that Marjorie Chrisoffersen did contribute $100 to the Yes on 8 Campaign. And Marjorie is the daughter of Grace Salisbury, the owner.

But what do I do with this information? I’ve been a faithful patron for many years, sometimes as frequently as weekly. So it is for me a particularly distressing dilemma.

Do I boycott the establishment? If so, for how long and to what effect? What would alleviate my concern, what can I demand? Is it enough that Marjorie (who runs the place with her husband) gave though Grace did not? Is $100 enough for me to view the establishment at “anti-gay” when I know full well that several of the staff are gay and that the environment is always welcoming? What would I say if Marjie came by with her water pitcher asking how everything was?

I think this is but an example of the sort of conflict that we are going to each have to resolve as we find that friends, family, and service providers that we had thought of as supportive actually do not believe that we are entitled to equality under the law.

Black Support For Gays: It’s Out There. Where Are The LGBT Leaders?

Michael Petrellis found this item in the San Francisco Chronicle:

Black and gay: The overturning of same-sex marriages in California has triggered a wave of resentment in the gay community, some of it aimed at African Americans. Blacks turned out in droves to vote for Barack Obama for president. Unfortunately for gays, exit polls show that many of them also voted for Proposition 8.

Just last Sunday, Third Baptist Church minister and former San Francisco Supervisor Rev. Amos Brown – a veteran of the civil rights battles of the 1960s – launched into a sermon about the need to protect the rights of gays.

Suddenly, a young associate minister seated in the front row stormed the pulpit, grabbed a microphone and began lecturing Brown about the need to “just preach the Gospel and leave that other stuff alone.” Brown snatched the microphone from the man, who was quickly escorted out.

“There are African Americans who … feel the white gays haven’t stood with them on issues like social justice, education and housing,” Brown said.

On the other hand, Brown also knows the black community was slow to offer support to gays at the outset of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s. Brown warned the ugliness will continue if cooler heads don’t prevail.

“What this man did storming the church pulpit was just the tip of the iceberg,” he said.

In the midst of all the hurt feelings in the gay community over African-Americans’ supporting Prop 8 by some seventy percentage points, Michael Petrelis asks what ought to be an obvious question:

Not only is Brown pro-gay marriage, he opposed Prop 8, but, big surprise here, the No on 8 leadership didn’t recruit him to help defeat the ballot measure. I didn’t see any No materials with him and all his associations from the black community, touting his opposition. Were the No leaders unaware of his position, or, did they not know how to work with Brown to persuade other black… voters to say No?