Box Turtle Bulletin

Mormon Times: CA Gays are “Sore Losers”

The Mormon Church has been as some effort to tell the world that the tens of millions of dollars and nearly endless manhours which they dedicated to banning marriage equality for gay citizens in California and Arizona was not based on malice. They aren’t haters, you know. They are full of love love love.

But when talking amongst themselves, another picture emerges. And in tone it seems to have less love than is promised. Take, for example, an article by Lee Benson in the Mormon Times. Benson chats merrily away about “winning streaks” and percentages, all as though this is nothing more than a game.

In all, 58,911,741 Americans over the past decade have cast votes on the issue.

The overall score is 37,662,846 to 21,248.894.

If it were a football game, you’d change the channel in the third quarter and watch something else.

And by now, we should just accept the actions of his church. They’ve won, you know. And from the astonishingly arrogant position of Benson and – from everything I’ve seen – the leaders of his church, that’s all that matters. We won – you lost – so shut up and take it.

But California won’t let it go. The whining is enough to make a soccer player envious. Lawyers are headed to court to block the proposition. Others are demanding that the vote go back on the ballot in 2010. Proponents of Prop. 8 are being singled out for abuse by opponents.

Sore losing is having a field day.

I’ll admit that at times I may wonder if perhaps the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is getting too much of the burden of anger for their efforts. But it’s articles like this one that remind me that not only are they confident in their power and arrogant in their self-justification, but when they think no one’s listening they are contemptious towards those they’ve hurt.

Minority Groups Fear Prop 8’s Implications

If you can strip away rights already enjoyed by one unpopular minority via a popular vote, why not go after someone else’s?

“The entire purpose behind the constitutional principle of equal protection would be subverted if the constitutional protection of unpopular minorities were subject to simple majority rule,” read a brief by black, Asian and Hispanic groups challenging the ban. “This case is not simply about gay and lesbian equality.”

… “The history of California demonstrates with sobering clarity the potential for disfavored minorities to be subjected to oppression by hostile majorities,” the minority groups say in their brief, pointing to segregation laws and one excluding Asian-Americans from land ownership as examples. …”It is not hypothetical. It’s a track record,” said Stanford University law professor Jane Schacter, who has not filed briefs in the case.

No On 8 Answers Charges of Incompetence With Incompetence

Leaders of the  No on 8 campaign held a widely-publicized virtual town hall last night to address criticisms of their campaign, including charges of incompetence and lost opportunities. Unfortunately, I have no idea how the leaders of No on 8 addressed those charges because their virtual town hall ONLY WORKED ON WINDOWS MACHINES!

Nearly a quarter of all visitors to Box Turtle Bulletin are Mac users, as is this humble scribe. So are Andy Towle and Jeremy Hooper. Fifteen minutes after the meeting started, organizers belatedly gave a phone number for Mac users, but that was after most had already left in disgust. Queerty was able to phone in twenty minutes after the meeting started.

A forum that was intended to dispel the idea that the No on 8 campaign missed too many opportunities before the election missed a HUGE one after the election. It’s incredible that this professional leadership could be so clueless. They couldn’t get a decent virtual townhall meeting deployed, which really isn’t that hard to do. Meanwhile, Amy Balliett used the power of social networking to set up Join the Impact, mobilizing a nationwide protest in less than a week. She was also supposed to be part of the panel, but was MIA. I wonder, is she a Mac user as well?

What Defines a Community Organization?

Tonight there will be a “townhall meeting“, a 90 minute online forum to address “Prop. 8: The Facts and the Future”. It is hosted by the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center and will feature its CEO, Lorri Jean.

At first glace this seems like a reasonable organization and individual to take charge and really address this situation. After all, what could be more representative of the gay community than “the world’s largest LGBT organization”?

But is this really the world’s largest LGBT community organization? And what makes an organization “community”?

I would argue that for an organization to be “community” it has to fit some criteria: it must be where the community is, provide services to the community, be welcoming to all members of the community, and be a home, a place of security and warmth, a shelter.

Sadly, the LA Gay and Lesbian Center fails on nearly all accounts.

The heart of Los Angeles’ gay community can be found in West Hollywood on the corner of San Vicente and Santa Monica. Although today that portion of West Hollywood plays social host to a mostly white male gay crowd of a certain age and dynamic, it is to that location that our community gravitates in time of protest. Yes, there are other parts of the city that play host to various subsets of our community, but West Hollywood is ours. It is our safe spot.

Hollywood is not.

A lone gay man or woman would not feel completely safe at night on Hollywood Boulevard towards the eastern end of the cruise strip. This is straightsville, and not a very safe part of it at that. Yet it is on a side street off Hollywood, three miles from the community, that the LAGLC’s chose to purchase a four story office building. And while it may be safe to wander around the neighborhood streets during the day, parking is only available for a hefty price.

If there is one thing obviously missing from the neighborhood in which the Center is located, it would be gay people.

But they also have another site – used mostly for fundraising. It has an art gallery, a theater, and rooms your organization can rent for occasions. It’s also in Hollywood and has no parking and I’ve yet to meet the person who wanders over to spend the afternoon.

But one might overlook the location if the draw was adequate. If they offered a service that was communal, that drew people together, that created a bond, a common meeting space, a feeling of unity.

Well, perhaps a glance at the Center’s revenues and expenditures can give us some sense as to whether LAGLC has the unification of the community as their primary goal.

According to LAGLC’s Form 990 for the year ended 6/30/07, the Center allocated their program service expenditures as follows: 77.0% as a pharmacy, 5.8% as an AIDS information clearinghouse, 5.7% for health education, for combined health services of 88.5% of their overall expenditures. Perhaps that’s why health care is featured so prominently on their website.

But healthcare is not their only function. They also provide care for homeless youth, free internet access, programs for seniors, and legal advice. All told they spent $32,895,161 doing good deeds.

For which they received reimbursement of $36,711,446 by the state, insurance companies, and fees.

Even after paying all administrative and fundraising expenses, the Center was in the enviable position of being able to reserve 43% of their direct public support away for a rainy day.

As for the average Joe or Jane gay person, for you there is not so very much.

Now you may be new in town and wander down Rand Shrader Place wondering what that brightly colored building is. And you may even go inside thinking it would be cool to maybe meet other gay people. But unless you are here for medical services (what’s your insurance?) or have an appointment, there’s no seating provided in the marble lobby and loitering isn’t allowed. (While once waiting for a friend who was receiving “legal advice” I was informed that there was a bench outside).

If you’re new in town and want to hang out with other gays, try either Starbucks on Santa Monica across from the gym or the new coffee place on the corner of Robertson. Or visit a church, join a club, or have a cocktail in any of dozens of bars scattered throughout the city. But don’t go near the Center.

Now don’t get me wrong. I very much appreciate the medical services they provide to those who are indigent or uncomfortable with another health care provider. And it’s awfully nice that someone is caring for youth and seniors. Truly. We need to better address the issue of homeless gay youth.

But I’m not sure why an adjunct of the State Health Department thinks that it is qualified to speak for me on issues of civil equality or why Lorri Jean has anything to say about the passage of Proposition 8.

San Diego Church Apologizes for Prop 8

MissionGathering Christian Church of San Diego put up this billboard, which reads:

MissionGathering Christian Church is sorry for the narrow-minded, judgmental, deceptive, manipulative actions of those who took away the rights & equality of so many in the name of God.

www.missiongathering.com
Our hearts are with you.
Christianity for all.

MissionGathering is a part of the Christian Church denomination (Disciples of Christ).

Protests May Be Changing Minds

I’m not a big fan of SurveyUSA. I’ll give them credit for being the only survey firm to give consistently gloomy projections about Prop 8, but I’m not convinced that this is indicative of their greater polling abilities. Nevertheless,

SurveyUSA has released a new poll with some interesting results.

One: By a nearly 2 to 1 ratio, Californians want the existing same-sex marriages that occurred prior to Prop 8 passing to remain recognized. I think that we can expect to hear anti-gay activists tell the Court exactly the opposite – but they’re not really known for their honesty anyway.

Two: Those surveyed are split on whether protests will help or hurt the cause, with 28% responding each way. The rest either don’t know, don’t care, or think it won’t at all matter.

I’ll come back to Three.

Four: About 8% of voters who say that they voted for Proposition 8 now say that the protests have changed their opinion. Were 8% of Yes voters now able to change their vote, this amendment would not pass.

Three: This is the result that I find most interesting.

The question was “Did you vote for Proposition 8? Did you vote against Proposition 8? Or did you not vote?”

We know that 52.5% of voters did, indeed, vote “yes” on Proposition 8. But those who responded to this survey reported as follows:

40% voted yes
46% voted no
3% can’t recall
12% didn’t vote

Well, obviously this is either a rather unrepresentative sample (which could be the case) or memory has magically changed.

I have a hypothesis about voters’ recollection. I think we forget that we supported positions which we later find shameful.

We know full well that a very large portion of America did not support racial equality. We know that George Wallace was a hero to many and that busing was very unpopular. But those who recall opposing the civil rights efforts are few and far between. When one has moved from a position of intolerance to a position of tolerance, one’s recollection of previous bias seems to disappear.

Now there may be some who – for political correctness reasons – voted yes on Prop 8 but responded in this survey that they voted no. But 6 or 7 percent? That seems unlikely to me.

I think what this may be showing – though this is only speculation on my part – is that there are California voters who selected “Yes” on Proposition 8 out of default or perhaps even a moment of internal bias but who now “recall” being impressed by the arguments for equality. I think that this will continue over time and is rather surprising to show up so early.

The wave of disbelief, anger, and outrage that has resulted from the proposition seems to be resonating with the public. I predict that come ten years, there will be very few people indeed who recall voting in favor of changing the constitution to exclude gay couples.

Three Questions for the Court

When accepting the challenge to Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court identified three questions that the process will answer:

1. Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?

This is the question that I believe will drive most of the conversation, speculation, and argument for the next several months. The determination of whether Proposition 8 would revise or amend the constitution determines whether it was properly enacted.

An amendment needs only signatures of 8% of the voters (who voted in the last gubernatorial election) and a majority vote. A revision requires approval by two-thirds of each house and a majority vote of the populace.

As Proposition 8 was not (and would not be) approved by two-thirds of the legislature, a determination that it is a revision effectively kills the effort.

The supporters of Proposition 8 may argue that revisions deal solely with the structure of government itself and not with the rights accorded to citizens.

Those seeking to overturn Proposition 8 may argue that the implementation of such a change would, in essence, dissolve the due process and equal access clauses and thus gut the constitution itself.

This issue is of enormous significance, and not just to gay Californians. In Re Marriage Cases did more than grant marriage rights; it set sexual orientation as a suspect classification. Regardless of one’s “opinion” or what one “feels” about the history of discrimination against various groups, in the State of California sexual orientation is now treated with the same consideration as race or religion.

Whichever way the Court decides this question, precedent will be set. The answer to this question will determine whether a small selection of signatories can, with a simple majority vote, remove a fundamental right from a suspect class.

In other words, if the Court finds that Proposition 8 can remove from gays the right to marry, then here foreward nothing in the California Constitution bars future amendments from denying, for example, African Americans the right to procreation or Mormons the right to own property. And while such propositions may be unenforceable due to federal constitutional protections, they could sit as a part of our governing document for the state. If fundamental rights can be removed from suspect classes by popular vote, then there really are no minority protections at all coming from the state constitution.

If we may take consolation from history, the California Supreme Court has dealt before with the question of discrimination by means of constitutional amendment. Per the LA Times,

In 1966, the California Supreme Court struck down a 1964 initiative that would have permitted racial discrimination in housing. Voters had approved the measure, a repeal of a fair housing law, by a 2-to-1 margin. Opponents challenged it on equal protection grounds, not as a constitutional revision.

If the court continues to find that gays cannot be denied marriage on equal protection grounds – as they already have – then this may be a foregone conclusion.

2. Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

I’m not absolutely certain what the Court is getting at here. It may be asking if legislation – even legislation by means of constitutional amendment – can be enacted contrary to the findings of the Supreme Court.

The Court may be viewing Proposition 8 as a challenge to the Court’s right to apply equal access and due process to unpopular minorities and pondering whether the role of the courts could be made moot by means of a “government by proposition” in which any popular – but clearly unconstitutional – position could achieve the force of law through public vote.

3. If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

While this may seem to perhaps be a separate question, I think it may play a great role in driving the answers to the first two questions.

The language of Proposition 8 is as follows:

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

You’ll notice that this doesn’t talk about performing marriages or allowing marriages. I’m not an attorney but it seems to me that if we go by simple language, it says that as of midnight on November 5th, all same-sex marriages ceased to be valid or recognized.

Jerry Brown, the State Attorney General, is arguing that laws cannot be applied retroactively and that this amendment makes no provision for marriages performed before the initiative date. And therefore those who married before the proposition was passed will remain married in the eyes of the state. But, it seems to me that the most straight-forward finding would be that such marriages were valid when performed and any legal action taken accordingly during the interim is binding but that after passage the State of California ceased to recognize them (though other states may continue to do so).

Most – other than those most dedicated to demeaning gay persons – would see this as a cruel decision. Other than true haters, few people want to see those who have already committed to each other stripped of their status. And, in fact, the Yes on 8 Campaign sought to keep that item of their agenda hidden.

And the language of the Court suggests that even some of those who did not side with the majority on In Re Marriage Cases do not seek to engage in cruelty. They are, after all, human and compassionate.

I think that they will recognize that finding Proposition 8 as not unconstitutional would place those citizens who responded to their May decision into a great deal of pain. And I suspect that the justices will feel a sense of responsibility for the consequences of their decisions, both in May and presently. We may even choose to find hope in the fact that the Court refused to put a stay on their decision in May, knowing that the passing of Proposition 8 was a possibility.

While this is not the sort of criterion on which a court case is decided, I cannot help but think that this third question may influence the justices to give strong consideration to the suspect class that is appealing for protection of their fundamental rights. Our cry for justice may be more compelling when the pain of injustice can be all too clearly seen.

The Divine Queen of the Almighty Eternal Creator Addresses the California Supreme Court

Well now, Here’s some entertaining reading. It’s a 40-page brief to the California Supreme Court (PDF: 2,471KB/40 pages) arguing that the court should uphold Proposition 8. The brief, submitted by the Divine Queen Mariette Do-Nguyen of the Almighty Eternal Creator, is titled “Letter Brief of Amicus Curiae Demanding the Almighty Eternal Creator’s Law and the State of California Constitution Amendment: Marriage Between One Man and One Woman Stay In.”

Got all that? Good. It begins:

Acting on behalf of the Almighty Eternal Creator, who is holding sole ownership to His creations, all planets, including the earth and everything above, below and on it, myself as His heiress, and the Kingdom of Heaven World Divine Mission (also known as Rebuild My Church Divine Mission), a Non-Profit Corporation in the State of California, submit this Amicus Curiae brief …

… and yadda, yadda, yadda. It goes on like that. Why is she doing this? Well, she answers that question on page 3:

After a night full of dreams, before dawn of November 11, 2008, before I woke up in the morning, the Almighty Eternal Creator ordered me, saying, “You explain to them the consequences that follow each and all actions. Once they understand, they will listen!”

I’m sure they will.

It’s an amazing read, complete with the reason for 9/11 (“Because the United States’ presidents and members of Congress violated the Almighty Creator’s Laws and abused their power”) and the consequences for not heeding her warning (“For individuals who choose to …disobey the Almighty Eternal Creator’s Laws, their soul receive an energy … through a destructive channel, known as the Devil or Satan.”)

So anyway, who is this Mariette Do-Nguyen?

I am a co-Creator of earth and human souls with the fully God nature of Messiah Jesus as revealed in the Holy Bible, Genesis 1:26-27. Exhibit A.

As written, I am “another” Advocate, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, and heiress to the Almighty Eternal Creator, who created and holds sole ownership of all His creations, planets and all living creatures, including human souls and physical bodies. The Gospel of John, Chapters 14, 15, 16. Exhibit B.

The Almighty Eternal Creator’s estate was transferred to me by fully God Messiah Jesus via his human voice before His fully human crucifixion on the Cross. The Gospel of John, Chapters 16:14-15 & 19:26-27. Exhibit C.

I am a Messenger of the Covenant. Malachi, Chapter 3. Exhibit D.

And sure enough, that is followed by eleven xeroxed pages of her heavily underlined Bible as evidence. So there.

And if you’re tempted to think she might be just a little bit crazy? Well, on page 13, she has that covered. She quotes from a book, My Patient — God’s Gift, in which a Dr. Gerald Nelson is quoted as saying:

And finally, traditional psychiatry has little to offer Mariette. Medications and psychotherapy will likely cause her harm, leading to confusion and perhaps insurmountable despair. The Church can provide what medicine cannot; and understanding [sic] and compassionate context for Mariette’s calling. Allowing her respect the freedom [sic] to express and live out her dreams and visions in a way that will benefit mankind.

So you see? She’s not crazy. She’s totally for reals, people! Check out her web site.

By the way — that book she’s quoting from? She’s the author and publisher.

Addendum: The next time I join a religion, I’m going to make this one of my criteria: it totally has to be headed by a Divine Queen.

CA Supremes to Hear Challenge to Prop 8 – No Stay

Per the LA Times:

The California Supreme Court agreed today to review legal challenges to Prop. 8, the voter initiative that restored a ban on same-sex marriage, but refused to permit gay weddings to resume pending a ruling.

While neither of these decisions is a surprise, this is a welcome step in the continued fight for marriage equality.

The court gave no indication as to the way they are leaning. However, it seems likely that at least one of the justices is inclined to overturn Proposition 8.

Some legal challengers also sought an order that would have permitted same-sex couples to marry until the cases were resolved, a position opposed by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and Proposition 8 supporters. Only Justice Carlos R. Moreno voted in the private conference to grant such a stay.

The court will hear the arguments in March of 2009 so there may be no clear answer for another year. Should the court decide that Prop 8 was an amendment rather than a revision to the constitution, pro-marriage activists will immediately begin the process of placing another amendment on the ballot to overturn Prop 8 and reinstate marriage rights for same-sex couples.

[To clarify the paragraph above, I’m saying that if the courts upholds Proposition 8, then the gay community and our friends will begin the process of reversing Prop 8 through another initiative. Sorry for the confusion.]

In a manner consistent with their behavior during the campaign, anti-gay activists have issued an ultimatum to the judges.

Supporters of Proposition 8 have threatened to mount a recall of any justice who votes to overturn the measure.

UPDATE:

One negative observation: Judge Kennard was one of the four judges who found for gay couples in May. The motion indicates that Judge Kennard would have denied the petitions of the gay couples to be heard before the court on this matter. That may indicate that she does not think that the case has merit.

Ex-Mormon Marches Against Prop 8

In the San Diego Reader a straight woman, an “old hippy” and former Mormon, tells of her experience protesting Proposition 8. It’s delightfully full of exploded stereotypes and down-home observations. It made me smile… and tear up a little.

I would have made a great flower child. I didn’t expect to be enthused about turning 50 on November 14, but thanks to Obama and Prop 8, I’ve never felt more energized. As a child, I wished I could march for the rights of blacks and women. But my parents were conservatives in an upper-middle class neighborhood and didn’t have anything to protest. I didn’t even experience music by the Beatles. They listened to Perry Como and Doris Day.

Read more here.

Reconstructionist Jews Sad About Proposition 8

Per JTA:

In a statement adopted in conjunction with its rabbinical association and rabbinical college, the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation voted at its convention in Boston to condemn the passage of Proposition 8, a state ballot initiative that restricted the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. The measure narrowly passed Nov. 4.

“We are saddened and deeply disturbed by the denial of fundamental human rights—to marry, to adopt and care for foster children—to thousands of gay and lesbian citizens across the United States,” the statement said. “We are particularly dismayed by the passage of initiatives that have reversed previously recognized equality for same-sex unions.”

What Margie’s Friends Think of You

Sometimes you never know what someone believes about you until you hear it from someone else. Margie Christoffersen, the grande dame of El Coyote was always there with a smile for gay folk, but that isn’t how her Mormon friends saw it.

A fellow ward member has posted her views about Margie and El Coyote. And if they reflect Margie’s, I’m ill to think I ever spent a cent there. She opens:

I was going to write about the persecution of my friend, Marjorie (Margie) Christofferson, who has been targeted by the gay community for giving 100 bucks to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. But instead of talking about their hatred which we have seen displayed so clearly I want to talk about Margie.

After some glowing praise about what a good Mormon Margie was, she gets in her digs.

To know such a woman is truly an honor. You don’t meet many great people in your life, they are a rarity. I have pledged to do whatever I can to help her get through this. If Margie is willing to sacrifice so much for what she believes, the least I can do is support her and stand by her. The people who are vilifying her don’t even begin to know what kind of wonderful person they are hurting. They will never have the moral fortitude to looks such heated opposition in the eye and not blink. They will never be as good, forgiving or loving as my good friend Margie Christofferson. May God watch over her now. May all those who supported Prop. 8 support her now. She given so much for us, it is time to pay her back.

What a coincidence. Her gay customers also thought it was time to pay her back.

UPDATE:

I happened to notice, as I drove by on my way home last night, that El Coyote had significantly fewer customers than is usual for a Monday night.

See also:

El Coyote Boycott – My Observations
The El Coyote Boycott
El Coyote: An Uncompromising Faith
El Coyote Update
Should I Give Up my Favorite Mexican Restaurant?

Conversations At A Temple Protest

Police estimate that about 300 demonstrators gathered in front of the Newport Beach, CA Temple of the LDS church this morning to protest the church’s dominant role in passing California’s Proposition 8, stripping gays and lesbians of their rights. The protest began at about 10:00 a.m. an lasted until about 1:00 p.m.

The OC Register’s article contains the usual narrative — descriptions of people protesting, the usual quotes from both sides, an argument broke out between protesters and a passer-by. You have to dig into the Register’s online slideshow (which, I suspect isn’t available in the print edition) to get to the more interesting stories:

Cindy Massaro, center, and Jennifer Ras, left, offered cold water and snacks to protesters. Massaro apologized as a Christian to protesters, “Our sin has contributed to division in the world,” she said.

A passer-by reacts to protesters in front of the Mormon temple in Newport Beach on Sunday.

“I figured I’d speak a little louder if I wore this,” said John Remy of Irvine who came in support of a protest against the passage of Proposition 8 on Sunday. Remy is a former Mormon elder and wore clothing from when he was a missionary. He and his wife were members of the Mormon church and attended the Newport California Mormon Temple in the past. “Having been a member of the church, I felt duty-bound to atone and duty-bound to be a critic of the choice it is making,” he said.

Welcome Out, Wanda Sykes

Comedian Wanda Sykes surprised organizers of Saturday’s anti-Prop 8 rally in Las Vegas by officially coming out as a lesbian and announcing that she is now married. Sykes says the passage of a same-sex marriage ban made her feel “attacked,” and emboldened her to be more outspoken about being gay.

Here’s the video:

A Report from the Los Angeles March

Saturday was both exhilarating and annoying, encouraging and exhausting. What follows are some of my personal observations.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the police reported that between 10,000 to 12,000 of the 40,000 anticipated people attended the rally and march at City Hall. (Personally, I find the LA Times story disconcerting. You don’t have to have “balance” by repeatedly printing the opinions of the Yes on 8 Campaign Manager. Unless, of course, you’re going run opinions from gays every time you run a story on religion. Any why, oh why, did the Times’ videographer find the one and only drag queen – a Sister of Perpetual Indulgence – to focus half their video on?)

The Time’s count may be right, but it certainly felt like more and I heard reports of as many as 30,000 (which was also likely an over-exaggeration). Many of the participants were so far away that they couldn’t see the stage and could only just make out what the speakers were saying. And by my estimation it would be impossible to double the size of the crowd and fit it into the streets that were cleared.

There were a surprising number of straight folks there. I rode the subway with a young couple with a stroller sporting the sign, “my family doesn’t need protection from love”.

I couldn’t help but notice that those who showed up were overwhelmingly white or Latino. The lack of a strong black participation suggests that there is still disconnect in reaching the African American community, both gay and straight.

There was also a counter-protest consisting. The following isn’t the best picture (phone camera) but I think I got all five in the pic.

The day started with some inspirational speeches, but it soon morphed into politicians and “leaders” boring the socks off of you. Nonetheless the crowd was charged up and excited to be part of a national event. The mood was less about anger and more about resolve and determination. (Lisa Derrick has video at her site).

Eventually the march started. And everyone was excited for a while. We chanted “What do we want? Equal rights. When do we want them? Now” and merrily waved our signs.

But then a sense of uncertainty entered the march. Participants began to ask “where are we going?”

Downtown Los Angeles is pretty much dead on the weekends. So there was not that much hope for visibility anyway and we knew that disruption of traffic would be minimal. But it was troubling that the march route led from City Hall, down obscure back streets, across a freeway, and out of downtown in a route that seemed designed mostly to minimize the inconvenience of others.

Yet we all dutifully marched behind the glorified police golf cart.

The only time we saw anyone was briefly along historic Olvera St. and when we waved signs as we passed over the 101. (I will admit to feeling a rush when I heard the horns of semis blaring in support).

As we got further and further from Downtown, I suddenly had the sense that this march was less like a protest of injustice and more like the Pied Piper of Hamelin. The police marched all the protesting gays right out of the city.

Disbelief turned to incredulity when we finally ended up in a “park” that had no access to roads or pedestrian traffic or overlooking buildings. Complete invisibility. At the far end there was a stage set up so we could all enjoy some more speeches. Goody

The Cornfield (as this park is nicknamed) is not a lovely shaded green space shared by neighbors and community. It is a big flat dirt lot with no shade. A marcher next to me answered a call from someone back in the march as to where we were going, “Joshua Tree“. It may well have been a great site for a rock concert – so as not to disturb anyone – but it certainly wasn’t effective as a protest venue.

A woman next me looked in disgust, turned around and started chanting, “Take the march back to the city!” This seemed like a good plan to me – or certainly better than standing in the dirt in 90 degree weather listening to someone read a prepared message into a microphone – so I joined her chant. The two of us turned and immediately those around us started walking back out of the Cornfield. Soon, as best I could tell, the entire march had turned around.

Unfortunately, there wasn’t really anywhere to go. The police had reopened the streets and they took measures to corral the crowd onto the sidewalks. While this wasn’t effective, I did seem to lead to the group splintering into smaller marching groups in different directions.

Eventually, what should have been a very effective effort at visibility ended with most folks just going home. But by then it was 2:00 anyway and we were tired and hungry. As a friend said, “This could have ended well with them marching us through downtown in a circle and back to city hall for a final speech. Instead its just chaos and no one knows what they’re supposed to do.”

Some marchers indicated a desire to keep marching through Hollywood, but there didn’t seem to be cohesive leadership and the numbers had dwindled. Maybe they went, I don’t really know. And although I’m not sure, I think some may have stayed in the Cornfield to bake in the sun and listen to activists.

Nonetheless, I have to say that overall this event was a success. We did put on a show of unity and joined the national protest to let our neighbors know that we are not taking their vote on the 4th as a final answer. And that we will continue to fight until we have achieved equality under the law.