Thank you so much for speaking with us Seth. The work you guys do is amazing!

It is my pleasure to be here today. I look forward to the discussion!

Welcome, Seth — so glad to have you hear to talk with us today. I know a lot of our crowd has worked on or in campaigns on various issues as activists through the years. I’d love it if you share a bit on how you all kept going on this — changing your approaches as events and information warranted it, pushing at the edges bit by bit to achieve success over the long haul.

So often folks get discouraged without immediate success. This has been a very effective, long-term effort. And I’d love to know what you’ve learned about successful activism and coalition-building along the way.

Thanks for taking the time to be here. Clearly having some control over the language of the debate is very helpful–how did you go about creating an effective echo chamber/what were some of your more successful strategies?

I still try to understand precisely how two gay or lesbian people getting married affects my life at all?

Thanks for being here — and for such great work on this issue! My concern is with possible backlash against the decision. Do you have an opinion about Jeffrey Rosen’s argument that the timing of the decision will ultimately work against GLBT advocates in the upcoming November elections?

The most successful strategy has been very simple: focus on the real life stories of gay and lesbian couples who want the same things that every other couple wants–the fundamental freedom, dignity and respect that comes with marriage. We started off talking alot about rights and benefits and that helped create the notion that gay couples should be treated equally. That helped us create the domestic partner registry system in California. But marriage isn’t just about rights and benefits, its about freedom, dignity and respect.

For all of the good news about public polls, the opponents of same-sex marriage appear to be on the way to placing their constitutional amendment on the November ballot.

Here’s the latest projection from the Secretary of State’s office, the key column is valid/projected valid column … it takes 690k plus some to get an initiative on the ballot.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/election…..e_1298.pdf

The timing for achieving basic human rights and freedoms is never “convenient”. There will always be elections and there will always be people who will try to make this a political/election issue. That really can’t be helped and nor should it, in my view, stop us from moving forward. Social change is hard.

Yeah, as a married person, I have to say that my gay or lesbian friends being able to have the right to visit each other in the hospital or take their kids in for emergency care without sheafs of papers signed, sealed and notarized saying their own children were their own children…I have no idea how in the world that makes my marriage any less anything. I just don’t see how more love in the world can possibly be a bad thing…but maybe that’s just me.

To follow up on some previous questions, we have already seen some backlash from the Right – particularly in its cries of “judicial activism” – conservatives’ favorite battle cry. Still, being on the ground, do you see that strategy as being particularly useful for them any more? We all remember the backlash of the Massachusetts decision in 2004, but there wasn’t nearly as much following New Jersey’s in 2006.

Its a good question. I think extending freedom, dignity and respect to all people makes all of our lives better–it creates a better, more welcoming and understanding society, which does impact all of us.

Yes, we are assuming and preparing for an initiative that will be on the ballot this November to amend the California Constitution in an attempt to deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples. The Equality For All campaign is organizing to defeat that amendment. Defeating the amendment needs to be priority number 1 for everyone who cares about fairness and equality. The impact of that vote–win or lose–will be felt across the country and impact how LGBT issues are debated and discussed for generations to come.

Clearly, this is the sort of issue that naturally gains a lot of attention, but were there any particular organizing or recruiting strategies that were especially effective? I think building grassroots momentum is critical, but sometimes it can be tricky to figure out how exactly to draw more people into an issue/cause.

We need to keep in mind that the organizations and political leaders that oppose the Court’s decision oppose ANY kind of legal recognition for LGBT people. They have been fighting us every step of the way for a long time. They oppose non-discrimination laws, hate crimes protections, basic school safety issues. But I don’t think we have seen a “backlash” from the people of California generally. Yes, our political opponents will try to use the decision as a political tool. But I think the people of California are beyond that.

What does the legal landscape look like if the amendment passes, but same-sex couples have already married in the interim? Will they still be married, or will their marriage licenses be somehow voided? Should same sex couples be feeling pressure to rush to the altar in California?

Hi, Seth, thanks for joining us today to chat. As a San Franciscan who got engaged on February 13, 2004, your work means a great deal to me personally.

Some questions about the road ahead, if you don’t mind.

First, what odds do you give the Supreme Court of staying its decision to await the November referendum results? I understand that the County Clerks are poised to marry starting June 17th, but that the Court has until the day before that to honor a request for a stay, one Attorney General Brown apparently does not support.

Second, Judge LaDoris Cordell, who commentates for CBS5 here in San Francisco, seemed to suggest that the Court’s frequent mention of referendums and initiatives in its ruling was a shot across the bow to this fall’s vote: that the Court was saying any attempt, even by initiative, to amend the Constitution to deny citizens fundamental rights would be unconstitutional and thus overthrown. Do you think there’s a chance Secretary of State Bowen might disallow the initiative from the ballot on these grounds — that the Court has recognized marriage as a fundamental human right, one that can’t be taken away by a vote of the majority?

Third, what effect do you think economic arguments might have on conservative voters who’d like to see more state revenues without a tax increase — revenues that could be provided by out-of-staters coming to get married? Does this approach sway folks who otherwise might listen to haters?

Finally, will there be pushback on the suggestion that this Court decision overrules “the will of the people?” Prop22 was passed during a primary in March 2000 — when the Democratic presidential race was settled but the GOP candidates were still duking it out. Since the more conservative GOPs were likely to vote in that election, the proposition was passed by a non-representative sample of the electorate — besides being eight long years ago, in terms of acceptance of marriage equality.

Thanks for visiting today — sorry for the long questions, pick and choose any if you’d like to answer. And thank you very much for your continued hard work for those of us to whom this is a real, personal fight!

Seth can you speak a little about the right wing crowd currently crying for the CA Supreme Court to stay the decision until November? It seems to me that they are mostly afraid that couples will be filing lawsuits to have their CA marriages recognized in their home states.

I personally would love to see this happen as it will send a tidal wave throughout the country

Seth, Christy. Ding, and ding.

I just don’t get it.

Well, I do, really. They cannot accept this because they hate/fear homosexuals, period. Consequently, granting marriage rights is giving up the battle.

We find that the best way to change hearts and minds is by having individual or small group conversations. We will certainly use mass media in our campaign to defeat the constitutional amendment in November, but over the years, it has been gay and lesbian people and our allies, talking to their family and friends about equality and fairness. Studies are very clear that that when someone knows a gay or lesbian person and has talked to him or her about the issues, that person becomes more supportive. Its all about having the conversation.

Y’know, the decision ran 172 pages. I read it. The thoroughness, the quality of the work, man! People can rant on about “unelected judges” blah, blah, blah, but these peeps really DID THEIR JOBS, thoroughly. Were others on the public payrolls so diligent.

I have to say that folks are always worried about backlash in terms of election cycles on this issue. But considering there is a federal election cycle every other year, if that were the only criteria used in determining when to push something like this, there would be no progress really. I think we are all better off with more discussion on it — as people who weren’t comfortable become more comfortable, and this is especially true when folks find out someone close to them is impacted by this decision — or others like it. Suddenly, when folks can put a real face and someone they care about’s name on the problem, it can switch from us versus them to “we.” And that can make a huge difference.

Those legal issues will need to be resolved over time depending on what happens with the amendment vote in November. Gay and lesbian couples can marry in California right now and if couples are ready to “make the leap”, they should get married! :)

Yeah, it’s not like everyone’s gonna be required to get gay-married. Sometimes, from the crazy vitriol, you’d think we were gonna make every dude marry a dude.

What is the position held by log cabin republicans on this issue? Are they prepared to vote against their own interests as usual?

It was in front of the Log Cabinettes that the Governator first pledged to fight the hater amendment. So perhaps they’ll have to work with him on that….

In the past, have you focused any efforts on holding the CA Court accountable through the election of its judges?

Also, in the amendment text, do you see any language that would give the Court the ability to toss it out – similar to what Louisiana’s Court did with their amendment. (I believe it was in Louisiana…)

There are a whole host of “full faith and credit” arguments that have gone on due to the MA decision, and others, that would play out again in the CA decision. There is a good basic layout of what is involved with this in an article from FindLaw from 2004 that is a good introduction to the issue.

No, no, no: Man-Dog Marriage.

The inexorable upshot of former Senator Sphinctorum’s ‘unconstitutional right to privacy lifestyle” nightmares.

Wow. Lot of questions. I’ll do the best I can to answer them. We do not expect the court to grant any kind of stay of its decision. If the amendment passes there will be legal questions that will need to be worked out given the language of the ruling. We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. California case law on initiatives is very liberal. That is, if the people want something on the ballot and proponents gather enough signatures, the issue goes on the ballot. It is true that the law is different now in California than it was when the initiative was drafted. We are looking at what that means and what impact it could have on the initiative going forward. But we expect and assume we will be fighting this amendment.

What is the biggest challenge in pushing back against the other side? Money, numbers, something else entirely?

Is it fairly safe to say that a lot of the crowd opposing Gay marriage and LGBT rights are also opposed to choice, contraception, sex education, and more likely to support the “abstinence only” deals?

The Log Cabin folks are very much opposed to this constitutional amendment. In April, the Governor (yes, Governor Schwarzenegger!) came out very strongly and clearly against the amendment. He has said since then that he respects the court’s decision and opposes amending the California constitution.

I do wonder about that, especially given the organized efforts we’ve seen the last few election cycles from the nation Chamber of Commerce in particular. Has there been a lot of effort to influence judicial elections from the Christian Right groups that you’ve seen, Seth? And if so, how successful — or not — have they been?

That’s going to increasingly be an issue, I fear, after the SCOTUS decision allowing for specific issues debate in judicial elections, and I do not know how that may or may not be managed for the greater public good if it becomes a free-for-all on extremes like so many other elections have become in some areas.

All of those can be overcome by votes, so therein lies the battle, getting more fair-minded Californians to recognize the silliness of the opposition along with the crass politicization of an issue that simply boils down to civil rights.

I think that’s a fair assumption on a lot of parts, yes. Especially in terms of the leadership and the folks who make their money raising money off those issues…

The biggest challenge is the California is the biggest state in the country and communicating our message of fairness, freedom and equality is expensive. The other side has vowed to put in $10 – $20 million or more into this campaign. They know, as do we, that the people of California are narrowly divided in this issue, so the battle for the undecided, fence sitters will be fierce. Communicating with those undecideds will mean lots of TV in the most expensive media markets in the country in addition to the grassroots and internet strategies we will employ. We can win this campaign, no question, if we raise enough money and organize enough volunteers across the states.

I wish democrats knew how to use the concervatives own reasoning to argue our points;

“why do you want to pass laws contrary to the law of god, god made men and women in his own image, there is homosexuality in the entire animal kingdom “even in the plant kingdom come to think of it)”

I really love to use their own reasoning agaings them

Can you tell us whether the San Diego Manchester Hyatt boycott — the owner is a prime contributor to the referendum — is having an effect? Will this strategy be deployed against any other big-money contributors to the haters?

In the end, love conquers fear, and that is ultimately what will happen on this issue. The demographics are clearly on our side with younger people in strong support of marriage for gay and lesbian couples. And they are talking with their parents–opening even more hearts and minds. That’s why beating this constitutional amendment in November is so important. Our opponents are trying to “freeze time” because they know that in the not so distant future, clear majorities of Californians and Americans generally will support marriage. But constitutional amendments take time and money to reverse and they want to force us to go through that process. We must stop them now!

So if any of our CA readers want to help out, I’m sure Seth could put your activist skills to good use on the phone or knocking on doors or writing letters to the editor or…well, I’m sure there is a LOT they could use a little extra hand doing.

Frankly I think that ballot initiative is goign to go down to a crashing defeat. There’s going to be a lot of new, young voters. And the straight ones don’t hate teh ghey like the Fundies want them to.

Absolutely right — it would be infinitely more difficult, costly and time-consuming to have to reverse a constitutional amendment. But I like to think of this as their “Hail Mary” effort, which really sort of puts their position into a very stark contrast with how they try to portray themselves publicly. When you look at the shift in the tide of public opinion on this issue, they are more than aware of their shaky, shifting ground.

Making certain everyone else understands this is important, and you all are doing a great job with the public education component of this.

We need all the help we can get. This has to be an “all hands on deck” effort. Anyone who wants to get involved should go to the Equality For All website. We have FAQ’s about the court case, about the amendment, timing of marriages, etc. And of course we’d love everyone to sign up with the campaign and spread the word. Start the conversations now with everyone you know in California. Many people don’t know that the court decision is under attack. We need to let them know what’s at stake.

Thinking about Rosen’s timing argument… I would think that the swell of reaction works both ways. Did you see an uptick of interest or involvement in the wake of the decision because people actually saw movement and progress? I also have to wonder how much a CA Supreme Court decision is really going to rally independents/undecided, etc. in Nebraska or Minnesota or Ohio.

Public opinion polling shows we have a tough fight ahead of us. Yes, Californians are very supportive of equality and they don’t listen much to the fear mongerers. But many many fair-minded people of good will draw the line at marriage. They see marriage as different than non-discrimination laws and domestic partnerships. Many people still seem to be ok with having two separate systems–domestic partnerships for gays and lesbians and marriage for everyone else.

Welcome, Seth. Thanks for being here today.

California as a “progressive state” is a bit of a myth but let’s hope they come through on this one.

On the Constitutional issue, I have never understood why a 14th Amendment “equal protection of the laws” argument has not prevailed. It seems to me if federal courts can defer to states on marriage then why could they not on Jim Crow laws?

For all the talk in 2004 of “gay marriage” costing anyone the election, there is very little real evidence to support that notion. In fact, one study I read suggested that the hard core organizing and voter turnout efforts that went on in Northern Virginia in 2006 to defeat their constitutional amendment drove out liberal voters who then helped elect Senator Webb.

Lotsa scary parts of California I would never visit!

and the folks who make their money raising money off those issues…

I sometimes wonder if the electorate could benefit from a little sunlight on just who these so called advocates are and how they function.

their “endorsements” page resembles an Aryan Youth blogroll. wonder if it would do the LGBT campaign any good to turn over a few rocks and see whatever ‘work’ these so called “pro marriage” consultants have done in the recent past. -

California is many states in one. The coastal areas are certainly more liberal, but the Central Valley is more conservative and is also the fastest growing place in California. In the long run, we need to be doing lots of work in the Central Valley because that area will have an increasingly larger impact on California politics.

Yeah, it just makes you think of the line from Brown. Separate… in inherently unequal. Whether or not all of the rights and protections are the same in the two categories, it still seems inherently unequal to me because there are two categories, thus implying a hierarchy.

so does this mean you wont be honeymooning in Oroville ?

It’s never to late to digg an important thread such as this one,

thank you Seth and Christy for the spotlight on an issue so near & dear 2 hearts everywhere.

It seems like the courts are taking the view that the law does not prevent a gay man (a man, for the sake of this point) from getting married. All rights associated with marriage are available to him if he puts aside who he is and marries a woman. Nothing is preventing him from marrying a woman. Of course, this would, in my opinion, violate the sanctity of marriage that the Right gets so up in arms about. But to them, this is the option that a gay person has.

It is just that “hierarchy” that the court talked about in its decision. They basically said there is no reason to have two systems unless one group is inherently less worthy than the other. They based that finding not only on the California Constitution but also the public policy of the state–the decades long work I referred to in my post of getting laws passed in California and case law established that makes very clear gay and lesbian Californians must be treated equally under the law. This kind of public policy and case law was missing in some of the other states where the courts ruled against marriage. Its really important to have the foundation laid for the courts–and now hopefully the voters–to make the right decisions.

I agree. I don’t see restrictions based on sexual orientation as any different than the racial ones in Plessy v. Ferguson.

I want to reiterate something I said in my post: The results of the California campaign to defeat this constitutional amendment will have a dramatic impact on the trajectory towards equal rights for LGBT people not just in California, but across the country. If we lose, those who oppose equality for gays and lesbians are not only going to have the momentum to stop further progress in other states, they will have momentum to go after rights and protections that already exist. For the LGBT community, California is ground zero for our fight. What happens here in 2008 will reverberate across the country for a very very long time. We need to ensure the reverberation gives US the momentum and not them.

Seth–I just wanted to say thanks again for being here today, as well as all of the work you do.

OK. First of all. Can we make this fight one between Californians, as much as possible? I think the first attacks on gay marriage were in response to the earlier San Francisco marriages were foreign organizations based in Arizona and Virginia. I don’t mind debating this issue with groups from Bakersfield and Victorville, but when groups in Fresno become front organizations for militant jihadist carpet baggers from across the Colorado River, it’s just too much. I know this is all but impossible, but I think we should do what we can to curtail out-of-state contributions to the constitutional referendum campaigns, on both sides. Just a thought…

Thanks everyone for a great discussion. I need to run, but I will check back later and try to answer any additional comments or questions. Meantime, please do everything you can to get involved, including joining the Equality For All campaign. We need your help to win!

Great thread. Thanks for being here.

As a New yorker, I’m enjoying the executive activism shown by Governor Paterson.

By framing the NY response as “we will give full faith and credit” to marriages allowed by other states. He gave powerful momentum, while still managing to essentially pre-empt the GOP controlled state senate and largely taking the issue out of legislative hands for a period of time.

This will allow NY institutions whether academic or health care or workplace to establish and refine procedures relating to same sex marriages and dispel any of the fearmogering with a track record of smooth operation

Seth, thanks so much for being here today and discussing all of this — and for all of your grassroots efforts on this and many other issues. Great discussion!

Thought it was Mass. that lit the fuse on this issue.