For state-by-state information, click here.

The backstory



(Although personally I'm not in favor of accusing Prop 8 proponents or gay marriage doubters of "H8".)

We had a pretty large (by Palm Springs standards) protest march here last night. It began at a local park and continued right through the middle of Palm Springs' weekly Village Fest street fair, which takes place in the heart of the city each Thursday on Palm Canyon Drive. Last night's news reports estimated the crowd at 1,000, but today's local paper said 500. It was definitely closer to 1,000 if not larger. Nearly all of the straight and touristy street fair crowd was supportive and cheering us on.

There was one quote in today's paper that was disturbing: "I came down here to have fun at the street fair,” said San Diego resident Jeff White. “To disrupt our space is ridiculous.”

So now San Diego residents think the streets of Palm Springs belong exclusively to them? Ugh.

I am a bad gay because I've been so wrapped up with work, community involvement and commuting, that I had not heard about the protests until yesterday and had no clue about jointheimpact.com until a friend sent me the link.

The closest protest to me is 35 miles away. If I had bigger balls, I would show at our city hall in my area, but I'm afraid I may be only a handful of people there. I would feel more comfortable with more people around me but a trip to Seattle is something I just don't want to do tomorrow since I commute there every day. I know, lame excuse.

I admit that I am ashamed at myself for not "doing something" and I really should. As a start, I'm going to order a t-shirt, but I really need to do more. WE need to do more. I'm sick and tired and ANGRY with all the initiatives passing. Election night wasn't as much of a celebration as it should have been for me because I knew four hateful initiatives were going to pass. It still pisses me off that over 13 million people voted for discrimination. And 62% of Floridian voters voted for a truly disgusting initiative.

On a positive note, it does make me encouraged to see that gays are fired up and protests are going on tomorrow. Gays need to become active again and I hope this motivation doesn't fade away.

I know a lot of my friends in Seattle and Portland are showing up for their protests. And I know friends in Arizona are attending the one in Phoenix. HockeyTom are you attending the one in Spokane? I hope you are.

To those attending the protests tomorrow, I thank you.

A whole bunch of us are gathering at Fox Plaza in SF and then going over to City Hall. Join the Impact is just the first stage of several different stages over the coming weeks. Find a way, find a city!

SF - 10:30 City Hall....Join the Impact!

my town is having a protest tomorrow; no idea how many people will show but I'm thinking a couple of hundred

join the impact!!!!

http://www.couragecampaign.org/JoinTheImpact

Chicago is having theirs at Adams and Dearborn, at 12:30 pm, I think in front of the Federal Building. I wish I could go, but they laid off too many people where I work, and now they don't have enough employees to cover for vacations, and I've got to work 13 days straight..or gay. God knows I'm not complaining...gotta love that overtime! All the best to those who attend. Thank you.

Don't be ashamed. There's no law mandating that everyone participate every time. Even voting isn't mandatory, although to me you should be ashamed if you don't vote.

I've been to protests in the past. I may be at protests in the future. But today, I slept in all morning and then went to watch Falconpride and some others playing flag football (it looks like Philadelphia will finally get a team into the Gay Superbowl before too much longer). And I'm not a damn bit ashamed.

The people who should be ashamed are the bigots, the religious nuts and their political enablers.

Well, I attended my first ever political protest today in DC - under a weird mixture of sun and quick heavy rain showers. Got soaking wet, but it felt good to at least be giving voice to the outrage. We'll see if these viral protests can lead to a more organized and formal movement to finally end legal discrimination.

While I did not attend because I was watching my beloved Longhorns execute an ass-whipping at the expense of the Kansas Jayhawks, 1,200 protesters showed up at Dallas City Hall yesterday.

4000 - 7000 soggy attendees at City Hall Plaza in Boston:



(Photo by the Boston Globe. That's the JFK Federal Building in the background.)

Pretty good AP story about the point of the exercise, too.

I was there and will post photos soon. It also turned into a march. Really astonishing over all.

One prominent name that popped up on the list of contributors to the Yes on 8 (Protect Marriage) is Fresno State head men's basketball coach Steve Cleveland, who donated $2,500. Cleveland is a Mormon who came to Fresno State after being the head coach at BYU for a number of years. For a university like Fresno State with a history of homophobia and lawsuits from female coaches and administrators who alleged mistreatment (and won big!) in court cases based on "perceived" sexual orientation, how wise is it for the men's basketball coach to be contributing to this anti-gay measure? I doubt he thought his name would become public record. Just two months ago, university president John Welty wrote, "Fresno State does not and will not tolerate discrimination against individuals because of sexual orientation," in response to this article.

A link to Steve Cleveland's contribution to Yes on 8

Apparently the CEO of Cinemark was also a "Yes" contributor, and now there are many gay people calling for a boycott of Cinemark movie theatres (esp. as the movie "Milk" is set to open next week).

I can't say I support all these calls for boycotts, often of entities that are not directly tied to the "Yes" supporter (should the employees of a movie theatre chain suffer because of the CEO's political contributions? should the entire state of Utah suffer tourism losses because of Mormon support of the "Yes" vote?).

I think we need to try to open minds and hearts. Threats and punishment is not going to get people to empathize with us.

The goal is not empathy. The goal is saying, as gay people did at Stonewall and other sites, as African Americans did at Selma and many other places for centuries, as women did the suffragette marches and protests, and on and on, WE ARE NOT SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS.

"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." - Abraham Lincoln

"When an individual is protesting society's refusal to acknowledge his dignity as a human being, his very act of protest confers dignity on him." - Bayard Rustin

"There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest." - Elie Wiesel

The tourism dollars will be spent elsewhere, perhaps in places that are pro-gay in their policies (such as Massachusetts, which has same-sex marriage) and that specifically market to gay tourists (lots of places, including Philadelphia -- how can we forget "Get your history straight and your nightlife gay"? -- and I noticed just now that the Outsports home page had two Google ads for Las Vegas casinos that specifically target gays. The Luxor even has a page on its website promoting a special "Pride" room offer, LGBT nightlife and commitment ceremony packages). So I don't have the slightest problem with a boycott of Utah.

A boycott of the movie theater is a little more problematic, but again, while their employees may suffer, other theaters' employees will prosper (because we're all going to see "Milk," right?).

Sorry, but I am all for the boycotts, the avoidance of the state of Utah, and my continued dislike of the Mormon church. It says "liberty and justice FOR ALL", not just some. Until these folks get that concept, I say boycott away! Thanks for the pics, Fantomas. It was quite an event here in Chicago.

Well, I have to say that I'm surprised because literally a year ago NOBODY was marching in the street, NOBODY was outraged that they didn't have civil rights--that they were being treated as second class citizens--yet the situation was the same as now.

Which is why I've said that the Prop. 8 "Yes" vote was a GOOD thing.

I mean, gay people CAN get married in Massachusetts (sp?) and Connecticut (sp?), and they can't get married in every other state (and haven't been able to marry for the past 200 YEARS). But because of California all of a sudden everyone's rights have been trampled on.

It seems to me that this is a great example of the Tipping Point.

As for the boycotts, I'm sure you can find employees of every company (including the movie studio that produced "Milk" and other movie theatre chains than Cinemark), who donated to the the "Yes" side, so it seems a bit pointless to target one--unless that one has a company-wide policy that is anti-gay, which I don't think is the case.

And if people are outraged about their civil rights, they should be targetting federal law. Same-sex marriage in California isn't going to help somebody in Michigan or Alabama. And until the federal law is changed, and same-sex marriage becomes a reality for all throughout the country, there won't be true equality. And whether you spend money in Utah or Philadelphia, or go to Cinemark or Cineplex, will have no effect on your civil rights. March on Washington, not the Mormon Temple if you want something done.

I agree w/ you canmark about where our marches should be targeted & what part of govt needs to be changed. However, I think that most legal scholars who support marriage rights for the glbt community here in the States agree that the original decision by the CA courts several months ago could be a perfect template for setting a national trend. I keep reading that the wording in the decision is not only eloquently written and thought-provoking, but it is apparently packed with solid legal arguments. Generally speaking, many important decisions/trends tend to be birthed in CA & soon after the rest of the country has followed suit. Most legal scholars believe giving glbt equal rights for marriage on the federal level may hinge on what happens here in CA. That's why I believe that there is much at stake when the highest court in CA makes a decision about Prop 8, and which is why there has been such a wonderful response nationally. Like I said earlier, I'm cautiously optimistic that it's gonna go our way. Fingers crossed.

What you're missing, Canmark, is that we had the right to marry here in California because the California Supreme Court said so back in May. There was nothing in the constitution that said we couldn't. Prop 8 amends the constitution to take our right away.

Also, yes, it won't really matter completely until we get our rights on the federal level, but I think, like interracial marriage before 1967, until a number of states allow same-sex marriage, and someone in a state that doesn't allow it sues, federal recognition won't happen.

I was hoping Prop 8 would lose. If it had, I would have petitioned my representatives in the California legislature to create a law that would eliminate recognition of any marriages performed in states that have enacted legislation not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

Sorry, Bob and Tricia, but you got married in Oklahoma. Your marriage is not recognized by the State of California.

That would force the federal issue sooner than later.

Yes, Canmark, it was the revocation of rights, the removal of something that the California legislature had repeatedly pushed for and then the court ratified, that has set people off so. Anti-same-sex marriages were banned in Arizona and Florida, but as you see, there hasn't been anything like the uproar about California, because I don't think anyone expected either of those state to allow it anytime soon, and the right didn't exist in them anyway, though it should.

Massachusetts has almost always been a leader of sorts in American history; it's one of the original and oldest colonies, it had the first theocratic government, legalized slavery first, was one of the first to abolish slavery, was the engine of abolitionism, raised the first northern black regiment in the Civil War, has the oldest continuous college/university, had the first public schools, had among the first free-love communes (in the 19th century, no less), the first black US Senator (since Reconstruction, and he was GOP), only the second black governor in the country, and so on. The rest of the country sort of expects Massachusetts (and most of New England, really) will be a pioneer, sometimes far in advance of every other state. Other states usually follow after a fashion, and that includes Connecticut, which is a small but very rich state. California, the largest state in the union, virtually its own country, and highly diverse, is another issue. The same is true with New York. So gay marriage in California was, is and will be a huge deal, and that's why people are so up in arms.

As for where you'll see it next, very likely one of the other New England or Mid-Atlantic states, or Illinois.

One thing that's surprised me is how easily California's constitution can be changed- is the 50+ % of voters confirming or denying a change the norm in all states? With our federal constitution it's a long and difficult road to make a change as we saw with the equal rights ammendment for women which failed- I think it's two thirds of the states that must ratify a proposed change. Not that people's rights should ever be up for a vote, but I'm surprised it's not 2/3 or at least 60% to make a change.

Now can somebody explain to me the boycott of Cinemark (example, No Milk for Cinemark)?

Supposedly the CEO of Cinemark donated $9,999 to the Prop. 8 "Yes" cause. But:

(a) How do we know 100 Cinemark employees didn't donate to the "No" cause and far offset anything one person did?
(b ) How do we know that employees of Cineplex or AMC or any other theatre chain didn't also donate to "yes?"
(c ) If the boycott succeeds, who will actually suffer? Will it be Mr. CEO, or will it be Cinemark theatre workers (some of whom may be gay) who will lose their jobs?
(d) Shouldn't there be a distinction between a individual employee's actions (where they spend their own money, how they vote, etc.) and the actions of the company (ie. he didn't donate company money, I don't think)?

If we're going to scrutinze everyone's behavior--who they donate to, how they vote, what church they go to, how they spend their personal money and how they live their personal lives--doesn't this just become a witch hunt?

I could understand boycotting a company that had firm-wide policies that were anti-gay, but one donation by one man (which, had he donated anonymously, we would never know about) don't seem to be worth the trouble.

That the community is energized is good. But I think we need to really think about where we direct that energy.



I had a question about that, too. Even though the vote passed 52-48, is there any reason why this couldn't be voted on again next year, or at the next election? Could we keep creating new propositions every year until the vote swings the other way? Because clearly the pendulum is swinging that way, and it seems that in a few years the majority will support same-sex marriage.

I think these are all valid questions, although from my understanding, part of the reason for the boycott of Cinemark is that this donation was not just from an employee, but the CEO. CEOs receive a far larger share of the profits of a company than a standard employee, so the boycott is aimed at the company to cut of the CEOs access to profits. Alas, he could not donate anonymously, that is not allowed in the US.

It is also true that any boycott hurts all the employees of the company, even those who may side with you. But that is the nature of an economic boycott. After all, when grapes were boycotted in the 70s to protest the poor conditions of migrant workers, those workers were hurt by the boycott because there was less demand for their services. When Northerners picketed and boycotted national chains because their Southern stores supported segregation, the entire employee base of the company was hurt, not just the Southern racists.

I also think it is interesting how this entire Prop 8 issue has brought up all this internalized homophobia in the gay community. As people get concerned about targeting churches and businesses that supported discrimination, or who had employees that supported that discrimination, I hear versions of your concerns about targeting people for "who they donate to, how they vote, what church they go to, how they spend their personal money and how they live their personal lives." But there is a huge difference here that we are not recognizing.

Think of it this way, if the CEO had made a donation to an anti-Semitic organization, would there be any question that a boycott by Jewish groups and their supporters would be appropriate? Would the company waste any time not only distancing themselves from such an avowed bigot, but probably firing them? What individuals do on their own time is generally not something a business should care about, but when you have an employee supporting a movement that aims to define a group of citizens as unfit for full participation in society, a line has been crossed.

We cannot lose sight of the truth that, no matter what one's religious belief system, pre-judging millions of fellow citizens as unfit, second-class scum is never right. We all deserve the respect and recognition of our society - every citizen should be judged on his or her actual actions, not perceptions about some group that person may belong to.

While I'm not apologizing for those "Yes" supporters, I'm worried we're on a slippery slope towards a kind-of 'benevolent' McCarthyism.

Example: The director of the Los Angeles Film festival, a Mormon, has been forced to resign when it was discovered that he supported the "Yes" cause.

Previously, the the director of the nonprofit California Musical Theatre in Sacramento resigned for similar reasons.

Are we going to start going through the lists and forcing people to wear a scarlet letter (or as one article I read wrote: "Should there be boycotts, blacklists, firings or de facto shunning of those who supported Proposition 8?")? It seems like that's what's happening:

There are also calls for a boycott of the Sundance film festival, as (a) it takes place in Utah, and (b ) some of the theatres used are owned by Cinemark.

Rather than boycott Utah, why don't we just boycott the entire state of California? After all, they're the ones that voted "Yes." If all the gays moved out of Cali, the economy would collapse and they'd really see how important we are.

What do you expect, canmark? If gays find out that a CEO or company owner has given thousands of dollars to support an antigay measure (read: used the profits from our business), we are going to start spending money elsewhere. Interest groups of all stripes do this all the time, usually for much more frivolous reasons than the official enshrinement of second-class citizenship into a constitution.

And unlike many interest groups, there is no unified gay mafia that has instructed from on high a compliant group of people what to buy and from whom to buy it (remind anyone of certain funders of a certain state initiative?)--lord knows the No on 8 campaign did quite the bang-up job herding those cats. These have been spontaneous, grassroots, justified reactions to a gross injustice. There is nothing wrong with an individual making up his or her own mind about what businesses to frequent, even if a bunch of individuals are thinking alike.

That said, obviously there are limits. But I don't think we have reached them. Picketing the company whose owners donated $600,000 to Yes on 8 is more than reasonable.

[url=http://<object width="464" height="388" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"><param name="movie" value="http://player.ordienetworks.com/flash/fodplayer.swf" /><param name="flashvars" value="key=c0cf508ff8" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed width="464" height="388" flashvars="key=c0cf508ff8" allowfullscreen="true" quality="high" src="http://player.ordienetworks.com/flash/fodplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object><div style="text-align:center;width: 464px;">See more <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/jackblack">Jack Black</a> videos at Funny or Die</div>]Prop 8[/url]

I think this is what you were linking above: Prop. 8: the musical, featuring Jack Black as Jesus.

Today is Day Without A Gay, where gay people are supposed to "call in gay" at work and stay home and watch Ellen, Oprah and The View... er, I mean, take the day off work to "volunteer and be of service."

The Advocate reports that "Day without a gay" was a failutre.