The McFreeds quote a singer from the past voicing his beliefs on Proposition 8 outloud like an American should...

We will allow these remarks to speak for themselves. It's nice to know that we and many of you out there are now seen as an American sexual jihadists!

"What troubles me so deeply, and should trouble all thinking Americans, is that there is a real, unbroken line between the jihadist savagery in Mumbai and the hedonistic, irresponsible, blindly selfish goals and tactics of our homegrown sexual jihadists. Hate is hate, no matter where it erupts. And by its very nature, if it's not held in check, it will escalate into acts vile, violent and destructive."

- Pat Boone

...and they say we are weird?

The McFreeds share an article from Rolling Stone Magazine...

Same-Sex Setback

Don't blame Mormons or black voters - the California activists who tried to stop Prop 8 ran a lousy campaign

TIM DICKINSON

Posted Dec 11, 2008 11:00 AM

On election night in California, all signs pointed to a progressive tidal wave. Voters in the state swept Barack Obama to a 24-point victory over John McCain — the biggest margin for any candidate since 1936. Bucking the recession, eco-conscious Californians voted to spend $10 billion to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles with a European-style bullet train. It was even a banner night for chickens, with 63 percent of the electorate approving a PETA-endorsed proposition to expand the size of poultry cages on factory farms.

Then the returns for Proposition 8 came in. The amendment to ban gay marriage — a right affirmed by the state Supreme Court in May and put into practice by more than 18,000 couples — passed by a four-point margin, as Californians voted to eviscerate the equal-protection clause of the state constitution. Along with similar bans in Arizona and Florida — as well as a measure in Arkansas that bars same-sex couples from adopting children or even serving as foster parents — Prop 8 offered hope to the Christian right that their decades-long culture wars may continue to rage, despite Obama's historic victory. All told, more than 2 million Californians who voted for Obama also pulled the lever for Prop 8.

Election postmortems have been quick to scapegoat minorities for the loss. The right pointed out that African-Americans voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage; the left blasted Mormons who obeyed an unprecedented dictate from the church's leadership in Salt Lake City and donated 45 percent of the funds for a campaign to pass Prop 8.

But evidence of entrenched homophobia and religious intolerance obscure a more difficult truth. Prop 8 should have been defeated — two months before the election, it was down 17 points in the polls — but the gay-rights groups that tried to stop it ran a lousy campaign. According to veteran political observers, the No on Prop 8 effort was slow to raise money, ran weak and confusing ads, and failed to put together a grass-roots operation to get out the vote.

"This was political malpractice," says a Democratic consultant who operates at the highest level of California politics. "They fucked this up, and it was painful to watch. They shouldn't be allowed to pawn this off on the Mormons or anyone else. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and now hundreds of thousands of gay couples are going to pay the price."

From the start, the leaders of the No on Prop 8 campaign and their high-priced consultants failed to realize what they were up against. According to Geoff Kors, who headed the campaign's executive committee, the No side anticipated needing no more than $20 million to stop the gay-marriage ban. The Yes side, by contrast, set out to change how initiative politics are played, building a well-funded operation that rivaled a swing-state presidential campaign in its scope and complexity. It also built a powerful, faith-based coalition that included the Catholic Church, Protestant evangelicals and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "The direct involvement of the Mormon church — moving donors in a very short window to give early — was stunning," says Patrick Guerriero, who was called in to take over as campaign manager of No on Prop 8 in the final month. "It was unprecedented — and probably impossible to predict."

In fact, as documented in an internal LDS memo leaked during the campaign, proposals for such a coalition had been on the table for more than a decade. In the memo, a high-ranking Mormon leader discusses approaches for fighting gay marriage in California: "The Church should be in a coalition and not out front by itself," the memo advocates. "The public image of the Catholic Church is higher than our Church. . . . If we get into this, they are the ones with which to join."

It's ironic that the coalition to define marriage in California as the union between "one man and one woman" was anchored by a church whose founder claimed 33 wives. It's also ironic that the coalition — which framed Prop 8 as a fight to protect California's children — was quietly knit together by the Catholic archbishop of San Francisco, who once excused the molestation of children at the hands of a pedophile priest as mere "horseplay." But once the Mormons joined the effort, they quickly established themselves as "the foundation of the campaign," says Frank Schubert, the consultant who directed Yes on 8. "We could count on their money and their people being there early."

Schubert put Mormon volunteers to work in an expansive field campaign modeled on the effort his business partner, Jeff Flint, worked on in 2004 for George Bush in Ohio. "This is the first time in initiative history that it's ever been done" for a ballot measure, says Schubert. Throughout the summer, Yes on 8 deployed an army of more than 100,000 volunteers to knock on doors in every zip code in the state.

"We had an enormous grass-roots advantage," Schubert says. "Our core was people of faith, and we were able to organize through churches." In the end, he says, the campaign visited 70 percent of all California households in person, and contacted another 15 percent by phone.

The No on Prop 8 campaign, meanwhile, was oblivious to the formidable field operation that the other side was mounting. Worse, its executive committee refused to include leaders of top gay and lesbian grass-roots organizations, which deprived them of an army of willing foot soldiers. "We didn't have people going door to door," admits Yvette Martinez, the campaign's political director. The field operation consisted of volunteers phone-banking from 135 call centers across the state, an effort that didn't begin ramping up until mid-October.

"They had no ground game," says a leading Democratic consultant. "They thought they could win this thing by slapping some ads together. It was the height of naiveté."

The Yes on 8 campaign's get-out-the-vote effort was equally prodigious. The weekend before the vote, Schubert's religious volunteers once again went door to door, speaking to supporters and directing them to the right precinct locations. "On Election Day," he says, "we had 100,000 people — five per precinct — checking voter rolls and contacting supporters who hadn't showed up to vote."

By contrast, the No on Prop 8 campaign mobilized just 11,000 volunteers on Election Day, which they deployed to polling locations to hold "Vote No on 8" signs. The campaign even turned away volunteers who were unable to attend a sign-holding training seminar. Terry Leftgoff, a veteran campaign consultant who was once the highest-ranking gay officer in the California Democratic Party, was one of those who was informed that his services weren't needed. "I was told I could come by on November 5th and help clean up a campaign office," Leftgoff says.

As terrible as the no on prop 8 campaign did on the ground, it did even worse on the air.

Until the final days, the campaign failed to take advantage of the backing of every major newspaper in the state, as well as that of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former President Bill Clinton and future President Barack Obama. In one bizarre episode, an outside consultant was forced to "jackhammer" the campaign leadership simply to convince them to make use of a robo-call from Bill Clinton. The campaign also rejected a Spanish-language ad featuring Dolores Huerta, a heroine of the United Farm Workers union.

"There were big mistakes that led to this flop," says Leftgoff, the veteran consultant. "They lacked the media messaging essential to any campaign."

To make matters worse, the No campaign refused to reassure voters by presenting positive depictions of gay and lesbian couples in its ads. Instead, in a bizarre approach, it opted to effectively affirm the homophobia of the swing voters it was courting. An ad called "Conversation," featuring two female friends looking at family photos over coffee, typified the effort:

The awkward ads alienated gay activists. Robin Tyler, one of the lead plaintiffs in the marriage case that reached the state Supreme Court, describes the approach of No on Prop 8 as "if we hide, they'll give us our rights." The campaign, she suggests, could have picked up a few pointers from the ballot initiative to reform factory farming: "When they were trying to pass Prop 2," she asks, "did they hide the chickens

Even Patrick Guerriero, who took the reins of the campaign in October, admits that the early communications strategy was disastrous. "Those ads were perfect," he says, "if there wasn't an opponent."

But there was an opponent — and Schubert quickly took advantage of the weak ads to turn gay marriage into a referendum on education and parental rights. One spot featured a young Hispanic girl coming home to tell her mother, "Guess what I learned in school today? I learned how a prince married a prince, and I can marry a princess!" Schubert drove home the theme again with an ad highlighting a field trip by San Francisco first-graders to see their lesbian teacher get married.

The ads were misleading but devastating. Within two weeks, the Yes campaign turned a double-digit deficit in the polls into a 15-point lead. Worse, the Yes side began October with $12.8 million in the bank to spend on advertising, while the No campaign had only $1.8 million. "Our filing was so large that it literally crashed the secretary of state's Web page," boasts Schubert. "They couldn't accept it — there were over 5,000 pages of contributors." At that point, the No on Prop 8 campaign had only 6,000 donors. "We did not have the cash we needed," concedes Kors, the leader of the No on Prop 8 executive committee.

The numbers spurred a major shake-up of the No campaign, which called in Guerriero, formerly executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, to take the helm. Guerriero thought the campaign was effectively lost, but he was determined to "scramble back" — to narrow the margin of defeat and thus demonstrate progress over 2000, when California voters first outlawed gay marriage by a margin of 23 points.

And then something extraordinary happened. "Once the progressive community was told, 'We're in the fight of our lives, and we're losing,' they just responded," says Guerriero. "No one can say people didn't wake up." Volunteers from Google and eBay built a Website for online donations; money started flooding in at a clip of up to $1 million a day. By Election Day, the once-poor No campaign had outraised the Yes side by $2 million.

The No campaign also aired its first effective counterattack, running an ad that featured the state school superintendent making clear that gay marriage would not be taught in the schools. "It was their best ad of the campaign by far, but it was very, very late for them to react," says Schubert. The No campaign also filmed a powerful ad that featured Sen. Dianne Feinstein — perhaps the most popular politician in the state — appealing to voters to "vote against discrimination."

Had the campaign left well enough alone, the Feinstein ad might have done the trick. Instead, with only a week to go before Election Day, it flailed about as crazily as the McCain campaign in search of a message. After running the Feinstein ad for only four days, it recut the spot to incorporate other big-name endorsers, garbling the message. It also filmed a counterproductive ad narrated by Samuel L. Jackson that, in the course of 30 seconds, tried to connect the gay-marriage struggle to the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, the housing-rights struggles of Armenians in California and bans on interracial marriage in the South.

"The ad was a huge fucking mistake," says a top Democratic campaign strategist. "Any objective consultant who has done any research on this issue will tell you that the struggle for marriage equality is not accepted by minority communities to be equivalent to the civil rights movement. In fact, it pisses minorities off."

It didn't help that Barack Obama refused to support gay marriage, and voiced his opposition to Prop 8 as a narrow constitutional matter. Indeed, Obama was so weak on the issue that Schubert highlighted the candidate's opposition to gay marriage in a mailer targeting African-Americans, and used his voice in a statewide robo-call. "We were able to quote him directly on the core issue in direct mail and in calls at the end of the campaign," says Schubert. When African-Americans in California went to the polls on Election Day, 70 percent of them voted to ban gay marriage.

Civil rights groups in California have already petitioned the state Supreme Court to toss out Prop 8, arguing that revising the state constitution requires a two-thirds vote in the legislature. The fight has also gone national. On November 10th, the gay-rights group Equality Utah announced that it would draft legislation in Utah to legalize civil unions — a direct challenge to the Mormon church, which claims to support such relationships. And on November 15th, after only eight days of organizing online, more than 100,000 protesters rallied against Prop 8 in 300 cities across the country.

As the demonstrations suggest, there is a silver lining to the passage of Prop 8. Because it succeeded due to the mistakes and mismanagement of its opponents — rather than deep-seated hostility to gay and lesbian couples — it can be overturned at the ballot box. Since 2000, the margin of voters in the state who oppose gay marriage has plunged from 23 points to only four.

"The speed at which this issue is moving is unprecedented in my personal political experience," says Bill Carrick, a prominent Democratic consultant who worked on the presidential campaigns of Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy. "Support for gay marriage has moved so far, in such a short period of time, that I think we're going to look back at Prop 8 as an aberration. History is headed in a very pro-gay-marriage direction, and it probably is going to happen in a much shorter time than anybody imagines."

[From Issue 1067 — December 11, 2008]

The McFreeds ask if you can identify all the celebrities in this funny musical clip...

Sean gives it to you some straight talk...

I am deeply troubled by the call for boycott of the entire state of Utah by many in the GLBT/LGBT Community. The following commentary was published on 365gay.com by Lisa Neff today:

"My family comes from a place in western Illinois where great efforts have been made to remedy the persecution of a group of people.

My dad grew up on a farm in Ferris, Ill., not far from Nauvoo, a beautiful little town founded by Joseph Smith, who founded the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints.

The town grew as the Mormon population grew.

And around the town, unease about Mormon lifestyle, political influence and religious beliefs grew to open warfare — homes were destroyed, crops were burned, lives were threatened, leaders were jailed. Eventually the Mormons were forced to abandon their homes in Nauvoo — the largest forced migration in U.S. history, 1,300 miles across the plains to Utah’s Great Salt Lake.

The Illinois Legislature, by resolution, apologized for the forced expulsion of a people in 2004, 159 years after the crimes.

The resolution said the “goodness, patriotism, high-moral conduct and generosity” of the LDS church enriched the landscape of the nation.

Today, I can’t see the goodness, patriotism, high-moral conduct or generosity in a church that has known persecution but continues to persecute a group of people.

The Illinois Legislature’s resolution said “the bias and prejudices of a less enlightened age … caused unmeasurable hardship and trauma for the community of Latter-day Saints by the distrust, violence, and inhospitable actions of a dark time in our past.”

Today, the LDS church is guilty perpetuating bias and prejudices causing unmeasurable hardship and trauma for gays and lesbians.

The church has long funded anti-gay campaigns, especially efforts to legally recognize same-sex unions and establish equal marriage rights in the state.

In 1998 the church invested an estimated $600,000 in the campaign to ban same-sex marriage in Hawaii and $500,000 in Alaska. The investment continued in state after state, as ballot measures to specifically ban same-sex marriage were put to votes. The church played a big role in an anti-gay ballot measure in 2000 in California, and it played a big role in passing Proposition 8 in California earlier this month.

In June, the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sent a letter for church leaders in California to read all congregations:

“A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.

“We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.”

And donate they did — providing about 70 percent of the financing behind the Prop. 8 campaign.

The church is savvy at media relations, at disseminating propaganda. Its leaders will have the world believe that the church now is being persecuted for its involvement in Proposition 8. The First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints issued a statement as gays and lesbians nationwide demonstrated against the passage of Prop. 8. He wrote, “People of faith have been intimidated for simply exercising their democratic rights. These are not actions that are worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation. The end of a free and fair election should not be the beginning of a hostile response in America.”

Of course vandalizing a church is wrong and violence against people is wrong.

But challenging the church is right, entirely just and necessary.

I think we can start with calling for a federal investigation into how a church with a tax-exempt status can be so heavily involved in a political campaign — how can that make for a free and fair election?

And I think, too, we must make sure we do our best not to drop even a penny into the accounts of people or institutions that will use that money to rob gays and lesbians of their equal rights and delegitimize their families. Planning a winter ski break on a Utah summit a summer excursion through hiking Utah canyons? Reconsider."

Mahatma Gandhi once said: “Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.” He also said: “They cannot take away our self-respect if we do not give it to them.”

Are we not employing anger and intolerance ourselves to cast a stone at our generalized “enemy?” Are we not giving them the satisfaction of religious intolerance as a rallying cry to their membership who might otherwise join our cause?

Martin Luther King Jr. who advocated the Birmingham Bus Boycott said once: “Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.”

This boycott is more about hate by generalization then political protest. Many of us in the GLBT/LGBT community are reluctant witnesses to religion due to personal experiences and the continual misintepretation of the scriptures against us. However, we must not invoke punishment on an entire state because of it. We only betray ourselves by using intolerance against intolerance.

King and those who followed him boycotted a bus system but he did not boycott taxis, trains, cars, or sidewalks. Restaurants who forced the separation of the races were avoided while others benefited. Gandhi made his own salt instead of buying it in his great notable boycott. Our great leaders emphasized redirection and not blanket anger. We must remember that as we move forward and stir tension into anger and calls for retribution, because with every act of retribution an innocent may fall victim.

Our boycotts and protests must be targetted going forward not blanketedly vindictive. It is the leaders of the Morman Church that we have a beef with not its members.  As with African-American, black, and Latino communities, we must reach out to Mormans as well so they can learn who we are and meet us face to face as neighbors and not nebulous enemies. Ms. Neff is wrong in her call because it advocates an eye for an eye approach against our own call on our opponents to love thy neighbor. Last time I checked a “blinded” neighbor never sees passed his or her own “truth.” With her recommended approach, we never even allow Utahans to see who "hit" them.

In the end if we punish Utah for the “crimes” of the Morman Church and those who pay tithe to it, then who will we elect to march over to former pro-quarterback and direct Brigham Young descendent Steve Young’s home and take his “No on Prop 8″ sign down?

The McFreeds share the following news...

Advocate.com reports a simple discription of what is happening legally in the California Proposition 8 litigation...

The California supreme court announced Wednesday that it will review legal challenges to Proposition 8, which passed by a narrow margin on November 4, constitutionally banning same-sex marriage in the state.

But don't look for any resolution in the immediate future: The high court scheduled a hearing for March, asking litigants on both sides for more written arguments in the interim.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Lambda Legal filed a suit challenging the validity of Prop. 8 on November 5, before Equality California, the official group that worked to defeat Prop. 8, had formally conceded.

The court will be asked to answer the following questions:

"Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California constitution?"

"Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California constitution?"

"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?"

Sean shares this vlog (video blog)...

With all the talk about African-Americans and Latinos roles in passing California's Proposition 8, we forget that there is a lot of outreach to be done. Check out this episode of the Mocha Lounge on 365gay.com.

Note: I did not embed this video because it started everytime you opened up our blog. Please utilize the link.  

The McFreeds let you in on the rights that all legal marriages in this country have under federal law...

Here is a list of marriage rights provided by U.S. federal law according to the General Accountability Office (GAO) in a 2004 report. Notice that most of these are economic in nature. Name your favorite right!

• Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
• Social Security pension
• veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
• survivor benefits for federal employees
• survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
• additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
• $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
• continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
• renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
• continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
• payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
• making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
• Right to benefits while married:
• employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
• per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
• Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
• sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
• Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
• veteran's disability
• Supplemental Security Income
• disability payments for federal employees
• Medicaid
• property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
• income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
• Joint and family-related rights:
• joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
• joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
• family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
• next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
• custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
• domestic violence intervention
• access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
• Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
• Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
• Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
• Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act
• Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
• Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
• Court notice of probate proceedings
• Domestic violence protection orders
• Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
• Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
• Funeral and bereavement leave
• Joint adoption and foster care
• Joint tax filing
• Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
• Legal status with stepchildren
• Making spousal medical decisions
• Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
• Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
• Right of survivorship of custodial trust
• Right to change surname upon marriage
• Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
• Right to inheritance of property
• Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
• Spousal income and assets are counted in determining need in many forms of government assistance, including:
• veteran's medical and home care benefits
• housing assistance
• housing loans for veterans
• child's education loans
• educational loan repayment schedule
• agricultural price supports and loans
• eligibility for federal matching campaign funds
• Ineligible for National Affordable Housing program if spouse ever purchased a home.
• Subject to conflict-of-interest rules for many government and government-related jobs
• Ineligible to receive various survivor benefits upon remarriage
• Marriage penalty/bonus with income taxes
• Someone working for their spouse cannot be defined as an "employee”
• Someone cannot change beneficiaries in a retirement plan or from waiving the joint and survivor annuity form of retirement benefit, without the written consent of his or her spouse
• Wages can be garnished at a maximum of 60% (instead of the normal 25% limit) if the garnishing is for alimony or child support
• State community property laws in divorce/separation cases

Sean shares a post from Queerty.com that makes a ton of sense...

In a post that will surely upset the "We must not be divisive!" crowd, Andrew Sullivan questions the continued value of the Human Rights Campaign, noting that not only is there almost no information about last weekend's protests on their site, but also:

"In the two decades of serious struggle for marriage equality, the Human Rights Campaign has been mostly absent, and when present, often passive or reactive. Here's a simple statistic that might help shake us out of complacency: HRC claims to have spent $3.4 million on No On 8. The Mormon church was able to spend over $20 million, by appealing to its members. Why are non-gay Mormons more capable of organizing and fund-raising on a gay rights measure than the biggest national gay rights group?"

It's not a dumb question.

Now, taking pot shots at the Human Rights Campaign a popular pastime among pretty much every gay political pundit (Queerty included), but the passage of Prop 8. may be seen as a tipping point, with more and more voices questioning the various gay organizations that are commonly seen as "gay leadership." As Sully puts it:

"It's time gay people realized that this group is often part of the problem, and rarely part of the solution. It needs to be swept clean of its deadwood, overhauled, or if it persists in its ways, defunded. When we are in a civil rights movement and the biggest organization is essentially a passive observer and excuse-maker, it's time to demand better."

One of the common rejoinders being made by gay leaders is that Prop 8. passed "for one reason and one reason only, people were lied to [by the Yes on 8 campaign]", as L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center CEO Lori Jean told the Los Angeles protest on Saturday. And while it's true that the Yes on 8 campaign made false accusations about the meaning of same-sex marriage, political campaigns are a zero-sum games. Just as we would not give any credit to the Mormon Church if the Prop. had failed, we can't place all the blame on our opponents now that it has passed.

The reality is, we got beat and we need to take responsibility for that defeat. As P.R. exec Simon Halls said last week:

"Pure and simple, they beat us at the marketing game. If we learned anything from President-elect Obama’s brilliant and victorious campaign, it’s all about your efforts on the ground. The new president and his team organized at the grassroots level. They honed a clear and focused message and they were incredibly disciplined."

The No on 8 campaign put all their money into TV ads (many of which did not even mention that Prop. 8 was about gay marriage) and into phone banking. During the campaign Julie Davis, Northern California campaign director for No on 8 made fun of the Yes on 8's on-the-ground approach which she described as "randomly knocking on doors". After they won, what did the Yes on 8 people credit their win to? You guessed it:

“We thought it would go this way,” Proposition 8 co-chair Frank Schubert said. “We had 100,000 people on the streets today. We had people in every precinct, if not knocking on doors, then phoning voters in every precinct. We canvassed the entire state of California, one on one, asking people face to face how do they feel about this issue.

“And this is the kind of issue people are very personal and private about, and they don’t like talking to pollsters, they don’t like talking to the media, but we had a pretty good idea how they felt and that’s being reflected in the vote count.”

In our struggle to change the mind's of others, we may have to change our own. The grassroots, "everyone has a voice", web-centric nature of the campaign that started after Prop. 8 passed is a direct response to the hierarchical, "here's the plan, get on board or go away", "shout from our bubble" effort that preceded it.

Madness is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different response. It's clear that the strategy (or lack thereof) of the HRC and No on 8. campaign did not work. Saying it's because the bad guys are liars and cheats gets us nowhere. Asking "Who are we?", "What do we want?" and "How do we get there?" does.

To the people who feel that questioning our gay leaders will only make us more divided, I point to our defeat and ask, "What makes you think we were ever united?"

Sean shares...

Below is a conversation that D.L. Hughley and Dan Savage had on Hughley's new talk show on CNN specifically targeting African-Americans and operating in the same vein as The Daily Show. This honest and respectful discussion between two people is what really should go on today. I am not a fan of Dan Savage at times but this was a great few minutes. Hughley was very honest and I think spoke very much for many people in his simple view of the whole Proposition 8 debate. We must remember that not all people who oppose us are wrong, they just don't know us yet.