NYS Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr.: Supreme Court will allow same-sex marriages as a sign of the end of days

The last time homophobic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr. visited the studios of local news channel NY1's "Pura Politica" in June of 2009 anchor Juan Manuel Benitez meticulously and calmly asked questions that reduced the ordained Pentecostal  reverend to this:

"I am the church, and I am the state", he kept repeating. "I am the church, I am the state".

With those words, the Reverend stood naked in in his religious-based bigotry and basically admitted what everyone knows: The Senator couldn't give a damn about separation of church and state as well as the secular laws he was elected to protect.

The Reverend's vitriolic homophobia is legion and has left a trail of destruction behind him.  From opposing the 1994 Gay Games in New York City because he claimed visiting gay tourists would spread AIDS through the city's population to opposing the opening of a school planned to serve LGBT youth (the Harvey Milk School would later open after it made concessions to Diaz and made it explicit that it would not only serve LGBT youth but also heterosexual youth).

But he's become best known, perhaps, for his unrelenting opposition to marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples.  As a New York City councilmember and now as a Senator he has been the most visible face and voice of opposition to bringing New York State closer to passing a marriage equality bill.

So it was back to "Pura Politica" on Friday to discuss a federal court's decision to strike down Proposition 8 which had banned such marriages in California.  And Diaz, true to himself, did not disappoint.

It's a long clip which consists of two segments.  In the first, Benitez masterfully confronts Diaz on his opposition to marriage equality and, in the second, my friend Pedro Julio Serrano speaks to Benitez about the reach and effects of the Proposition 8 ruling last week in California.

Highlights:  As in last year's "Pura Politica" appearance the Reverend made some jaw-dropping statements. Most surprisingly, the Reverend believes that the Supreme Court will take up the issue of marriage equality and decide in favor of the gay community [please keep in mind these is a word-by-word translation which means there might be "uhms" and "ah"'s as well as breaks in in the line of thought as each person speaks]:

[At the 2:11 minute mark]
Juan Manuel Benitez: Do you think this will reach the Supreme Court and if that happens what will be it's decision...
Rev. Ruben Diaz, Sr.: Of course! Of course! The Supreme Court will say that what the court did is reasonable, if one assumes that they are full of liberal justices, and they'll say "It's like that.

And the reason why Diaz believes the Supreme Court will rule in favor of granting marriage rights to same-sex couples? Well, it's not only what Diaz calls "liberal" and "activist" judges on the bench, picking up right-wing memes. He actually says the Bible told him so:

[At the 3:23 mark]
Juan Manuel Benitez: During the last year, since you were last here for the entire show to talk about this issue, there has been another country, in this case in Latin America... two more countries in Europe, in Portugal, and Argentina which are legalizing unions between same-sex couples.  It seems this movement is unstoppable in many countries of the world. Are you not fearful of being left on the wrong side of history on this issue?
Rev. Ruben Diaz, Sr.: If you read the Bible, and it's where I base myself upon, the Bible says that all these things will happen at the end and that this needs to happen, but because I don't do it... I do it based on biblical reasons - what does the Bible tell us? That the biblical prophecies indicate that all this will happen and that this is the way...
Juan Manuel Benitez: In other words, the Bible says that homosexual marriage will...
Rev. Ruben Diaz, Sr.: What the Bible says is that at the end of the road, what's evil and everything that is against the will of God, and everything that is against the moral principles will come to pass, they will win.

Yes, you read it here first.  NYS Senator believes that the Supreme Court of America will allow same-sex couples to marry as a sign of the end of times.

Earlier, there is an incredibly disturbing exchange in which Diaz scoffs at the fact that gays are asking for their civil rights. Benitez is questioning Diaz as to whether people's civil rights should be put to a popular vote and asks Diaz whether he would have sponsored a referendum on the 1960's groundbreaking civil right law just because the majority of the citizens of the United States opposed it at the time.

[At the :56 second mark]
Juan Manuel Benitez: But in the 1960's, when the civil rights bill was passed, would you have granted the people of the United States a referendum, the power to decide?
Rev. Ruben Diaz, Sr.: What civil rights are you talking about? These are people who have rights. What civil rights! What are the civil rights? You know... these are civil rights... What civil rights? I don't understand. I don't understand the "chicken and rice" [arguments] you guys employ: "Civil rights". What civil rights?
Juan Manuel Benitez: Well, according to the judges...
Rev. Ruben Diaz, Sr.: What has anything to do... what does the abuse of blacks have to do, in those times of the 1960's - and I also experienced abuse down south - and those things that stemmed from black slavery, what does it have to do with a person... if I want to be - eh- homosexual, I want to be a lesbian, and I'm not allowed, "I want to be", "I want to have" - that union of those two... I don't understand that, honestly, I don't understand it.
Juan Manuel Benitez: Well, it's not that these people say I "want" to be homosexual.  These people ARE homosexual...
Rev. Ruben Diaz, Sr.: Well, whatever they might be...
Juan Manuel Benitez: A person doesn't elect if he wants to be black or if he wants to be white...
Rev. Ruben Diaz, Sr.: Whatever they might be whatever they might be, whatever they might be...

Why do I get the sense that when anyone says anything different than what the Reverend believes he just stops listening and keeps repeating the same thing over and over? Anyway, look at the utter arrogance and contempt that crosses his eyes as he discusses whether gays and lesbians are worthy of being granted civil rights.

These exchanges lead to what I thought was the most stunning part of the clips.  No, it's not Diaz stating that we will achieve marriage equality because we are nearing the end of days.  It actually doesn't come from Diaz himself.  It's Juan Manuel Benitez taking a moment in the next segment to address his viewers as he welcomes Pedro Julio...

[At the 4:30 minute mark]

Juan Manuel Benitez: Here at "Pura Politica", we've spent years debating this topic and, as we've done it, little by little, throughout the world, different countries, states and cities decided that - yes - these unions should be recognized in the same way as heterosexual ones.  And, at the same time, the predictions of the destruction of the family, of danger to children, and even the end of the world, as our previous guest warned, have not become reality. Hence, a few weeks ago, we already said here that legally and historically the opposition to these marriages is being left without arguments. Religious-wise, that's for each one to believe what they want. Thank God, this country is ruled by the text of law and not texts of religion, mythology or superstition; and I say 'Thank God' because it would be impossible to satisfy every creed and, when it comes to it, what's being asked is not to be allowed into a Synagogue or Mosque to get married, but simply City Hall or the town council. 

Just stunning. Benitez has a periodical OpEd piece in El Diario La Prensa and often prepares an OpEd segment for "Pura Politica" as well but, as the host of the show, I've always seen him maintain an objective voice when it comes to the topics addressed by the guests who are invited, as it should be.  A great political interviewer uses arguments to elicit comments from his guests and Benitez is amazing at it.  But something about the interview with Diaz - which was taped on Thursday and aired on Friday - must have set Benitez off enough to feel it was important to establish an editorial voice in the face of Diaz's hurtful statements.  I personally thought it was a great thing to do and I thank Benitez as well as the producers of "Pura Politica" for standing on principle.

He also opens his questions for Pedro Julio with the following question...

Juan Manuel Benitez: President Obama says he is against Proposition 8, which momentarily banned many marriages that took place in California, but that he still believes that marriage is between "a man and a woman". Explain this to me because I don't get it.

Pedro Julio does a great job, as he always does, of responding to that question and, like Diaz, he prognosticates that ultimately marriage equality is a movement that is unstoppable and will emerge victorious throughout the word. Unlike the Reverend, Pedro Julio doesn't argue that the end is near.  He argues that simply and plainly we all deserve the same rights as others.

Full Double Rainbow All The Way Day! CA's Prop. 8 struck down!

In a 136-page ruling, a federal judge has determined that California's ban on marriage rights for same-sex couples is unconstitutional.  In what New York University Law Professor Arthur S. Leonard calls a ruling "with sweeping clarity", Judge Vaughn R. Walker, one of two openly gay judges on the federal court circuit, said:

Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.

And tonight The New York Times editorialized, in part, thusly:

One of Judge Walker’s strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,” he wrote. “That time has passed.” 

With that, the gays were sent dancing into the streets knowing fully well that the ruling will most certainly be appealed by those wishing to deny us equal rights, perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Celebratory rallies are taking place all over the United States this evening. This afternoon I headed to the New York City Supreme Court building at 60 Centre Street in Manhattan for our version of the national celebration.

I missed the political speeches and got there just as people made their way across Centre Street to place white carnations on the steps of the Supreme Court. I counted, perhaps 100+ people, but by then a few had left. I heard others say that they had estimated 200 to 300 people during the earlier speeches.  A paltry showing considering the thousands that took to the streets after Prop. 8 was passed in November of 2008 which might have been the result of a hot and humid day, a rather haphazard alert network (I was surprised I didn't see info about the rally pop up more frequently on my Facebook or Twitter timeslines) or, simply, the fact that rejection of our rights angers and motivates way more people than the affirmation that, yes, we are equal to others (BTW: Mike Lavers has coverage of the rally and the speeches over at EDGE).

As you can see, I took a few photos. Additional pics can be seen here. You can probably spot a few movers and shakers, including the lovely Ann Northrop, Mr. "Equal Rights for Fairies" Joe Jervis (a/k/a Joe.My.God.) and Ruben Diaz, Sr. opponent Charlie Ramos.

What's really sweet about seeing Charlie there, as well as all the joyful marriage equality proponents, was that two years ago almost to the date, it was Ruben Diaz, Sr. himself heading to the same plaza.

Finally, one of the people I know who was not at the rally was Pedro Julio Serrano.  That's because he was otherwise occupied talking on behalf of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force on CNN en Español.  I've got the goods. Here you go...

Related:

• NYC Celebrates Prop. 8 Overturn (Joe.My.God.)

Meanwhile, in San Francisco...


And San Diego (via Rex Wockner )...

There better be a full double rainbow all the way coming our way tomorrow...

'cause this better turn out right.

Schwarzenegger taps Latina lesbian for finance director post

Considering the current status of the California state budget, I'm not sure whether I would even congratulate anyone who might want to become the state's finance director. And yet, earlier in the week, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he had appointed 34 year old Ana Matosantos to the previously vacated position.

The Sacramento Bee and other major English language papers note that Matosantos, who was born in Puerto Rico, would become the youngest person and the first Latina to ever fill the post (her appointment is still pending approval from the California State Senate).

Interestingly, none of the major English-language newspapers make note that Matosantos is also an openly lesbian woman. That information actually came from the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinión who interviewed her for an article that ran on Tuesday. An translated excerpt:

Montesanos speaks openly and with no need to hide her personal life. She confesses that she is single, a lesbian and has a partner. "Once you have confessed to your parents, it doesn't matter what others might think." she says certain of herself [...] Additionally, I feel happy because my nomination reflects the diversity lived in the state, and California siempre pa' adelante [using a Puerto Rican colloquialism in Spanish].

[NOTE: That contradiction about being single and having a partner comes directly from the Spanish-language text].

After Senate approval of her appointment, Matosanos will have to present Schwarzenegger's state budget in January. In a statement, the Governor gave Matosanos full support by saying "In the coming year, our state will have to make incredibly challenging and tough budget decisions, and Ana has the knowledge and expertise necessary to guide my administration through that decision-making process."

With the pending appointment, Matosanos would become one of the highest ranking gay Latinos appointed to political office in the United States.

A couple of gay Homies among hundreds

Speaking of lowrider culture and gayness: It's been a few years since David Gonzales got in trouble with the Los Angeles Police Department over his homies ("'Homies' toys anger anti-gang forces", Los Angeles Times, May 24, 1999).

Gonzales had been drawing a comic strip called "Homies" for Lowrider magazine but only drew the ire of law enforcement agents when he decided to launch a toy line based on his creation.

The line of two-inch toys featured what could be called stereotypical representations of people involved in Mexican-American gang culture which were sold cheap through vending machines in Latino neighborhood stores. Foes argued that they glamourized gang culture to children.

Gonzales addressed some of their concerns by creating "positive" or inspirational background stories for each character but some stores stopped selling them due to the outrage. Almost ten years later, though, Homies have survived and are still in the marketplace. And, according to today's Santa Fe Reporter, already have a gay Homie or two in their ranks.

From the article:

Santa Fe Reporter: The Homies all have detailed back stories that can be read on your Web site (homies.tv), stories that often challenge visual stereotypes. Are there any gay or transgender Homies?

David Gonzales: No transgender Homies. I have been approached by the gay community. So far, there’s one guy, he’s like the barber for this big cartel guy and he ends up going into hiding in a little barber shop in LA and he happens to be gay. But maybe more will surface in the future. I’ve got lots of races, Jamaicans, Koreans, all kinds of Asians and even a journalist, with a sensitive ponytail and a notepad. But, you know, how do you incorporate everyone?

So far, I haven't found him in the roster of Homies available at the Homies site but I did find Bouncey the lesbian Homie. Let me know if you find the gay barber. I want one!

Updates: A reader writes that the gay barber's name is Peloquero (see comments below). A link to his 'back story' seems outdated though. But another reader has provided us with this link which has an image of the Homie in question (above, left).

Image credit: 67 Degrees with a 40% Chance of Rain

Richard Rodriguez on Prop. 8 and the aftermath

In Latino activist circles, Richard Rodriguez has always been the black sheep of the family... even among Latino LGBT activists... even after he came out...

The (current? former?) NPR commentator and PBS News Hour panelist drew ire for arguing that Latino immigrants should learn English upon arrival in the US and for defending his allegiance to the Catholic church. But deeply, secretly, I have been such a fan.

Weird. I have to say that I am not a religious person. And that I also have been supportive and in awe of ACT UP's daring (and still controversial) action at St. Patrick's Cathedral back in 1989 (something that Rodriguez doesn't share).

But tonight's Salon.com piece ("Why churches fear gay marriage") is such a snapshot at why Prop. 8 opposition failed among some Latino Californians that I'd be remiss if I didn't share.

An excerpt:

...the real challenge to the family right now is male irresponsibility and misbehavior toward women. If the Hispanic Catholic and evangelical churches really wanted to protect the family, they should address the issue of wife beating in Hispanic families and the misbehaviors of the father against the mother. But no, they go after gay marriage. It doesn't take any brilliance to notice that this is hypocrisy of such magnitude that you blame the gay couple living next door for the fact that you've just beaten your wife

The full read is illuminating. Click on the link above to read it.

Wockner: Stonewall 2.0 vs. Activisim 3.0

Rex (right) has a few choice comments about the No on Prop. 8 campaign as well as last weeks Prop. 8 protests across the country. It is worth a read:

The organization No On 8 failed us. Before the TV ad war started, we were up 14-17 points in the polls. Then No On 8 spent some $37 million of your money to spam the California airwaves with really lousy ads, while the other side spent a similar amount to spam the California airwaves with ads that were, whatever else they may have been, effective. While the bad TV ads were not the only component of our loss (last-minute preaching from the pulpits was a factor), had our ads been good ads, we would have held onto our lead. And producing those mindnumbingly expensive ads (which I and many others publicly criticized as they were airing) was one piece of the war that No On 8 had 100% control over...

For the full post click on "The day the music died for the gay leadership"

Previously:

• My beef with the No on Prop. 8 ad targeting Latino communities... (Nov. 1, 2008)

My New York: "Girl, you did not just steal our rights. DID YOU. Seriously?"

NOTE: My entire photo album of today's events in NYC here, a run down of events in other cities at Towleroad and media coverage at Chris Crain's blog.It was supposed to be a rainy day but the rain didn't arrive until a few moments ago. Instead, for what was one of hundreds of demonstrations throughout the United States against California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage, the sun shined brightly on the thousands of people that descended upon City Hall in Manhattan. I haven't seen crowd estimates but overheard a few people say that they thought it was a larger crowd the one on Wednesday (which drew 7,500 to 15,000 - depending on who you ask).

SIGNS OF THE DAY!

Best sign of the day! "Girl, you did not just steal our rights DID YOU? Seriously" (Update: Vinney has the T-shirt here , his flickr page is here).

Runner up: "Prop 8 Kills Kittens" (those on the East Coast who have seen the recent Time Warner commercials will get the joke).

Runner up: "Bisexuals won't settle for 1/2 equal"

Runner up: "If homosexuality is a disease, let's call in QUEER to work. 'Hello,can't work today, STILL QUEER"

SEEN!!!

Heather Matarazzo: There were the usual array of speakers including openly gay Councilmembers Christine Quinn and Rosie Mendez and the openly gay Assemblymember Danny O'Donnell but the one that truly moved my cynical heart was Heather Matarazzo (above). Part of it was that I felt star-struck (I have been in love with Heather ever since I saw her performance in Todd Solondz' "Welcome to the Dollhouse").

But no. I think what struck me of Wednesday's and today's demos were how unlike other demos they were (in terms of drawing record numbers of chi-chi gays - who usually never get caught at a political demo thingie - as well as the throngs of younger people who seem to have engaged in ways that I have never seen).

It's the Facebook generation (or what Rex calls Stonewall 2.0) and for some reason Heather seemed to fully embody the moment. So when she looked at the thousands of people in front of her and choked-up with tears as she said "I love you all" I couldn't help but tear up a bit as well. Yes, old cynical me.

Wilson Cruz: A while back I checked in with the Obama campaign and urged them to recruit Wilson Cruz for their media-friendly events in California if their goal was to attract a younger Latino gay following. When pundits were questioning whether Obama could draw the Latino vote, Wilson was out there challenging that notion and I was glad to have tried to connect him to the campaign. Glad to see him in the crowd although I didn't have a chance to say hi.

Emanuel Xavier was there as well though and got to address the crowd as well (pic courtesy of Leo Toro). Yay! (Wait! I detect a wardrobe change!).

John Norris: Oh, and yeah, MTV's John Norris was just behind me (above in shades).

Matt Foreman: The fabu-tastic Matt Foreman was in his old stomping grounds as well (he now lives in California). That's me on the left, him on the right. Don't mind my spazzy smile: Francisco De Leon, Matt's husband, was making lewd motions at me to get me to smile.

PJ, Steven and the hubby: I hung out all day long with Steven (in the white shirt), PJ (in the cheap leather jacket), and Raul (the hubby, in stripes). Good times.

And then there was flower girl and the ACT UP guy!

Yes, peoplez, it was all about love.

ACT UP guy was holding on to a banner that read:
You might remember a similar banner led the march down Broadway on Wednesday except that one read "God Loves Gay Marriage."

The creator of both banners is none other than rainbow flag creator Gilbert Baker. Perhaps between Wednesday and today he read this piece in POZ magazine by Peter Staley?

Related:

• Write my name in the book of love (Joe.My.God)
• Stonewall 2.0: 25,000 in San Diego (Rex Wockner)
• Wanda Skyes comes out at the Las Vegas demo!! (Vegas Happens Here)
• San Diego: 20,000 to 25,000 (Mike Tidmus)
  

My New York: Gotham City stands up for same-sex marriage tonight

Update: Towleroad, as always, has the most comprehensive rundown.

Oh what a beautiful sight! Thousands of people in a semi-impromptu demonstration the likes I haven't seen since that huge rally in Manhattan after the death of Matthew Shepard. All demanding equal rights for same-sex couples following the passage of California's Proposition 8 and chastising the Mormon church for pouring so much money into the effort to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Back then, after the Matthew Shepard rally, I was quoted in the Village Voice marveling at how e-mail networking had made the humongous vigil a reality. Appropriate, then, that tonight's vigil was brought to you pretty much courtesy of Facebook. To be sincere, I expected perhaps 1,000 people or less. As if! One estimate I heard tonight placed the crowd at 16,000 (smaller than the Matthew Sheppard vigil but just an amazing number for something that was almost ethereal in execution. Rex Wockner has a post on what might be called Activism 4.0 (personally - despite the turn out - I am uncertain how the energy can be truly channeled effectively in the future). Kudos to organizer Corey Johnson.

BTW - If you missed tonight there is another protest Saturday (more details here)

Snapshots from tonight:

Winner! Best sign of the night!

Runner up!

Le Joe Jervis est hoaging le camera (jeez! is Joe.My.God everywhere?)

The closing shot: The end of the night rally at Columbus Circle just outside Central Park.

'cept c'est le moi! c/o le Ozed guy! Thanks John!


More pictures here

A short vid below:


Related:

• Prop 8 backlash hits NYC Mormon Temple (Andy Humm / Gay City News)
  
• 15,000 march against Prop 8 in NYC (Wockner)
• NYC: Thousands rally for equality (Joe.My.God)
• Of the instant (John Ozed)
  
• Lavi Soloway's photos here
• NYC against Proposition 8 - aka Prop Hate (Pop Bytes)
  
• Thousands protest Prop 8 in Manhattan (Boy in Bushwick)
• Prop H: Child brides, YES! Gay marriage, NO! (Bitten by a Zebra)
  
• An amazing protest at the Mormon Temple in Manhattan (Father Tony / Bilerico)
• NY turns out for anti-Prop 8 march (Pam Spaulding)
• 10,000 New Yorkers turn out to protest Prop. 8 (Queerty)
• Thousands gather in NYC to peacefully protest proposition 8 (Brian Juergens / After Elton)
  

Come hell or high water: "The Call" sends the heebie-jeebies in San Diego

What on earth is going on here!? Rex Wockner explains the scariness that was yesterday's "The Call" here (organizers were hoping to draw the largest ever anti-gay religious crowd in California history to support of Prop.8 which would ban same-sex marriage rights in the state).

An excerpt from his post: "If I hadn't once upon a time been a Catholic seminarian and hadn't emerged from those days with near certainty that all this God/Jesus stuff is pure myth and mass delusion, it could have been dangerous to be there. It would have been dangerous for any gay person struggling with internalized homophobia or religious guilt, I think."

How scary was it? Well, watch the ad below (yikes!):


Nevertheless it seems that the conveners had trouble filling the stadium as Juls comments at Daily Kos ("They 'Call'ed and nobody was home") and Lucas reports at Calitics ("The Call at Qualcomm: Nobody's here").

In the meantime, to counter the scary bives coming from Qualcomm Stadium, a few San Diegoans (San Diegoettes? San Diegans?) organized a counter-protest in groovy Hillcrest in opposition of Prop. 8. Check out "It's Pray Day" at Mike Tidmus' blog.

UPDATE: After attending "The Call" and stopping home to report on it, Rex biked over to Hillcrest where I am certain he regained some sense of sanity. Full report here.

An excerpt: "Amazingly, the gay protest was organized entirely via e-mail and, to the best of my knowledge, it was the biggest gay street action in the 14 years I've lived here, apart from the gay pride parade, which draws about 150,000 people."

Mike Tidmus also has an update on the Hillcrest candle-light rally here.

Both photos courtesy of Rex Wockner. Click on them to make them larger. More scary photos of the first event here.

Related:

• Religious groups gather on both sides of Prop. 8 (San Diego Union Tribune, Nov. 2, 2008)

My beef with the "No on Prop. 8" ad targeting Latino communities...

In my previous post I took a slight dig at the "No on Prop. 8" campaign ads targeting the Latino community in California. I wasn't going to comment further but then comes an article posted online yesterday at The Advocate on the inside game at the campaign ("In the belly of No on 8"):

The media revamp has included a new Spanish-language push, with ads running on Spanish-language media outlets featuring Ugly Betty stars America Ferrerra, Tony Pena, and Ana Ortiz. Getting the ads done was a challenge, considering the three actors were in New York and the campaign had less than a few days to write, produce, and distribute the ads.

“That spot seems to be touching people,” said one of [Patrick] Guerriero’s colleagues, a senior executive at a major media company who took a leave of absence to work full-time on the campaign. “Young Latinos were looking for a way to talk about this with their parents. They didn’t feel comfortable having that conversation in Spanish. This is definitely filling a need.”

I think it's great that the stars donated their time and were willing to be part of the campaign. Kudos to them. But here's what rubs me the wrong way.

1. They used the wrong "Ugly Betty" cast: "Ugly Betty" is an English-language version of an incredibly popular Spanish-language television soap opera. I am no pollster but I have a feeling that the Latino viewers who watch the English version are not the ones that need to be convinced to vote against Prop. 8. They already sit to watch the gayest show on network television to begin with and the fact that they understand English means they probably are more acculturated than recent US citizens which are probably the ones that need to be made at ease about opposing Prop. 8. The "No on 8" campaign might have done better by reaching out to the cast of Mexican version of "Ugly Betty" if they were looking for a bigger impact.

2. All Latinos are not the same: For some of us who watch the show from time to time, one of the most jarring thing is that the cast of the US show is the fact that we recognize that the actors all come from different ethnic backgrounds even if they are supposed to be from the same Queens family. America Ferrera, who plays Betty, was born in Los Angeles to Honduran parents; Ana Ortiz, who plays her sister Hilda is of Puerto Rican-Irish descent; and Tony Plana, who plays their father Ignacio, was born in Cuba - and it shows in the way the carry themselves. This is fine for a television show where you can look over these type of discrepancies but I'm not that certain that using the actors to carry the message to Latinos in California speaks to California Latinos specifically. As with the presdiential campaign, it looks as if the folks who decided to use the cast of the American version of "Ugly Betty" fell for the generalization that any Latino can sway another Latino and that's just not the case (it's that mythical political Latino block that has been so elusive this year). Ferrera, who made her career in California, looks and feels authentically Californian which actually really counts when it comes to the Latino community in California.

3. Accents: In the Spanish version, below, Tony Plana is the only one of the three actors who speaks Spanish without an Americanized accent. Not that America or Ana do bad at all (actually, they do great) but you still notice it. But, again, I have a feeling that the movable Spanish speaking masses might be more movable if it came from spokespeople who did not have an Americanized accent when they spoke Spanish.

4. La familia: OK, I acknowledge this is a personal pet peeve but how come every time someone says 'We gotta reach Latinos' the immediate reaction is 'familia'? "For Latinos family is important" says the video. Hm, yes? Same as with other cultures? To be fair, this Latino familia trope is not limited to Anglos seeking Latino authenticity. Latino organizations do it too. But, personally it drives me up a wall. It brings up trite hacienda images of abuelita rocking in her rocking chair as her grandson makes a call on an AT&T phone or of Jimmy Smits in the trite (and cancelled) "Cane". But that's just me. Perhaps swayable Latino Californians truly really think about family above all but methinks a lot of them don't necessarily have the wealthy extended hacienda-type families of "Cane". I'm just sayin'.

Which brings us back to quote from The Advocate. Statements that the campaign only sought to create a Spanish language campaign late in the game (as they "revamped" the message) and assurances that it "seems" to be touching people betray the fact that they should have known for a long time that minority communities should have been included in the game plan long before now.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Perhaps I'm being one of those angry politically correct Latinos who only think about la raza! (Hm, not really?). And perhaps I read waaaay too much stuff into little things. But come Tuesday (and I truly hope that Prop. 8 is defeated and for some reason I think it will) it speaks to the divide between state and national LGBT organizing strategies and LGBT communities of color.

Spanish language version of the ad below:

Barack Obama's image used to push CA gay marriage ban; his campaign objects and reaffirms opposition to ban

A despicable "Yes on 8" campaign flyer featuring Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to push a same-sex marriage ban in California got into the wrong hands today. Namely, long time San Francisco HIV awareness and LGBT rights advocate Michael Petrelis who describes it here. He also cross-posted it at Daily Kos which got massive reax.

The mailer was also received by the offices of the Bay Area Reporter who posted this story on their website today.

"Needless to say," Michael added on his blog, "the Obama campaign should denounce the use of Obama's image... while he should also personally speak out this weekend encouraging a strong NO NO NO vote."

Rex just sent out a press release sent out tonight by the "No on Prop 8" campaing which quotes the Obama campaign as saying the following:

"Senators Obama and Biden have made clear their commitment to fighting for equal rights for all Americans whether it's by granting LGBT Americans all the civil rights and benefits available to heterosexual couples, or repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Senator Obama has already announced that the Obama-Biden ticket opposes Proposition 8 and similar discriminatory constitutional amendments that could roll back the civil rights he and Senator Biden strongly believe should be afforded to all Americans."

To see how you can support the "No on 8" campaign, click on this banner:

Related:

• Yes on 8 sends mailer to black voters with Obama's image (The Mad Professah Lectures)

Update: Manhunt.net responds to comments in Mexico's La Reforma

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

La Prensa backs marriage rights for same-sex couples in California

Wait! Wasn't that the same headline as yesterday's post? Actually. No! This is the bi-weekly and bi-lingual San Diego newspaper La Prensa (we do love the bi's). And, though probably not as influential as yesterday's La Opinion editorial, in some ways it's a whole lot sweeter since this is a smaller Latino community newspaper and, unlike La Opinion, a little bit more unexpected:

Proposition 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment - Majority Approval Required

Shall the California Constitution be changed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California?

Whereas opponents to Prop. 4 had the support of the State Supreme Court and the voters, Prop. 8 is different. In the year 2000, California voters approved the designation that a legal marriage is between a man and woman. It was the State Supreme Court (in May 2008) that denied the provisions of Prop 4, citing that it violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. Same sex couples have been getting married ever since the May 2008 ruling.

A Yes vote on Prop. 8 would be a vote for marriage as legal only if it was between a man and woman. A No vote would allow the State of California to continue recognizing the legal union between same sex marriages.

First and foremost, marriage is a statement of love between two people. Same sex marriage as a legal union will not diminish the value of heterosexual marriages. Legal recognition for same sex marriages provides a sense of pride, dignity, accountability, and as the State Supreme Court ruled: equal protection under the law.

Gays and Lesbians have been a part of society since the beginning of time. This is a community that continues to grow and speak out. The Gay community is an integral part of our society and their elected numbers continues to grow. We can no longer marginalize this part of our community. Rejecting the legal designation of a Gay marriage will do nothing more than to polarize this community toward working harder for full recognition as a part of society.

This proposition is nothing more than one group trying to impose their moral standards on another. Fortunately, the world is made up of many different people and you simple can’t contain all people in a single box. Instead we should celebrate our differences and work together to make our world a better place for all to live in happiness and in love.

We believe that if two people are in love and they want to get married, we as a State should not legislate against the happiness of these people. We Urge a No Vote on Prop. 8.

Yes, if you haven't heard, today Connecticut became the third state (after Massachusetts and California) to allow same-sex marriages (I actually cried watching this) but the current battle in California will define the issue for decades. Wouldn't it be rad if now that Connecticut has done the right thing we also beat back efforts in California to protect marriage rights for same-sex couples? The answer is YES by voting NO on Prop. 8.

La Opinion backs marriage rights for same-sex couples in California

[NOTE: Above, the latest ad for those seeking to safeguard marriage rights for same-sex couples in California. For more info and to support NO on Prop. 8 efforts head directly here]

In an editorial published today in Los Angeles' La Opinion ("An unnecessary proposal"), the paper asks Latino voters to vote 'NO' on California's Proposition 8 and against efforts to undo a state top court decision legalizing same-sex marriage (It counts quite a bit: La Opinion is the Spanish-language paper with the largest circulation in the United States).

While not surprising (the paper also supported the same-sex weddings that took place in San Francisco under Gavin Newsom's watch back in 2004), the editorial comes at a key time when foes of same-sex couples seem to have the upper hand and Latino and African-American voters are being mentioned as a reason why the ban could pass (not sure I am convinced by the arguments).

I am taking the liberty to reprint the English version of the editorial in its entirety.

Proposition 8 seeks to amend the California Constitution to expressly guarantee that marriage must be between a man and a woman.

We believe this is an unnecessary initiative that would impose a constitutional restriction on rights now held by a group of Californians whose mutual commitment before the law and society poses no danger whatsoever.

The idea behind this initiative and the title its proponents wanted to give it was the "California Marriage Protection Act".The state attorney general changed the title to the more accurate "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."

That right was declared in May by the California Supreme Court, ruling that such a ban is discriminatory. To arrive at that decision, the judges based their opinion on a 1948 legal precedent that determined that it was illegal to prohibit marriage of couples of different races.

It is subjective to claim that the voluntary marriage between two adults is a threat to an institution which, ironically, these people are fighting to join.

The true threats to marriage are lack of communication, infidelity, domestic abuse, and economic pressures.

The driving force behind the measure comes from Evangelical, Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, Orthodox Jewish, and Adventist congregations, with money, sermons, prayers, fasting, and very respectable and respected opinions.

But that does not mean it is acceptable to impose these beliefs on all of society, and much less, change the State Constitution.

We recommend voting NO on Proposition 8.

Related:

• Los Angeles Times: Gay marriage foes ramp up outreach to Latinos
  
• Orange County Register: Latino adults: Marriage desirable, but too 'risky'
• Rex Wockner: Polls flip, gays now losing marriage in Calif.
• Gloria Nieto: No on Prop 8

California Nuptials: Gloria Nieto & Jo Kenny / Matt Foreman & Frank De Leon

Four of my favorite people got married this weekend in California.

Jo Kenny and Gloria Nieto got married on Saturday at their San Jose home surrounded by friends and family on a glorious sunny day. The couple asked guests to donate to the Barack Obama campaign or to the Equality for All campaign in California in lieu of gifts. Equality for All is the lead organization in fighting efforts to nullify the right of same-sex couples in California to marry.

I know that both Jo and Gloria, as so many other people, were mourning the passing of 87 year-old Del Martin on Wednesday, particularly because they personally knew her and her surviving spouse Phyllis Lyon so to be able to celebrate vows in light of the news must have been bittersweet, incredibly moving and life-affirming. Martin and Lyon became the first couple in California to 'remarry' earlier this year when the state officially recognized their right to marry (they had already been married at the 2004 San Francisco ceremonies that pushed California forward on the marriage issue).

I have known Gloria ever since she was a board member of the now-defunct National Latino/a Lesbian and Gay Organization (LLEGO) and have grown closer in recent years. I mean, I did bring her to the Obama side and all! My love to Jo and Gloria and my apologies for not haveing been able to be there to celebrate with them. BTW: The ceremony was officiated (sp?) by the lesbo-rrific councilwoman Jamie McLeod (above with Jo & Gloria). Gloria wants you to know that she is in a tough re-election campaign against a homophobic contender and wants you to support her as well by heading here and finding more about the race. Also, Gloria blogs here.

In the meantime Matt Foreman finally made a good man out of Frank De León (or was it the other way around?). Well, at least they finally stopped living in sin! At least in God's eyes (still, what's up with all that leather? Yikes!).

The boys were married on Saturday in San Francisco with the amazing Shannon Minter officiating (OMG, how LGT of them!). Read all about it in yesterday's New York Times!

Matt I've known forever. At least since he was the Executive Director of the New York City Anti-Violence Project and through his leadership at the Empire State Pride Agenda (he recruited me back then for the agency's board) and through his recent stint as Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. His recent move to san Francisco to become director of gay and immigrant rights programs at the Evelyn & Walter Haas Jr. Fund means we get to see less of Matt here in New York which is sad. Frank, who I've also known forever, continues to run his great FADesign here in New York so hopefully there'll be future lunches with the happy couple. Congrats Matt & Frank!

Photo credits: Photo of Jo and Gloria courtesy of Ed Rader via Gloria; Photo of Matt and Frank taken in February by yours truly at the Creating Change conference in Detroit, MI, as Matt bid a public farewell to the Task Force.

Andrew Sullivan on Obama and same-sex marriage

Andrew Sullivan on Obama's take on yesterday's California marriage ruling:

Obama's position strikes me as transparently flimsy. His only defense of his support for full marriage rights without the m-word is a function, in his description, of comfort and religion. But he is very comfortable around gay people, gay couples and our families. And his own church actually favors equal marriage rights for gay couples - and its inclusion of gay people was obviously a reason why TUCC was attractive to Obama. Marriage is the one issue where Obama is still politically afraid, intellectually vacuous, and a moral coward.

That from one of the biggest Obama cheerleaders on the center-right. As always, astute. Full post here.

By the way, if you haven't read Sullivan's "Goodbye to All That" from December of 2007 head here.

And here is his take on marriage even before he thought it would be possible to marry his partner Aaron Tone.

Terrance has a terrific post on the California marriage decision

While I'm busy taking care of some business, you might want to read Terrance Heath's terrific piece on yesterday's landmark marriage ruling by the California Supreme Court.

Here is how he begins...

I knew as soon as the California Supreme Court marriage ruling was posted, that I would read the whole thing. I started reading it at my desk, after it was posted, but stopped once got to the “bottom line” of the ruling — and, truly, because as I realized what I was reading, and what the California Supreme Court had said, the emotion was too much...

To read the rest go to:

• America Will Be... (The Republic of T.)

BREAKING NEWS: CALIFORNIA COURT SAYS "I DO" TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGES

[NOTE: Updates below include reactions from the Clinton and Obama camps, Nancy Pelosi and NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn]

GREAT NEWS! The Supreme Court of California in its infinite wisdom has overturned a ban on same-sex marriages and paved the way for the state to become the second in the United States to allow same-sex partners to marry. Arthur Leonard says "The ruling is sweeping. Prop 22 is unconstitutional, as is the refusal to recognize lawfully contracted same-sex marriages from out of state."

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says he will fight an initiative to amend the California Constitution to ban gay marriage if it qualifies for the November ballot. It'll be interesting to see how the decision will play in the presidential election.

Photo above by Derek Powazek. You can buy reprints at Ephemera.

From the 4-3 decision: In the present case, it is readily apparent that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples clearly is more consistent with the probable legislative intent than withholding that designation from both opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples in favor of some other, uniform designation. In view of the lengthy history of the use of the term “marriage” to describe the family relationship here at issue, and the importance that both the supporters of the 1977 amendment to the marriage statutes and the electors who voted in favor of Proposition 22 unquestionably attached to the designation of marriage, there can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state’s general legislative policy and preference.

Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.

Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court. Further, as the prevailing parties, plaintiffs are entitled to their costs.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the matter is remanded to that court for further action consistent with this opinion.

UPDATE #1: Governor Schwarzenneger just released the following statement “I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

In the meantime there are reports that CNN erred when reporting on the ruling this morning and initially said that the Court had ruled in favor of a state constitutional ban on gay marriages. A new low for a channel that I used to respect years ago.

UPDATE #2: My friend Mike Rogers has the full CNN video clip at PageOneQ.

UPDATE #3: OTHER POLITICAL REACTIONS

Statement from Hilary Clinton's campaign:
Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.

Statement from Barack Obama's campaign:
Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.

Note that the above statements are campaign statements and not necessarily the candidates going on record.

Nancy Pelosi:
I welcome the California Supreme Court’s historic decision. I have long fought against discrimination and believe that the State Constitution provides for equal treatment for all of California’s citizens and families, which today’s decision recognizes.

I commend the plaintiffs from San Francisco for their courage and commitment. I encourage California citizens to respect the Court’s decision, and I continue to strongly oppose any ballot measure that would write discrimination into the State Constitution.

Today is a significant milestone for which all Californians can take pride.

New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn:
I applaud the California Supreme Court for lifting its ban on gay marriage and upholding the fundamental and universal rights of civil equality and equal protection.

While this is a tremendous victory in our fight for equal rights, we must carry on with our efforts toward making marriage equality a reality in the state of New York. I implore every member of the New York State Legislature to place equal rights ahead of politics and end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people by conferring the right to marry to same-sex couples.

History has repeatedly shown that the arch of equality always bends towards justice. I know that, soon enough, LGBT New Yorkers will have the right to marry.