Anti-Prop. 8 protesters rally in Walnut Creek, Concord

Surbanites in favor of gay rights made their own statements in Concord and Walnut Creek late Tuesday afternoon, about seven hours after they received the news that the state Supreme Court had decided to uphold Prop. 8, the same-sex marriage ban, as a constitutionally acceptable exercise of voters' free will.

Some 100 rallied in Concord and about 30 rallied at the intersection of Mt. Diablo Boulevard and North Broadway in Walnut Creek.

This photo was taken at the Concord rally by a member of a local high school Gay-Straight Alliance, who said that some of those joining the protest against the Supreme Court's decision were members of religious organizations. "It was amazing," this young woman told me.

While the court upheld Prop. 8, the court ruled that the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who married last year would remain legal and valid.

The rallies in Suburbia were not as heated as the one in San Francisco Tuesday, in which a large group of protesters blocked the intersection of Van Ness Avenue and Grove Street outside City Hall for several hours, the Contra Costa Times reports. Police arrested about 175 protesters, who willingly allowed themselves to be taken into custody.

The Times added that this ruling does not mean that the debate over same-sex marriage is over in California.

Far from it: "While Tuesday's ruling ends the legal battle over Prop. 8, it's just another milestone in California's larger, longer war over same-sex marriage. Equality California this month launched an advertising and grass-roots organizing campaign it hopes will sway public opinion toward acceptance of same-sex marriage, in advance of a new ballot measure in 2010 or 2012 that would overturn Prop0sition 8."

Rallies planned for Walnut Creek, Concord to celebrate or protest Prop. 8 court ruling Tuesday

Opponents of Proposition 8 and supporters of gay marriage plan to hold either celebration or protest rallies Tuesday evening, depending on what the California Supreme Court decides on Proposition 8.

The Court is expected to announce its decision at around 10 a.m.

The website, DayofDecision.com says:

Depending on what the court decides, we will either PROTEST or CELEBRATE

We will PROTEST if:
-- The court upholds Prop 8, and invalidates the 18,000 same-sex marriage licenses that California already issued; or,
-- The court upholds Prop 8, but upholds the 18,000 same-sex marriages already performed, which would be a cruel, but pyrrhic victory for equality.

We will CELEBRATE if:
-- The court rejects Proposition 8 and says that same-sex couples are entitled to the marriage rights that heterosexual couples already have.

East Bay events are scheduled:

Walnut Creek: 5 p.m. at the corner of Mt. Diablo Boulevard and Broadway Plaza

Concord: 5 p.m. at Todos Santos Plaza

"You commie, homo-loving sons of guns!" Sean Penn wins Oscar for playing Harvey Milk who came to Walnut Creek!

Bay Area-based actor Sean Penn won his second Academy Award for Best Actor for his amazingly accurate, heart-felt depicition of slain gay rights advocate and San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk

Soccer Mom writes this, just after finishing watching the Oscars, which in her household--at least to her--is as sacred a TV viewing night as the Rose Bowl, the Superbowl, or the finale of American Idol.

Soccer Mom (why, tonight of all nights, am I referring to myself in the third-person?) especially loved how political some of the speeches got. None of this Halle Barry crap about weeping and expressing gratitude over her lawyer.

Instead, we had the lovely and artfully talented Spanish actress Penelope Cruz. In a not so political, but still moving speech (as she accepted her Best Supporting Actress Award for her role as a fiery ex-wife of an amorous artist in Vicky Cristina Barcelona), she spoke about how films and art are the "world's universal language.”

Then, in a more overtly political speech from the newly crowned Academy Award-winning writer of Best Original Screenplay for Milk, we had Dustin Lance Black, talk about how he, as a 13-year-old, moved from a Mormon home in Texas to California. He recounted how he heard the story of Harvey Milk and how "it gave me hope. It gave me the hope to live my life; it gave me the hope that one day I could live my life openly as who I am and that maybe even I could fall in love and one day get married."

Notably, Milk, the biography of Harvey Milk, premiered shortly after California's same-sex couples lost their right to marry in the November 4 voter referendum

Near the end of the Oscar ceremonies came Sean Penn, winning his second Academy Award for playing Harvey Milk. He used his moment on the international stage to refer to his support of gay marriage and his opposition to Proposition 8, the California voter-approved ban on gay marriage. In expressing his surprise and delight at winning, the famously outspoken actor jokingly praised the Academy voters as "commie, home-loving sons of guns."

Penn then said: "I think it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren's eyes if they continue that way." He added: "We've got to have equal rights for everyone."

Over the past few months, some very amazing readers, all of whom are alums of Walnut Creek's Northgate High, have sent me, Soccer Mom, personal tales and documentary evidence showing that Harvey Milk did indeed come to Walnut Creek in September 1978. The newly elected San Francisco supervisor, the first openly gay elected government official in the United States at that time, came to Walnut Creek as part of a series of debates on 1978's Proposition 6.

Voter approval of this this prosposition would have allowed school districts to fire openly gay teachers or any district employeees who showed open support for these teachers.

The proposition was championed by conservative Southern California Senator John Briggs, who now occupies a rather shameful, comedic footnote in state history.

Milk challenged Briggs to a series of debates in the runup to the November 1978 election. Milk, with his charm, intelligence, and command of facts, trounced Briggs in those debates and showed Briggs to be the intolerant prig that he was.

And one of those debates took place in the gymnasium at Northgate High. In Milk, the film depicts the debate as part of live TV coverage of an event taking place at some school in the Walnut Creek School District. Further research, including reading through Randy Shilts' authoritative biography of Harvey Milk, The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk, shows that a debate took place at a Walnut Creek high school auditorium.

Some dogged research by some Northgate alums pieced together the facts and uncovered the solid evidence and first-person anecdotes that Harvey Milk and John Briggs debated at Northgate High School in September 1978.

The image of the San Francisco Chronicle story was provided by Northgate alum Jonathan Butterworth, who now lives in Seattle but who was delighted at the idea that his outwardly conservative suburban hometown might have played such a significant role in gay civil rights history. Butterworth was so intrigued that he spent several hours scouring through microfiche of old SF Chronicle stories at the University of Seattle library to find this image and several others.

Meanwhile, another Northgate alum and current Walnut Creek resident sent me screen shots of the debate as depicted in the 1984 Academy Award-winning documentary The Times of Harvey Milk (which, by the way, is available for free online viewing on on Hulu.com).

Finally there is this story from reader who recently posted on Crazyinbuburbia.com:

"I was at Northgate in 1978. Not only did Harvey Milk debate in the Northgate auditorium in the evening, he also met with students in the music room after school--perhaps before the debate with Senator John Briggs. An announcement had been made over the PA that Mr. Milk would be available to meet with students after school. There was a lot of talk about who would attend his talk, but in the end only about 10 of us showed up to hear what he had to say.

"... He was an eloquent speaker, extremely funny, and so dedicated to his civil rights cause. Later that evening when I proudly told my father I'd gone to see Harvey Milk at school he was furious and said horrible things to me. The next day my father went to [the principal's] office and screamed at him for letting a "pervert" on our campus. I ound out years later that my father also tried to get [this principal] fired. I was so ashamed by my father's reaction and to this day it remains an "issue" between us. I am so thankful for Harvey Milk and am so fortunate to have spent an hour in a small group hearing about his dreams for civil rights for the gay community."

More Northgate alums excited that their school hosted historic Harvey Milk debate

Today, as we honor civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., it seems appropriate to think again about another civil rights leader whose legacy lives on in the cause of another historically marginalized segment of our population.

I’m talking about San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official in a major U.S. city who was assassinate in November 1978.

Since I first posted a story, saying that I noticed a Walnut Creek school gymnasium making a cameo appearance in the new Milk biopic, Milk, starring Sean Penn, I’ve received emails from current and former WC residents trying to track down the exact location of that gymnasium.

The only thing I had initially been able to determine is that Milk came to Walnut Creek to debate conservative state Senator John Briggs on Proposition 6, a 1978 measure that would have required public school districts to fire teachers and other employees who are gay or who openly support gay rights. The debate took place in September 1978.

Jonathan Butterworth, a 1998 Northgate graduate who now lives in Seattle, went so far as to spend several hours in the University of Washington library, going through microfiche of old San Francisco Chronicle articles. He sent me images of two articles of Chronicle stories, which I posted here.

Now, Amy, another Northgate alum and current Walnut Creek resident—who describes herself as another "crazy in suburbia" mom—sent me screen shots of the 1984 Academy Award-winning documentary The Times of Harvey Milk (which, by the way, is available for free online viewing on on Hulu.com) The screen shots come from TV coverage of the debate which was broadcast live in the Bay Area, and which were used in the documentary.

Thanks, Amy, for sharing these images and letting me post them.

Pro-gay marriage protesters in WC receive honks of approval from passing motorists-and a few jeers

Anthony Bernens and his partner, Andrew Neugebauer, have been together 20 years. Anthony (pictured, left) is a doctor of internal medicine at John Muir Medical Center, Andrew (right) works as a software engineer, and they own a home together in a friendly neighborhood near downtown Walnut Creek.

They first married in San Francisco in 2004, when Mayor Gavin Newsom okayed same-sex marriages in that city, then married again in June at the Contra Costa County courthouse in Martinez, after the California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that lesbian and gay couples have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.

They were devastated that California voters narrowly approved Proposition 8 in November's general election. But the ongoing debate about Proposition 8 wasn't what brought to the front of Walnut Creek's City Hall on a bright Saturday morning.

They were among the three dozen or so protesters at the corner of North Main Street and Civic Drive who were demonstrating against the 1996 federal "Defense of Marriage Act." Anthony, Andrew, and the other protesters--many central Contra Costa County residents--waved rainbow flags and held signs saying "Separate is Not Equal" and an "Discrimination is Always Wrong."

They were also there to help in a nationwide effort to gather at least 1 million signatures on a letter and petition to present to Barack Obama on his first day in office as president of the United States.

The protest is organized by Join the Impact, a movement of people in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community to achieve "full equality for all." Join the Impact says: "This letter will remind President-elect Barack Obama of the promises he made to us to repeal DOMA. It will also serve as a pledge from our community that we will hold him to his promises and help him achieve them."

According to Join the Impact, DOMA, passed under the Clinton administration in 1996, "defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman and denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages — even if they are legal in a same-sex couple's home state."

"It's extremely important for me and my partner to stay married," says Anthony. Contrary to public perception that local or state laws regarding domestic partnership grant gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, Anthony and Andrew say DOMA still denies them a number of federal rights. Join the Impact says same sex-couples are denied more than 1,000 rights and benefits granted to heterosexual couples, including Social Security benefits.

Anthony and Andrew say they can file their state taxes jointly but have to file their federal taxes separately. Also, just because California recognizes their domestic partnership and possibly still their marriage (while the legality of Proposition 8 is sorted out through various court challenges), that doesn't mean their marriage is honored in another state. Anthony recalls how, in the early 1990s, he became very ill during a family camping trip to Pennsylvania and had to go to the hospital. Andrew, because he was not legally considered "family," wasn't allowed in to be with Anthony at his bedside.

"There are all this little things you have to go through that are not the same for [heterosexual couples]," Andrew says.

The two moved to Walnut Creek in 1997, and their neighbors know about their relationship and welcome their presence. In fact, "No on 8" campaign signs were posted throughout their neighborhood in the lead-up to the election. They add that after they were married in June, their relationship gained a new level of respect, even amongst longtime friends who had long regarded them as married.

In a November 26 letter they co-wrote to the Contra Costa Times, they said: "As domestic partners, we found that it had much less respect and social significance than marriage. People didn't congratulate us when we got our certificate from the state. People didn't ask what it was like to be in a domestic partnership — separate, not equal."

As Anthony and Andrew talked, the other protesters cheered on motorists who gave them honks of approval. The protesters also gave out M&M cookies to people who signed their petition. At one point, though, a black SUV passed south on Main Street and shouted something derogatory to the group. Another protester, who works with Concord's Rainbow Community Center, shrugged it off and said he was used to it.

Anthony expressed a common view among those who favor same-sex marriage. He doesn't understand why a certain segment of the heterosexual popularion feels that their own marriages or families are threatened by his desire to make a legal lifetime commitment to the man he loves. He figures that if those people got to know some gay people, they might learn that there is nothing to fear. "That's why we're out here, to say we're living in this community. We're a part of it, too."

WC School District Makes Cameo Appearance in "Milk"

What’s referred to as the “Walnut Creek School District” provides the setting for one scene in the new critically acclaimed film biography of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man elected to a major political office in the United States.

Before I tell you how our local school district gets its “closeup,” I’ll just say there are lots of things I could write about this film, including its relevance to issues of today (the ongoing Proposition 8 debate).

I also have strong personal memories of being a straight, teenage girl living in Walnut Creek at the time Milk was elected supervisor in 1977 and of seeing him on TV through the following year, speaking out against Proposition 6, a proposed law that would have made it mandatory to fire gay teachers and any public school employee who supported gay rights.

I also have pretty vivid memories of those horrible 10 days in November 1978—first of when news broke on November 18 about the Jonestown cult mass suicide/massacre, which involved a number of former Bay Area residents—and then of when Milk and Mayor George Moscone were gunned down in San Francisco City Hall on November 27, 1978. Their assailant was a City Hall colleague, Dan White, a disgruntled, anti-gay supervisor who had just resigned his seat. I remember watching TV coverage of then-Board of Supervisors president and now-U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein announcing the deaths of Milk and Moscone and then, that evening, the spontaneous candlelight march from the Castro district to City Hall, which spanned the width of Market Street, and extended a mile and a half long.

Many of these events are covered in Milk, starring Sean Penn as the former camera store owner who became the “Mayor of Castro Street.”

The cameo by the Walnut Creek school district comes during the part of the film that covers Milk’s campaign against the aforementioned Proposition 6. Just some background: Leading up to Proposition 6, there was a wave of anti-gay votes in municipalities around the United States, including a repeal of an anti-discrimination ordinance in Dade County, Florida, led by former beauty queen and orange juice pitchwoman Anita Bryant. Proposition 6 wound up on the California ballot with conservative state Senator John Briggs as the major figurehead behind it. In fact, the measure was known as the Briggs Initiative.

Milk, as depicted by Milk, saw defeating Proposition 6 as a milestone in the fight for equal rights for gays and lesbians.

Briggs and Milk engaged in numerous debates around the state, during which Briggs maintained that homosexual teachers wanted to abuse and turn children gay. Milk responded with statistics compiled by law enforcement that provided evidence that pedophiles identified primarily as heterosexual, and dismissed Briggs' points with one-liner jokes: "If it were true that children mimicked their teachers, you'd sure have a helluva lot more nuns running around.”

Some of those debates took place in school gymnasiums, including one identified as belonging to the Walnut Creek School District, of which I’m a graduate and which my son currently attends. The scene is presented as a “Channel 7” live presentation of the debate between Milk and Briggs. And it is during this scene that Milk makes his joke about how "you’d have a helluva lot more nuns running around” if it was true that children would turn gay just by having an openly gay teacher.

As I said, I remember the Proposition 6 measure being on the ballot, and I remember Milk’s role in speaking out against it and his jubilant demeanor during an interview after learning of its defeat on election night in November 1978. I don’t remember Milk and Briggs coming to Walnut Creek to debate the proposition—not that they didn’t. I just don’t remember.

In the fall of 1978, I was student directing my Walnut Creek high school drama department’s production of Eugene O’Neill’s tender family comedy, Ah, Wilderness! Milk was killed the week we presented that show. Most noteworthy about that show: the student playing O’Neill’s idealized version of a father was a good friend of mine who, in the wake up Milk’s death, would come out openly as gay in our high school. He was harassed by some jocks on campus.

My friend never said so but it’s likely he was taking to heart and putting into action the words that Milk spoke in an electrifying speech he made on the night that Proposition 6 was defeated. In a few weeks, Milk would be dead.

Rob Epstein, who directed the 1984 Academy Award-winning documentary, The Life and Times of Harvey Milk, quoted some of Milk’s speech in a recent column for the Huffington Post, in which he analyzes similarities between this year’s Proposition 8 debate and Milk’s anti-Proposition 6 campaign 30 years earlier:

"...to the gay community all over this state, my message to you is, so far a lot of people joined us and rejected Proposition 6, and we owe them something. We owe them to continue the education campaign that took place. We must destroy the myths once and for all, shatter them. We must continue to speak out, and most importantly, most importantly, every gay person must come out. As difficult as it is you must tell your immediate family, you must tell your relatives, you must tell your friends, if indeed they are your friends, you must tell your neighbors, you must tell the people you work with, you must tell the people in the stores you shop in (thunderous applause), and once they realize that we are indeed their children, that we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo will be destroyed once and for all. And once you do, you will feel so much better."

Anti-Prop. 8 Candlelight Vigils to be Held Saturday Evening Throughout the East Bay Suburbs

Broadway Plaza, Sunvalley Mall, Todos Santos Plaza, Stoneridge Mall, the El Curtola Boulevard bridge over Interstate 680 in Lafayette.

You’ll be seeing demonstrators silently but somberly holding candles at these locations on Saturday evening to protest the November 4 passage of Proposition 8, the ban on gay marriage.

Some of those protesters include straight, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth from the East Bay suburbs. In fact, I was alerted to the protest at Broadway Plaza by Jennie “Jay” Drummond. She is the courageous head of the Gay-Straight Alliance at San Ramon Valley High School in Danville who openly participated in a Q&A with me last week that generated lots of heated discussion on this blog. She and other demonstrators will gather together at the fountain, across Broadway from Nordstrom department store. They will hold candles and silently protest the passage of Prop. 8, as part of Light Up the Night, a nationwide effort to remember the rights of those whose marriages and commitments to each other would be invalidated under Prop 8.

These peaceful vigils will begin at 5 p.m. It is suggested that demonstrators buy or make “Second Class Citizen” t-shirts. Demonstrators might sing but will otherwise stay silent, unless asked a question. “Instead we will let our shirts do the talking, and our candle pay our respect," according to the Join the Impact! website.

Good CoCo Times Editorial on Supes' Cowardly "Secret" Prop. 8 Vote

Are some of you sure that the Contra Costa Times has outlived its usefulness? Well, it provided a useful public service with its reporting on the Contra Costa County Supervisors' behind-closed-doors vote to not join in the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8. And, the Times followed up with a thoughtful editorial in Wednesday's paper pointing out how the supervisors' erred in not making their discussion public.

In its editorial, the Times says it opposed Prop. 8, the gay marriage ban, notes that the majority of Contra Costa voters also opposed the ban, and acknowledges that local governments should not join in every lawsuit regarding a state or federal issue, "especially during tight fiscal times." So, the Times is not taking a position on whether the supervisors' 4-1 vote against joining the lawsuit is right or wrong.

Rather, the Times is correctly admonishing the supervisors for holding the discussion on the lawsuit in private. In fact, as the Times reports, the supervisors, in their agenda for last week's meeting offered "misleading" information about the nature of their discussion about this matter. "It was only through the tenacious work of reporter Matthias Gafni that the topic of the closed-door topic came to light."

After reading Gafni's story about the vote, I wondered whether the supervisors had used the "pending litigation" excuse to hold their meeting in private. The Times editorial explains that "state law allows--but does not require--local governments to discuss potential litigation in closed session."

As I said in an earlier post on the supervisors' vote, I emailed Gafni to ask him if this was the excuse the supervisors used, and he graciously replied: "You were correct. Because it involved litigation -- joining a lawsuit against Prop. 8 -- it was discussed in closed session. And they didn't have to announce their vote either because they voted to not join the lawsuit. Had they voted to join the lawsuit, they would have emerged from the meeting and announced in open session how they voted."

The Times editorial criticizes the supervisors for their decision to hold this particular debate in closed session. "That authority to discuss matters secretly should be used judiciously and only if the county's legal position would be compromised. It should not be used to avoid a public airing of controversial issues."

The Times points out that the county wasn't putting itself in any legal jeopardy by having an open discussion on whether or not to join the lawsuit, which was initiated by San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Santa Clara counties. "All the legal arguments surrounding the case are well known to anyone who has been following the issue in the news. In essence, the issue before the county board was one of policy ... rather than one of legal strategy. It was a discussion the public deserved to know about and should have been able to witness."

Well, said, and shame on our supervisors. In that earlier post, I asked whether the supervisors were cowards or pragmatists for voting against joining in the lawsuit--even though the cost and energy required of the county to be involved would be minimal.

Whether or not you agree with banning gay marriage, the supervisors' decision to secretly debate the pros and cons of joining in this lawsuit is cowardly.

Contra Costa’s Supes on the Proposition 8 Issue: Cowards or Pragmatists?

Contra Costa County’s Board of Supervisors decided to become the first county in the Bay Area to not join in a lawsuit opposing the passage of Proposition 8, despite the fact that 55 percent of voters in our county opposed the measure.

So reports the Contra Costa Times. With this 4-1 vote against joining in the lawsuit, our five supervisors decided Contra Costa County would not join a dozen other Bay Area counties and cities in a petition challenging Prop. 8 in the California Supreme Court.

Three of the supervisors who voted against taking a stand against Prop. 8 cited concerns to the Times that they needed to focus their attention on serious county issues, including our county’s fiscal crisis, rather than on a statewide measure.

Reports the Times:

"It's not an issue of not listening, it's the issue of where our focus needs to remain, and I agree we need to very clearly be focusing our energies on the immediate financial crisis," said Supervisor Susan Bonilla, of Concord, 57 percent of whose District 4 voters said “no” to Prop. 8.

Supervisor Gayle Uilkema of Lafayette added: "We have so much on our plate right now, particularly after having a day where we were slashing jobs and positions.” Her District 2 voted overwhelmingly against Prop. 8: 60 percent “no”; 40 percent “yes.”

District 5, represented by Supervisor Federal Glover, of Pittsburg, was the only area that voted “yes” on 8. He, too, cited local concerns as the reason the county should stay out of the debate. Mary Piepho expressed her personal views that marriage should be between a man and a woman, a view out of step with voters in her District 3, 53 percent of whom voted no on Prop. 8.

The only supervisor to dissent was John Gioia of Richmond, who, according to the Times said, "I believe in the underlying argument that Prop. 8 violates constitutional rights, and voters expressed their will in Contra Costa and opposed Prop. 8.”

By the way, their vote was held in closed session. My limited understanding of state law regarding open meetings is that elected officials can hold meetings in closed session if it involves personnel matters or pending litigation. Is pending litigation the justification that the supervisors held this discussion in closed session? I’ve emailed the reporter, Matthias Gafni, to ask. As much as I or others might complain about some of the Times local coverage, one thing the paper is scrappy about is its willingness to battle any possible First Amendment violations by government officials.

Okay, so I have openly stated my opposition to Prop. 8, and, yes, the voters of Contra Costa County have clearly expressed opposition to it. So, why did our elected representatives "wuss" out?

Actually, my thinking on this question is not so clear-cut, believe it or not. When the supervisors said they didn’t think it was really their battle to fight, that they had other very pressing local issues on their plate to deal with, I could see their point. I think of how annoying, presumptuous, and self-important it is when the city councilors of the “People’s Republic of Berkeley” spend time debating and voting on such as matters as calling for the impeachment of President Bush. I sympathize with the woes of Berkeley residents who wish their elected representatives would focus less on calling for Bush’s impeachment—which is really out of their control—and more attention on fixing potholes or dealing with the city’s never-ending homeless problem.

At the same time, this 4-1 vote by Contra Costa’s supervisors smells of cowardice and political expediency. Gioia said it wouldn’t cost the county anything in terms of money to join the lawsuit. It would probably cost the county supervisors and other employees little in terms of time to get involved, as well.

I’ll give him Glover his due: He truly voted in line with the wishes of his constituents. Piepho (my supervisor, I’m sad to say) did not; she says she voted her “conscience” and her own personal beliefs. The two true wusses in this situation are Uilkema and Bonilla (whom I know is beloved by some local political progressives I know). Their districts said “no” to Prop. 8. But I wonder whether Uilkema was worried about angering those 39 percent of voters in her district who voted “yes,” while Bonilla didn’t want to alienate her 43 percent of “yes” voters.

I don’t know. I’ve still mired in my own internal debate about the supervisors’ decision. If anyone else wants to chime in, please do.

Local Hero: High school Gay Rights Activist and No. on 8 Advocate Explains What it Means to Her that Proposition 8 Passed

In previous posts, I expressed my disappointment that a very small majority of Californians voted Yes on Proposition 8 last month. But imagine the disappointment you would feel if you were young and gay or bisexual and to see first-hand that people in your state and within in your community regard you as a second-class citizen and not worthy of the same rights as everyone else.

Jennie "Jay" Drummond plans to wear black and not to spend any money, her way of joining the national boycott, Day Without a Gay. She heads the chapter of the Gay-Straight Alliance at San Ramon Valley High School in Danville. Her GSA chapter participated in two anti-Proposition 8 rallies (one on October 28 at Danville’s Park and Ride is pictured here).

As it happens, there are chapters of the Gay-Straight Alliance at 22 high school campuses throughout the East Bay suburbs, and even one at Stanley Middle School in Lafayette. The faculty advisor at the chapter at Acalanes High in Lafayette, from which I graduated, told me that the GSA is one of the most popular clubs on campus. It is made up of kids who are, as the name implies, straight, gay and bisexual. Not all the kids who are gay or bisexual are “out” about their sexual orientation, this advisor said, while the straight students join because they tend to have progressive political views and care about human rights.

Jennie, who identifies as bisexual, said she was very happy to participate in this email Q&A with me. She says: “Part of the reason I was so excited to be GSA president this year is because I don’t want any other kids to go through what I did. I want them to know there’s someone to help them, and maybe an article would help them with that.”

How big is the Gay-Straight Alliance at San Ramon Valley High?
Our club has over 160 students signed up. However, when we sold our shirts last year, over 300 were sold. We’re a very popular club on campus.

How many students participated in the No on 8. demonstrations you held?
The demonstration was actually not done solely by my GSA. We collaborated with Monte Vista’s, and it was organized by my ex-teacher (and good friend, from middle school. We had two demonstrations: There was one was on October 28, and we had a second on November 3. We had over 100 at the first, and probably around 125-150 at the second, which was impressive, considering the fact it was pouring [rain] the entire time. About half of those people were students from my GSA.

Does your GSA plan to continue to fight in the No. on 8 battle?

We will continue to fight until everyone is considered equality is restored in California. This means attending demonstrations and participating in national days of protest, such as the upcoming Day Without A Gay, a nationwide boycott on December 10 [today], and Light Up The Night, [a December 20 candlelight vigil at commercial centers in cities across the country in remembrance of the rights that once were for 18,000 marriages], and, of course, the Day of Silence [April 17, 2009, which brings attention to bullying of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students in schools].

How did you feel when 8 passed?
Personally, I was devastated. I identify as bisexual, and the thought that I may one day never be married was a crushing blow. I was honestly ashamed to be a Californian. Quite a few of my friends and I put pieces of fabric that said “Second-Class Citizen” on our backpacks, and most of the GSA wore all black on November 5.

Also, I mentioned [my former middle school teacher]. I didn’t do him justice. He is also an out gay man, now married to his life partner. We’ve kept in touch because I plan on pursuing art as a career, or becoming an art teacher myself. He's one of the few true activists in Danville. He helped me in middle school, when I was struggling with accepting who I am. He was the first person I came out to, my freshman year. He helped me come out my sophomore year at school, and my junior year to my family. He’s always been there to put a smile on my face, and been my shoulder to cry on. He’s my hero. And when your hero calls you, telling you that everything’s going to be okay, we just have to fight a little bit longer, and to be strong, even though you can hear the tears in his voice, it breaks your heart. If it wasn’t enough to feel like my rights had been taken away … that’s what caused me to break down.

What did it mean to you personally to see Proposition 8 defeated?
If it had been defeated, I would have been overjoyed. I may not be considered socially equal, but legally I would be. California is known for being ahead of the game, and many other states follow our lead. And when it is finally struck down, I’ll be able to feel all that.

The Backlash Over Proposition 8: It's Getting Ugly Out There

In a column published in Friday's San Francisco Chronicle, Editorial Page Editor John Diaz decries the vicious, highly personalized attacks" against supporters of Proposition 8, the recently voter approved ban against same-sex marriage.

While Diaz says he believes that same-sex couples should have the full rights and responsibilities of marriage, and that the discrimination in Prop. 8 is "morally and legally idefensible," he is also disturbed by the way "protesters have shouted insults at people headed to worship; temples and churches have been defaced … and even small-time donors are being confronted."

Diaz also notes that " 'blacklists' of donors who contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign are circulating on the Internet." Perhaps he would say that Crazy in Suburbia's publication of the names of East Bay suburban big spenders who donated $5,000-plus to support Prop. 8 (names obtained from SFGate's Data Center) would qualify as one of these blacklists.

"This out-of-scale attempt to isolate and intimidate decidedly small players in the Yes on 8 campaign is no way to win the issue in a court of law or the court of public opinion," he writes.

Diaz may have a point. On the other hand, many commentators on the SFGate.com message board following his column voiced a counter viewpoint:

--Boycotts of individuals perceived to be bigots is perfectly acceptable. Freedom of speech doesn't mean any of us should fund the speech of people we disagree with. Freedom of choose means the freedom not to buy from bigots.

--Respect for democracy is one thing, but religion has no place in government, and changing the constitution should require more than a simple majority in order to avoid repressing a minority. I would defend the letter writer's right to express his viewpoint freely, but he should also realize people will respond negatively to such an openly discriminatory viewpoint. Churches should have no right to tell anyone how to vote on *any* item on the ballot.... not if they want to retain their (unfair) tax exempt status.

--Yeah being called out for supporting discrimination sucks. Perhaps those contributing to denying our equal rights will think twice. It's economic and community pressure to show we aren't taking it anymore. Tough cookies. It's better than violence.

--I'm not calling for violence here, but after the election, I had a fundamental right TAKEN from me. I wanted (and sometimes still do) to take something important from all these people that voted yes. We're angry and rightfully so.

--Welcome to the crap gay people have had to put up with all their lives.

--There's also a sense of irony, remember that the Yes on 8 campaign basically blackmailed business who donated to the No campaign, saying that they would release their information and what not. More than that, the LGBT community has been subject to hate much more vile than any of the reprehensible behavior that has emanated from it in the past two weeks. When a Mormon is beat to an inch of his life and strung up on a fence post to die, then we can talk about who's really being victimized.

Local Big Spenders who Donated $5,000-plus to Defeat Prop 8

Here is a list of locals who donated $5,000-plus to defeat Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in California. If I had that kind of money to spare—or more—to donate to defeat this proposition, I would have. And my name would be on the following list.

Thanks for all the comments on my prior post, both positive and negative. Those who objected to the post raised some good points, including the suggestion that I should have provided the names of both supporters and opponents in the same post.

Well, here's the other side, the names of local big spenders who donated $5,000-plus to defeat Prop. 8. I said I would provide this list, and here it is. And, this list goes to the top of the blog roll. So, for a day or so at least, this list won't be tucked away in some hidden place on my blog.

Some posters accused me of being biased, mean-spirited, intolerant, and even threatening.

Yes, I admit to being biased against Prop. 8. I expressed this bias in my prior post. In fact, I'm proud of my opposition to Prop. 8.

There are people who disagree with me on this issue. Just tonight, I sat at the same table at a local Walnut Creek pizza restaurant with someone I suspect disagrees with me. This is a man from my neighborhood who has the same name as someone I saw as having donated $600 to the Yes on Prop. 8 effort. No, this man and I didn’t discuss Prop. 8 this evening. It was a school event, with a bunch of kids tearing around, so there really was no opportunity to raise the same-sex marriage issue. This man is a nice guy. His wife is a nice person. If he, or they, support a ban on same-sex marriage, I’m sure, in their own way, they mean well and think they are doing the right thing.

At the same time, I believe that people who regard gay men and women as second-class citizens are, in their own way, being mean-spirited and intolerant Denying two adults the right to express their love for each other within the bonds of legal marriage because they are of the same gender—that is essentially telling them that they are second-class citizens. You can argue the semantics of “marriage” versus “civil unions” all you want. If “civil unions” offer the same legal rights as “marriage,” then why not let same-sex couples marry. What is so threatening about the M-word to proponents of Prop. 8?

I think of a coworker who was so overjoyed to wed his partner of many years that he shared the news with all his colleagues, via a staff-wide email. How does his marriage threaten individuals or families who voted for Prop. 8, or the fabric of society? I certainly don't feel that my marriage or family is threatened. I was honored and happy that he wanted to share his news with the rest of us.

I’d love to hear a Pro-Prop. 8 supporter explain to me how he/she feels his/her family and community is threatened by gay couples marrying. Really.

I’ve been a supporter of gay rights since high school. As I write this, I think of this boy I went to middle school with in Walnut Creek. I later learned that he struggled with being gay, especially after his devoutly Presbyterian parents reacted negatively to his coming out. His mother considered his homosexuality as an "an abomination to God."

He grew into a kind, lovely young man. But quietly, he was suffering. In his early 20s, he felt so terrible about himself and about being gay that he killed himself by throwing himself off a freeway overpass. His mother later realized the cruelty of her close-minded beliefs and became an advocate for the local chapter of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. If she's still out there in the community, I want to say that I regard her as a local hero in the cause of decency, humanity, and compassion.

All this said, I do not support anyone who would use my list or any similar list to harass or threaten anyone whose names are on them. I don't support the persecuted becoming the persecutors.

At the same time, I will repeat that I am publishing what is public information. If you’re donating big bucks for or against a political issue, it is a matter of public record.

As for those who are concerned that their family members have been harassed and/or threatened because they have been publicly "outed" as favoring Prop. 8, just remember that history and current events are rife with incidents of gay men and women losing jobs, family, friends, and facing arrest, physical assault, and even murder because of their sexual orientation.
It’s not right for people who voted Yes on Prop. 8 to suffer harassment, just as it has never been right for gay men and women to suffer discrimination and persecution.

Soapbox done. Back to the following list of locals who donated $5,000-plus to defeat Prop.8: This list was compiled using data from SFGate.com's searchable database. (The source for this data is Richard Dalton, a computer-assisted reporting specialist, who compiled this analysis of Prop. 8 campaign contributions for the Associated Press.)

As SFGate's Data Center says, this analysis is based on campaign finance reports submitted to the state Secretary of State's Office since 2007 and contains data current as of Nov. 3.

Danville
Giselle Jurkanin, lawyer, Little & Saputo Attorneys at Law, Sept. 8, $10,000 (total $15,500 between April 5 and Oct. 17)
William Morrow, unemployed, Oct. 24, $5,000

Lafayette
Donald Chaiken, homebuilder, Davidon Homes, Sept. 12, $10,000

Moraga
Renata Sos, lawyer, PriceWaterhouse Coopers, LLP, Oct. 29, $8,000 (total $9,000 in October)

Orinda
Rod Evans, retired, Oct. 18, $20,000
Stephanie Brill, self-employed teacher, Oct. 30, $40,000

Walnut Creek
Madelyne Cromwell, project manager, BGI Oct. 13, $10,000 (total $20,000 since May 28)

Local Big Spenders who Donated $5,000-plus to Support Prop. 8

The state Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to look again at the same-sex marriage debate and the constitutionality of the recently approved Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage. This news comes just as I was acting on my curiosity to learn the identities of local big-money backers of Proposition 8.

According to Wednesday's San Francisco Chronicle report, the court, six months after its ruling that struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, granted requests by both sponsors and opponents of Proposition 8 to review lawsuits challenging the Nov. 4 initiative.

Meanwhile, SFGate.com's Data Center recently posted a searchable database of public information on those who contributed money to the campaigns both supporting and opposing Proposition 8. (The source for this data is Richard Dalton, a computer-assisted reporting specialist, who compiled this analysis of Prop. 8 campaign contributions for the Associated Press.)

As SFGate's Data Center says, the analysis is based on campaign finance reports submitted to the state Secretary of State's Office since 2007 and contains data current as of Nov. 3.

I pored through it and identified those making contributions of $5,000 or more in favor of Proposition 8. Choosing the $5,000 figure was a bit arbitrary, but it seems to illustrate something about how certain individuals have enough income at their disposal to donate it to causes they champion.

Here, I list those individuals by hometown., based on what I found at the SFGate Data Center database on Proposition 8 contributions. I also compiled a similar list for those contributing $5,000 or more to defeat Proposition 8. I will publish that list in the next day or so.

A disclosure: I strongly opposed Proposition 8 and made my own meager contribution to efforts to defeat it.

Alamo
David Christensen, executive, Nearon Enterprises, Aug. 31, $25,000 (total of $30,000 since Aug. 31)
Doreen Kopf, retired, Aug. 28, $12,500
Richard Kopf, lawyer, Fremont Management Group, LP, Aug. 28, $12,500
David Nearon, lawyer, Alta Leasebark Corp., Sept. 7, $25,000
V. Lance Littlejohn, business, West Coast Novelty Corp., Sept. 7, $8,000
Judith Wagner, retired, Sept. 8, $10,000
R. Jean Taylor, retired, Sept. 8, $10,000
Jana Mullen, homemaker, Sept. 17, $25,000
Linda Reeve, self-employed landscape design, Oct. 6, $9,500

Clayton
Curtis Weller, accountant, Deloitte & Touche LLP, Aug. 6, $5,000
Rachel Aaron, homemaker, Aug. 6, $5,000Jo Anne Gardner, Aug. 7, $5,000

Concord
Brian Blatter, dentist, Aug. 6, $10,000
Steven Leininger, accountant, Capital Performance Advisors, Aug. 6, $5,000
Linda Doll, homemaker, Aug. 13, $5,000.
Sherman Doll, consultant, Capital Performance Advisors, Aug. $5,000
John Cutt, CEO, IREBCC-Corp., Aug. 20, $5,000
Thalia Cutt, homemaker, Aug. 20, $5,000
Keith Bradburn, dentist, Randell Gardner, DDS, Aug. 24, $5,000

Danville
Sarah Harris, homemaker, Aug. 6, $25,000
Michael Peterson, financial services, Pascal Management, Aug. 17, $5,000
Larry Wilson, retired, Aug. 19, $5,000
John Blatter, retired, Aug. 6, $5,000
Jani Stone, homemaker, Aug. 20, $5,000
Carol Christensen, analyst, Gartner, Inc., Aug. 25, $5,000
William Wilcox, retired, Sept. 4, $25,000

Lafayette
Robert Packer, retired, Aug. 14, $25,000
Cherlyn Hart, homemaker Sept. 30, $5,000

Orinda
Ralph Severson, retired, Aug. 24, $5,000
Sue Severson, retired homemaker, Sept. 23, $5,000

Walnut Creek
Barry Oliver, accountant, Pension One Advisors, Aug. 6, $5,000
Coulson-Moseley Pest Control, Aug. 6, $5,000
David Walton, lawyer, Jonen Hall, APLL, Aug. 6, $5,000
Douglas Barton, accountant, Deloitte & Tonche, Aug. 6, $5,000
Kay Bohne, homemaker, Aug. 6, $5,000
Kristalyn Judd, homemaker, Aug. 6, $5,000
Richard Cardall, sales management, Transamerica Capital Management, Aug. 6, $5,000
Richard Chapman, business owner, Jes Engineering, Inc., Aug. 6, $5,000
Terry Lloyd, self-employed analyst, Aug. 26, $5,000
Dayna Bain, homemaker, Aug. 31, $5,000
Janelle Palmer, homemaker, Sept. 14, $5,000