ECCO is holding an important fundraiser to raise money to fight Prop. 8, this Sunday at former State Senator Joe Dunn’s home in Santa Ana. I wonder if any of the Santa Ana Clowncil Members will attend? Maybe Dunn can shame them into formally taking a united position against Prop. 8. Read on for more info. about this event from Jeff LeTourneau of ECCO:
Throughout time, historic events have occurred which change the face of society. Proposition 8, on the November ballot is just such an event. If this measure passes, marriage will be restricted to one man and one woman unless overturned by the US Supreme Court, an event unlikely to occur in the
next 15-20 years.
Bottom line….one shot, win or loose, no second chance. If ever there was a time for action, this is it!
As a proven political ally we have worked together as we struggle for a progressive agenda of fairness dignity and equality. We will continue our support and urge you to come to our aid at this difficult time. Please consider sponsoring the upcoming event listed below. Times are hard, competition for political funds is intense but we have no choice. Its now or never!
Respectfully,
Jeff LeTourneau
ECCO Political Director
ECCO and Special Guest Brian Chase, senior staff attorney for Lambda Legal.
request the honor of your presence in celebration of Full Marriage Equality at our Nuptial Bliss Wedding Reception.
Sunday, July 27, 2008 at 3 o’clock until 5 o’clock P.M. at the Home of (ret.) Senator Joe & Diane Dunn. (Call for location) for champagne, hors d’oeuvres, dancing, and favors
$55 per person $100 per couple. Sponsorships available (see below). RSVP ASAP.
ECCO: Telephone (949) 975-0866. E-mail : eccopac@yahoo.com
Attire: Dressy Casual or Resort Wear
On May 15, 2008, the On May 15, Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a basic right of all Californians. In response, our opponents have placed an initiative, Proposition 8, on the ballot that would define marriage as solely between a man and a woman. If successful, this amendment would overturn the Supreme Court’s decision and place marriage discrimination in the decision a Constitution.
It is currently estimated that the LGBT Community must raise an unprecedented $20-25 Million Dollars to defeat this measure!
Please support this special day by becoming an event sponsor. Decades of struggle have finally paid off. Don’t let misplaced fear take away our rights!
Sponsorships are as follows: Gold Sponsor—$1,000 Admits 8 guests. Silver Sponsor—$500 Admits 4 guests. Bronze Sponsor—$250 Admits 2 guests.
All Sponsorships include one ceremony (if desired), one toast, one framed 5×7 photograph, mini photo album (6 photos) and one song choice for that special dance.
Opportunities are also available for any couple to have their wedding ceremony performed by an ordained nondenominational minister or credentialed official. Please contact Susan Freeze (714) 267-8752 in advance for additional information.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank our event sponsors (a partial list):
(ret.) Senator Joe & Diane Dunn
Pride Catering of Orange County
Steven Kalous & David Copeland
www.pridecateringocwww. (714) 567-9213
Fly by Night Disc Jockeys
Larry Barrett
www.fbncorp.www (714) 698-8250
Orange County/Long Beach Blade
Jeff LeTourneau/Robert Nio
D.R. Heywood
Jim Toledano
Glenn & Susan Freeze
Harvey Liss/Aaron DeGrood
Jim & Carina Pantone
Brian Keller/Mike Losquadro
Scott Westerfield/Ed Miskevitch
Dr. Max Schneider/Ronald Smelt
Pat Magee
MAIL CHECKS TO: ECCO PAC 1700 East Garry Ave., Suite 231 MAIL TO: EC, CA 92705
Contributions are not tax deductible for income tax purposes. Federal ID C00192302. FPPC 822380.
Art. Somehow SMS and Vern missed the following San Jose Mercury News input on the same-sex marriage ballot measure regarding LA Mayor Villaraigosa.
“Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa pulled out as keynote speaker for a gay rights group’s fundraising event scheduled for Saturday night following intense lobbying from transgender activists angry over the group’s stand on a federal gay rights bill.
Villaraigosa was scheduled to headline the Human Rights Campaign dinner scheduled for Saturday night in San Francisco. San Francisco city officials and many prominent gay rights leaders already had agreed not to attend the event, which has been billed as a fundraiser to help defeat a November ballot measure that would again ban same-sex marriage in California.
The Human Rights Campaign is one of the nation’s most prominent gay rights organizations and the Washington-based group already has given over $500,000 to defeat the same-sex marriage measure. But many transgender activists and their allies have been angry at the group since the fall, when its leaders agreed to support a federal job discrimination ban that protected gays, lesbians and bisexuals – but not transgender people.
Matt Szabo, Villaraigosa’s spokesman, said the mayor’s decision was more a byproduct of the Human Rights Campaign controversy than a snub of the group itself.”
Larry –
I didn’t miss the story, but in case you’ve forgotten, my stance on legally-sanctioned marriage is that it needs a complete reformation in terminology allowing for equality: equality for gays and lesbians to have the same legal rights as hetero married couples and equality for churches to decide for themselves what constitutes a spiritual union. As far as I’m concerned, they retain ownership of the word ‘marriage.’
Again, the word and concept should be removed from government entirely and left to be defined by religious leaders exclusively for their own rites.
And I didn’t miss the transgender exclusion in the HRC-sponsored bill. First of all, the brouhaha happened before my return to writing, and secondly, I’ve already stated that I don’t intend to be pigeonholed into being the ‘transsexual activist.’ I have knowledge of far too many political topics to limit myself in that way, imho. Also, I hate to admit this, but there are far too many women in my situation who really are so totally unemployable that even I wouldn’t hire them. As a trans friend of mine says, ‘being transsexual is the least of their problems.’
But yes, to be totally honest about it, I’m angry as hell about the HRC’s decision and very disappointed in Barney Frank in particular, but I also understand from experience that discrimination laws really only protect people who already have jobs anyway.
When you either don’t want to disclose your old name or go ahead and do so on a job application, the employer will just smile, shake your hand, send you away, and never call you again. It’s kind of hard to prove discrimination when the employer simply declines to contact you… and we already have transgender protection here in CA (visions of the current uselessness of affirmative action dance in my head).
While socially I haven’t had any problems at all blending into society as a woman, even being relatively open about how I got here, employers tend to be very conservative and their fears overwhelm them when certain truths are revealed. Why do so many fear what they don’t understand?
The only true weapon in the fight against intolerance is education.
SMS
Art.
While I am not familiar with Jeff LeTourneau of ECCO, experience has proven that the following statement attributed to him is incorrect:
“Bottom line….one shot, win or loose, no second chance. If ever there was a time for action, this is it!”
“One shot,win or lose?” I was on the speakers bureau for Prop 22. We succeeded in getting over 60 percent of the vote and a judge overturns the will of the people of CA in a fair and honest election?
One shot, win or lose, unless you are on the winning side as we thought we were in 2000?
Larry –
Please. Do yourself a favor and lose the Prop 22 argument. The Court struck down the referendum as unconstitutional, which it was. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land, not a slim majority of people who, for the most part, know very little about our judicial system’s role in shaping our laws and acting as a check on our legislature and voter-passed initiatives.
Plus, enshrining bigotry into the state Constitution of arguably the bluest state in the nation? That’s a pretty tall order, especially considering how long ago the state voted on Prop 22 and the social progress we’ve made since then.
You didn’t really think the bigots behind Prop 22 put down their pitchforks though, did you? Like your Prop 98 friends, they lacked the foresight to see the legal implications of their referendum, and accordingly, they now have to start all over again under less favorable circumstances.
They could pull it off. But I doubt it.
SMS
Juice Brother Larry.
You have said so far, that you support Prop 8 simply because you don’t like the idea of “activist” judges ruling the will of the people unconstitutional.
Now I hear you say “the winning side as we thought we were in 2000″… so you actually are (or were) against gays having the right to marry?
Vern,
Larry has a right to feel as he does even if we don’t agree. Part of the reason this blog is so successful is the diversity of our blog team.
That said, I do plan to oppose Prop. 8. I was on the wrong side on Prop. 22, so I have some making up to do on this issue.
But Larry isn’t the enemy. I will be writing a post later today about who is…
Part of the reason this blog is so successful is the diversity of our blog team.
Diversity is good. I would hope that is a simple fact all of us on this blog agreed on.
Vern,
It might well be the ONLY thing we all agree on! 🙂
hm. >:-{
Brother Vern. I support Prop 8 for a multitude of reasons as shared below. My reference to the activists Judges who overturned Prop 22 illustrates how bad our judicial system has become. Sadly, many of them were appointed by conservative Republicans.
Let’s address why I am supporting Prop 8.
Let’s begin by acknowledging that four judges in San Francisco should not be allowed to change the definition of marriage for all society. Although death and divorce may prevent it in many cases, the ideal situation is for a child to be raised by a married mother and father in the bond of marriage. I also feel strongly that same-sex marriage should not be imposed by the courts, but only through a vote of the people.
Art. I recall you commenting on the high divorce rate between men and women. That is a known fact.
We still believe that although death and divorce may prevent it in many cases, every child deserves to have a mother and a father who are married to each other. We should do more to encourage families to stay together so that more children have both a mother and a father in the home. Reaffirming marriage as between a man and a woman is a positive step in that direction.
I will accept the fact that gays have the right to their private lives, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us. My position is that what gays do in their private lives doesn’t bother me, but I do not want my children or grandkids exposed to it.
Your side needs to consider the overall impact on our children, not just our own Agenda.
Larry
Just to clarify-The California Supreme Court meets in Sacramento, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. They hear cases and render decisions in each venue. They are not “San Francisco” judges and would, I suspect if interviewed, express the multitude of environments that they come from (even the ones that voted to overturn an action that, if allowed to continue, would foster a separate but equal California.
Marriage is a concept of which there is no owner. But its accessibility applies to all. Not available to some but not others. That thinking died in both the California and United States Supreme Court.
So Larry, do you protect your kids from people of color, from Democrats, from Libertarians, from Northern Californians-must be a 24 hour a day job to shield them from a changing society full of undesirables?