2008 was the year change came to California. And by that I don't just mean the successful Obama campaign. 2008 was the year the 20th century model finally broke down on the side of the road, as the privatized, financialized, sprawlconomy collapsed. California has been hit harder than almost every other state by the economic crisis, which has shown Californians the desperate need to move in a new direction.

The dominant political development in the state was the battle over that future. The budget crisis, which took up all of 2008 and will likely do the same in 2009, isn't just about taxes and spending, but about what kind of state we will live in.

The one thing all sides agree is that the future will not look like the past. Arnold Schwarzengger wants to roll back 40 years of environmental and labor laws, while his Republican legislative colleagues want to go back to the early 19th century before even public schools, in their desire to destroy state government. The Yacht Party is openly rooting for a Depression, which they believe will enable them to finally destroy their liberal enemies. If that requires sacrificing the middle class, so be it - Republicans only ever saw them as easily manipulated fellow-travelers anyway.

Democrats have not articulated a future as clearly as their opponents, but Californians have done this on their own. In a year that saw some bitter electoral defeats, voters pointed the way forward by approving nearly every mass transit proposal put to them, including those that required a 2/3 supermajority to raise taxes. Whether it's high speed rail, the Subway to the Sea, BART to San José, or the Marin-Sonoma train, Californians showed that anti-tax Hooverism has its limits.

In one of the most important speeches of the year, Van Jones called for progressives to move from opposition to proposition. The only way we can defeat the New Hoovers among us, those who want to despoil our environment and make working Californians suffer worse during this economic crisis, is for progressives to clearly articulate and defend a better alternative. The successful mass transit votes show how powerful that effort can be when it is made.

It also shows that Californians are now ready to redefine the California Dream for the 21st century - they are beginning to understand that the 20th century model of an economy built on sprawl has failed them and cannot provide broadly shared prosperity. Since so much of our politics stems from that sprawlconomy, Californians' willingness to look beyond it is a much-needed shift, even if the old ways die hard.

If that better, sustainable and prosperous future is to be realized, California progressives need to be better organized. The other great lesson, and the most important single political event of the year, was the passage of Proposition 8 - which showed how totally the old ways of politics had failed.

Many Caliticians have dissected the failure of the No on 8 campaign, laying the blame at a top-down consultant-driven media-focused campaign that did not speak clearly about the issue, about who would be impacted, and did not reach out to those Californians we need to reach. *When* we fight this battle again we will fix those mistakes. If Obama showed how a grassroots effort can change the country, Prop 8 showed how the lack of one can hurt the state.

Prop 8's passage also showed the maturation of the gay rights movement, which is the direct descendant of and now the heir to the Civil Rights Movement. It showed that even California is not immune to successful gay-bashing, but also showed how wide and deep support for equal rights has become. Prop 8 has galvanized a new generation to become politically organized, has turned average people into committed activists, and has united the progressive movement around a plan to bring communities together to organize for everyone's right to marry.

2008 was not a good year for California, and we enter 2009 with enormous challenges, with at least one wheel over the edge of the cliff. But 2008 has also shown us the way forward, how a grassroots, bottom-up politics centered on full equality for all and a sustainable model of prosperity can break through the failed politics of the 20th century and renew California's promise as a progressive, free, and beautiful place to live.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm a straight male who was born in Texas and raised in Indiana. While normally I wouldn't define myself by my sexuality or my residency I think it has to be done to give credence to the plan that I hope to outline.

Overturning Prop 8 won't be easy, we are kidding ourselves if we think we can simply walk to the polls in 2010 and have enough voters to overturn it. This is uncharted territory not just for California, or just the United States but it is uncharted for the entire free world. The world is watching. Here are my proposed steps:

1. Let the lawyers do their job. This nation is ripe with intelligent lawyers who see the injustice behind Prop 8. We need to rally and unite them under a common belief and clear goals.   Read More »

In a remarkable column in yesterday's Wall Street Journal right-wingers John Lott and Bradley Smith use the backlash against Prop 8 donors to suggest an end to campaign finance disclosure laws. They cite some of the more well-known examples of voter accountability for Prop 8 backers - Marjorie Christofferson, the Cinemark movie theater chain - to argue that campaign donations should be treated like a secret ballot:

How would you like elections without secret ballots? To most people, this would be absurd.

We have secret balloting for obvious reasons. Politics frequently generates hot tempers. People can put up yard signs or wear political buttons if they want. But not everyone feels comfortable making his or her positions public -- many worry that their choice might offend or anger someone else. They fear losing their jobs or facing boycotts of their businesses.

And yet the mandatory public disclosure of financial donations to political campaigns in almost every state and at the federal level renders people's fears and vulnerability all too real. Proposition 8 -- California's recently passed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage by ensuring that marriage in that state remains between a man and a woman -- is a dramatic case in point. Its passage has generated retaliation against those who supported it, once their financial support was made public and put online.

This column could only be written in light of persistent media efforts to paint Yes on 8 donors as victims. By erasing the true victims - 18,000 same sex couples and the innumerable other couples who wished to follow them to full equality - folks like Steve Lopez have constructed a situation where the far right can use those supposed victims as a battering ram against campaign finance disclosure rules they've long opposed.

Lott's and Smith's argument is pernicious. They argue that mandatory disclosure limits freedom of speech and of political action, that anonymous donations have protected groups like the NAACP (from government harassment, not public accountability, as the columnists neatly ignore), and that public pressure to disclose donors will accomplish what regulations currently provide (yeah right).

This is not just a wingnut attempt to protect their wealthy allies. It's an effort to lay the groundwork to undermine California's disclosure laws in the event we return to the ballot to repeal Prop 8 in the near future. Without disclosure rules, it is *highly* likely that we will see much larger sums of money donated to the anti-gay cause.

Even before the post-election backlash unfolded, many wealthy donors and companies refrained from donating to the Yes on 8 campaign for fear of alienating customers and Californians. If these rules are relaxed then companies that rely on same sex marriage supporters for their profits could take that money, give it to the haters, without the public knowing or being able to take their business elsewhere. It could provide their side with a significant financial advantage over ours in a future ballot campaign.

That is likely the reason behind this op-ed. Sure, they buried it on the day after Christmas, but you can be assured it's not the last we'll hear of this argument. We would do well to prep our own response - that the public's right to know is sacrosanct, that if the right wants money to be equated with speech that implies disclosure, and that this is nothing but an end run around our laws to allow corporations to dominate our elections.

Today I went to a knitting store in Orange County, my county. I asked the clerk about a certain yarn, did it have to be doubled. She showed me her splendid rainbow shoulder bag which looked tie-dyed like something from a Grateful Dead concert. I jokingly asked if she was on acid at Woodstock when she made it. She whispered, "some people ask me if I am gay." I said, "You should tell them yes, it could be fun." Lowering her voice even further, she said it would not be funny as it was a Christian store. I relied, "It wouldn't stop me."

I live in the infamous OC. Home of St James Anglican Church, which does not allows gays. Home of Disneyland which offers insurance to gay families. Home of the Angels, the Mighty Ducks, the Clippers. Home of Loretta Sanchez and Dana Rohrabacher. The epicenter of the NO ON 6 Campaign, temporary safe-haven for Anita Bryant, home of Rick Warren's church in Lake Forest.

There is no mistake about the world famous OC; mega conservative, fundamentalist Christian, republican with great beaches and world-class waves. If you visit the website of Rick Warren's church you will find teachings promoting the submission of the wife to the husband. In addition to classifying gay people with pedophiles and practitioners of incest, he has been very vocal that women who have had abortions are no different than the Nazis and their uterus, he likened to Auschwitz.

It is nice that Melissa Etheridge wants to have a détente with Pastor Rick. She thinks that it is important that he meets some gay people who have families and family values. I hope they have a prosperous exchange. But here's the point. Why not pool your resources, gay and straight, Christian and compassionate and have a Summit of Understanding. Why not hold a Parliament of Religion like the one in 1923 in Chicago. Invite people of all faiths to promote understanding and demonstrate the ability to sit and talk and be civil(ized). Invite some women who have had abortions, some doctors who have done abortions, some gay families, some gay ministers and, even, some of those super conservative Anglicans and super-liberal Unitarians.

That is where all of this should be going. That is the organic coalition that would truly demonstrate CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. But you DON'T offer this renown bigot, outspoken hate-monger, homophobic, misogynistic man in the Western world, the biggest pulpit in history and say it is just a gesture of inclusion and goodwill. We are not that stupid and, frankly, neither are you Mr. Obama. You know this is an outrage.

So here's an idea ~ put together a team for the invocation; three or four people who actually represent and LOVE the diversity of America. Please do not put forth the worst of us who needs to be educated, explained and apologized for; this man who can validate every family who judges and condemns their gay relatives. Put forth a face, or set of faces which tell all the world who we are, who we hope to be, who inspires the change we can believe in.

After watching the little "Christmas Card video" it is apparent that this site is by the state employees and for the state employees. Taxes cannot and should not be raised. All of the cuts in spending are justified, especially now when the states revenues are at the lowest. This website is an example of the impact of larger than necessary government. A group that is not a majority, but also large, tries to influence the majority by suggesting that loss of state jobs during a budget crisis automatically results in loss of NEEDED services. Schools, it they close, will be closed because they are not needed. Many state employees may be facing cuts in hours and/or benefits. JOIN THE REST OF THE WORLD. Where did this confused notion come from that government employees are more important that private sector employees. I don't believe the I have seen any websites suggesting that large private companies that are laying people off by the truckload should find a way to tax the public to retain those jobs.

If you look at the history of taxation in this state, the budget has risen steadily over the last 30 years at a rate 2 1/2 to 3 times the growth of the GSP. If you look at an egg, you have a pretty good idea of the size of the yoke relative to the white. Government in its present form is the yoke getting larger and larger while the taxpayer available dollars,(the white) does not. How long can this go on.

Many of the great thinkers in history (including Plato and Aristotle) supported small government and realized the danger of allowing the government to grow to a point where those that fear for their givernment jobs could influence those who pay for those jobs.

Don't buy into this absurd argument. If you ask a state employee how much money is enough, they could not answer this question. There is never enough. Government is a giany consumer and it's the taxpayer that needs to determine how much is enough. If everyone else is tightening their belts, so should the state.

Several States that have much smaller education budgets (per student), for example, are out-performing california. Our problems are complex and throwing more money at them will not improve the state government and it definitely won't improve the lives of already strapped taxpayers.

Dear President Elect.

I have been a fervent supporter and past contributor to your historic campaign. I believe you will usher in badly needed reform and thoughtfulness into our government and society as a whole. Whatever else happens, I believe you are the right man for the job, and I will continue to support you in the years to come. I believe in you.

So it is with a heavy heart that I must respectfully resign from your organization under protest because of your selection of Rick Warren to speak at your inauguration.

I am a married heterosexual male, and yet many people in my life are gay, and I am not blind to their struggle for respect and equality in America. That is why I am dismayed that such an exclusive and derisive figure as Rick Warren will speak on your behalf.

Warren's assertion that gays are defacto as heinous as pedophiles and gay sex is as abhorrent as incest is just the kind of backwards thinking and discriminatory rhetoric that I would hope would start to disappear under your stewardship. Just ask the next generation, they understand that our parents generation, and regrettably many of us still cling to medieval mores that seek to brand homosexuals as deviants and affronts to God. Kids don't care, they know many gay folks and realize that blanket condemnations are the result of fear and lazy thinking. These are the young people whose votes you so courted, the same people who you should have shown some respect for when you selected a spiritual figure to bless your inauguration.

You know, sir, it isn't as if you couldn't have found a religious person who believes in an inclusive, Christian attitude toward all of God's children. People who don't judge, after all, are the real Christians.

I will always relish the day I cast my ballot for you, but alas I will always remember the day when you dealt me my very first major disappointment.

respectfully,

James Dimitrios Fourniadis

Infamous prosecutor Ken Starr has filed a legal brief -- on behalf of the "Yes on 8" campaign -- to nullify the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in California between May and November of 2008.

Yes, they really did go there after promising repeatedly not to do this.

It's time to put a face to Ken Starr's shameful legal proceedings. To put a face to the 18,000 couples facing forcible divorce. To put a face to marriage equality. Because, gay or straight, YOU are the face of the Marriage Equality Movement.

The Courage Campaign just launched "Please Don't Divorce" a community photo project. They will break your heart and have made me cry on more than one occasion.

Please click through the photos in the slideshow below and then submit your own photo, as an individual, a couple or in a group (perhaps with your family over the holidays). Take a picture holding a piece of paper that says "Please don't divorce us," "Please don't divorce my moms,""Please don't divorce my friends, Dawn and Audrey," "Please don't divorce Californians" or whatever you want after "Please don't divorce..." and send it to: pleasedontdivorce@couragecampaign.org.

California Democrats have been excessively lazy in attending to California's finances and the state of our democracy. What they should have been doing all these years is building a campaign for basic reforms such as 50% vote being sufficient to raise taxes, splitting the Prop 13 tax rolls so that business pays its fair share, and perhaps most important creating a system for elections where opponents are more closely matched and the outcome of elections can no longer be so easily predicted, because when most of the outcomes are predictable, there is no real democracy and no real elections. Hopefully Prop 11 will take care of electoral reform, but without the people pushing for all they're worth, there will be no reform.

During this holiday week you may be enjoying your favorite version of Charles Dickens' classic /A Christmas Carol/ (I was always partial to the Muppets' version with Michael Caine).

Unfortunately we in California are actually *living* it. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed Democratic plans to close a $16 billion deficit with a mix of taxes and cuts, in pursuit of his radical right-wing agenda. His veto is a lump of coal in the stocking - we face crippling cuts to education & health care, the erosion of the safety net so he can gut environmental and labor laws to satisfy his corporate and conservative buddies. And the media actively enables him.

We at the Courage Campaign decided to do something about it. We produced this video with Donkey on the Edge, and made possible by Cheri and Naren Shankar, showing Arnold and California the impact of his Scrooge-like ways:   Read More »

test

Back in 2002-03 it was hard to get away from media coverage of the failing Gray Davis administration. At least, that's how it got framed in the state and even the national press. At the time I was living in Seattle and all the coverage I saw was of Davis screwing up this way or that way. Friends would ask why Californians voted to reelect someone so clearly incompetent. With media coverage like that it was never any doubt that Davis would lose the recall.

Five years later California is in a *worse* situation than we were in 2002-03, when Davis was blamed for everything that had gone wrong in California and was recalled just 11 months after having been reelected. Arnold has given us a $40 billion deficit - larger than anything Davis grappled with. And when Democrats, facing a severe cash crisis, got creative in finding a solution *and* gave Arnold almost everything he demanded, Arnold vetoed the solution anyway. California bankruptcy seems more likely than ever, a direct consequence of Arnold's actions.

But that's not the story the media tells the public. The Arnold that you read about in the newspapers or see on TV is a strong governor willing to make tough choices for the good of the people. An environmental leader who has the people's interests, but who's weighed down by a typically screwy legislature, where Democrats and Republicans (though it's mostly Democrats) are to blame for any problems we face.

Last night's appearance on 60 Minutes was a classic case of media enabling of Arnold's failures:

But now "home" is in trouble. California is the foreclosure capital, and unemployment is above eight percent. The governor proposed to close that budget deficit half with tax increases and half with budget cuts. Republicans and Democrats opposed him.

When 60 Minutes sat down with Schwarzenegger at the Capitol, he had just left the legislative leadership and he seemed in no mood. Before they got settled, Pelley was worried that the last thing the governor wanted to do was talk to him.

"I'm not sure that meeting went all that well. You seem pretty preoccupied. You got the 'Terminator look' on your face," Pelley remarked.

That was basically the extent of the conversation on the budget and the economy - issues that dominate our state right now. The rest of the piece was typical greenwashing of Arnold's environmental record. Arnold is touting green jobs as a solution to economic recovery, and in a hypocritical Newsweek op-ed he called for sustainable infrastructure spending as economic stimulus...just as the state had to suspend ALL infrastructure projects owing to the cash crisis.

That crisis - for which Arnold bears primary responsibility right now - is even jeopardizing crucial planning work on high speed rail, which will create hundreds of thousands of green jobs in California - unless Arnold's efforts to destroy the state succeed in derailing that as well.

Arnold's 60 Minutes interview is an all too typical example of how the media has enabled his failures. The piece didn't mention his role in the budget crisis or how it makes a mockery of his green jobs goals. And because he gets fawning coverage while bold and inventive Democratic efforts to save the state are dismissed as trickery by the media, Arnold gets away with trying to bankrupt the state while talking a big game on the environment.

In fact, *nowhere* in the 60 Minutes interview was it explained that among Arnold's recent budget demands was a gutting of CEQA oversight of development. 60 Minutes doesn't tell its viewers that while Arnold plays an environmentalist on TV, back in Sacramento he is doing everything he can to destroy environmental protections.

And yet there is some evidence that, maybe, just maybe, the traditional media is starting to wake up to that fact. More over the flip.   Read More »

I completely disagree with those of you who posted their support in Warren doing the invocation at Obama's Inauguration. Warren is speaking hate speech and that should never be tolerated. The shoe was on the other foot when Rev. Wright spoke out against white Americans, people were upset. Well guess what, this is the same thing even if it does not affect you directly. For Warren to be a part of the Inauguration is equivalent to a president prior to the civil rights act being passed asking a preacher to speak that claims people of color are 4/5 human. That is what was preached and believed not very long ago. In no way should the homosexual community abide by Obama's actions, it breaks my heart that he and his administration do not care about the ramifications of giving voice to a bigot like Warren. This is 2008 people, time to let go of hate and fear. Divided we fail and in the words of Lennon, "You say you want a Revolution" bring it on cause I for one will not back down when anyone is allowed to speak hatred against any people group. It is still legal in many US states to be fired on the grounds of being a homosexual, also in many states there are not hate crime laws. You think Warren should be allowed to speak at the Inauguration? Give me a break! Really? Supporting discrimination of any form is wrong, wrong, wrong.

I watched a very interesting movie tonight, Gandhi, My Father. It is the tragic story of Harilal Gandhi who could not please his father and died a beggar, a drunk, a widower who left his children. No matter how much we might elevate M.K. Gandhi, he was just a man whose vision operated within the confines of his exquisite lens. Harilal wanted everything his father had and had the luxury to renounce. Bapu, the Father of India, was strict, unforgiving and could not let his son drink deeply from life to make his own decisions on what to embrace or renounce. It was as if Gandiji expected his son to merely adopt his hard-earned lessons; rather than learn them himself. He seemed to think that since he learned something, Harilal could/should just accept the outcome without learning it himself.

But make no mistake, Harilal wanted father-love, mother-love, wife-love, child-love ~ family. He wanted family. I wonder if children of famous people might really find this story maddening ~ not comforting at all. In the light of the news today I cannot help but make layered parallels with that of the gay son or daughter wanting father-love, mother-love, a lover, children ~ family. Isn't that really what all of the prop 8, Rick Warren, gay issue is about?

There is a group of people who want to just be welcome at the table of humanity. They want to have a partner, children, dinner, a productive life (could I be so deliberate as to say a "purpose driven life"?). And there is push back from people whose tables have no room for difference. Gandhi named the unwanted Indians, the lowest caste, the harijan ~ the children of god. He inversed their fate of being born as an untouchable, not welcome at any table but their own, by naming them god's favored.

Rick Warren's Saddleback Church is that table which wants no harijan. Homosexuals may not join. Does he really think that his god will not invite homosexuals to the heavenly banquet? If Rick does have some inside line on that, I am certain that lots of people would not want to be at that table by their own choice.

My own seeking soul has traveled the world through a library card; searched religions, faiths, beliefs, for years and years. If Barack had asked me, or YOU had asked me, who would be a great choice to offer the invocation at this historic inauguration, I would have answered to chose someone whose table is wide, magnetic, inviting, universal and, most importantly, excludes no one.

The Tao Te Ching states that beginnings set the pace for all that unfolds in its wake. Please do not give up asking that Rick Warren be replaced as the international bell ringing in the Obama years. It could not be more important.

President Elect Obama made a poor decision yesterday when he chose Evangelical Reverand Rick Warren of Orange County, CA., as the spiritual speaker of his historical inauguration. When Pastor Rick Warren was asked to clarify a statement -- if he actually equates same-sex marriage with incest, pedophilia and polygamy -- his answer was direct and unequivocal: "Oh, I do."

As a US President, Obama cannot please everyone and he will have to walk a fine line to keep everyone supporting him and I understand that. What I can't understand is the message he is sending to the last unprotected minority group yet to receive equal protection under our Federal and State laws. The Gay population. A group that solidly backed his campaign and helped to make him the next US President? This is the thanks he gives?

This is a huge blow to a group of people's lives and civil rights that religious extremists have vowed to make sure gays don't receive. This isn't even about marriage--it's about equality and Obama is smart enough to know that. This is a shameful political move and Obama is trying to broaden his support base to include evangelical Republicans. Reaching across the aisle so to speak. It's just political strategy as usual, BUT it comes at the expense of a minority group of people who worked tirelessly to get him into office. Not to mention a minority group of people who are publicly discriminated against and not protected under the law in the majority of this country.

If this sort of incident came at the expense of Jews or Blacks in 2008, people would be outraged. But gays? Different story every time. Unfortunately. One day I hope people will wake up to realize that even if same sex marriages become legal in California (for good!) the people in these marriages will have no protection under the law in 40 out of our 50 states. This means that if a Californian same sex couple who is married should be transferred in their job to another state, there is a good chance they will end up in a state where they have no rights or protection for their family or their children or their joint assets. This is the bigger issue here. Their family and marriage will no longer exist under the law! What happens then? We don't even have an answer to that! Why should these citizens who are not protected under their states law's be paying the same state taxes as everyone else? If a gay couple's home and/or property is not even going to be protected should something happen, then why are they paying the same taxes as everyone else who's families and properties and assets are protected? This is called Separate and Not Equal. Again, this is not about marriage nor religious beliefs. We cannot grant protection to some of our citizens and not others. Anyone care to remember Jim Crow laws?

Housing discrimination refers to discrimination against potential or current tenants by landlords. In the United States, there is no federal law against such discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and only thirteen states along with many major cities have enacted laws prohibiting it. What the US needs is a Federal Law that protects gays in ALL 50 states and we don't have that. It's called Civil Rights and equal protection under the law.

Many people will do anything they can to stop the normalization and acceptance of gay people into society as a result of their extremist religious views but no matter what they think the Bible says, 10% of the world's population is gay and always has been! And those numbers don't even include bi-sexuals which is a huge group of people. I know people will want to argue that number, but what needs to be assesed here is the number of gay people that will never make it public out of fear of discrimination and being ostracized from their families and communities. People are born gay, they don't wake up one day and choose it, so at some point, it would be good to start accepting that fact.

Religious extremists (and I say extremists here) have always feared evolution and diversity because that would mean they are unclear about what their religion means to them. They are the ones needing definitions for everything. I have seen the world fight for Jews. I have seen the USA fight for blacks and their equality and their protection under our constitutional laws. Who will fight for the gays? I thought Obama would but clearly I am wrong. Harvey Milk did in the 1970's until he was assassinated in his workplace, SF City Hall, where he was a city Supervisor.

I hope people begin to realize that the definition of marriage changed a long time ago when people were granted the right to marry someone outside of their religion , and then outside of their race (thank god!). The definition of marriage has changed (evolved) several times before. Marriage in today's world is a social institution, but many people will insist it is a religious institution--If this was the case, then Catholics should not be allowed to marry Protestants (under the laws of marriage) and Christians shall be forbidden to marry Jews and so on and so forth. I can think of plenty of marriages that would be illegal if this mentality existed today.

Just when I thought we put in a progressive man in office that would choose to do what's right, and protect all people, he delivered a harsh blow to gay people everywhere. Obama said in his defense speech around choosing Warren that everyone knows he's a fierce advocate for gay rights and their equality. Really? I don't feel that way. I don't even know anymore who will take this on and demand it be a civil rights issue that we start working on fixing now. I feel saddened by the truth of this dim lighted situation gays face. I thought things would be changing for everyone for the better but Obama just killed that notion fast.

I realized yesterday again, that we have a long hard road ahead and the enthusiasm I hoped to feel surrounding Obama's historical inauguration has now been tainted. These are people's lives on the line, and it's a very thin and fragile line until we see Federal Legislation put forth that will protect America's last unprotected minority citizens, the gay population of all 50 states.

I hope you will take action and start speaking to your friends and family on behalf of this very serious civil rights issue. Gay people, like all people, deserve protection under the law. This is not a religion debate.

It's not just wrong. It's dangerous. Every time homophobia is left unchallenged, it sends the message to people struggling with their identity that there's something fundamentally wrong with them. It's heartbreaking, it's frightening, and it's flat out dangerous.

And while I can't come up with any satisfying justification for Obama inviting Rick Warren to the Inauguration, the fact is that Rick Warren will still be preaching intolerance, hate and ignorance whether he goes to the Inauguration or not.

But here's the thing. Whenever Warren is pushed to discuss his views on homosexuality- whether in a friendly forum like Beliefnet or a more critical setting like Larry King Live, he demonstrates that his views are harmful and seriously out of step with reality.

Which is why we at the Courage Campaign think it's high time for him to put up or shut up. Does he have the courage and the chops to debate Rev. Eric Lee about gay marriage? Sign the petition challenging him to make his case and let's find out.

If you don't know Rev. Lee yet, all I can say is...Bring it Rev. Warren. Let's just see what you've got.

Earlier today, Rick Jacobs emailed our members about our challenge, highlighting some of Warren's recent outrageous statements in the process:   Read More »

"Without hope, not only gays, but those who are blacks, the Asians, the disabled, the seniors -- the 'us's' -- without hope the 'us's' give up. I know that you can't live on hope alone, but without it, life is not worth living. And you, and you, and you have got to give them hope." - Harvey Milk, "Hope Speech," 1978

Hope doesn't win elections or change the world by itself. It's all people with hope that do it. The people who believe that not only SHOULD things be better, but somehow, some way, things will be better.

Attending a Milk+Love event on Saturday feeds both halves of the activist. A brief break from fighting for what's right to celebrate what's right and remember how we've gotten here. An extra infusion of motivation and hope before attending a Light Up the Night candlelight vigil.

Robert Cruickshank wrote to Courage members earlier this week explaining his personal connection to Milk and what this weekend can mean:   Read More »

Just like Clinton in 93, the gay community is once again on the bottom of the pecking list as far as our political leaders are concerned. They want our votes, but then screw us after we get them in office. Obama has now shown like 80% of the African-American community, that he does not support our basic rights and supports Prop 8 and the gay community. At least with the Republicans, we know where we stand with them.

I just saw an article where Rick Jacobs is soooo upset about Rick Warren giving the invocation at Obama's inauguration. He quotes, "It's a huge mistake, He's really the wrong person to lead the president into office." When did he come to this conclusion, now????? Are you serious???? After all the lies, associations and manipulations Obama has done prior to his election, you are just now questioning his intentions! You liberals can so easily be lead by your noses..... Are you sorry that you pulled the lever now for the Great Almighty, Obama.... HHHHHAAAAA!!!!

America is a democracy and people vote. The people of California voted to end gay marraige plain and simple. If you don't like what the people voted for then get out of our country and move to Spain. Gays are sinners. God created man and women to reproduce and marry.