HYPOCRISY ABOUNDS WITH SAN DIAGO HOTEL OWNER

San Diego hotelier and developer Doug Manchester was a very early financial supporter of Proposition 8. His $125,000 donation was a key factor in moving Prop 8 forward and sparked an on-going boycott of his hotels.

His reasoning in making such a large personal donation was, according to a New York Times interview at the time, because of “my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church.”

Of course we all know that the Catholic Church was one of the biggest and most aggressive forces behind Prop 8, second only to the extraordinary involvement of the Mormon Church. We also know that both religions are virulently homophobic, calling gays and gay marriages immoral and even an abomination against God.

They believe, and by logical extension so too does Doug Manchester, that gay marriage is evil and a direct threat to the very institution of marriage itself. They also believe that heterosexual divorce is just as immoral and just as much an abomination as same-sex marriage and therefore prohibit that as well.

Apparently Manchester's morality and commitment to his religion seems to be based solely on his own personal interests. Like most of the publicly avowed true believers, if there's a conflict between what he wants and what the Church will allow, then of course personal desire will instantly trump religious beliefs.

And here's the glaring hypocrisy of Douglas Manchester. After 43 years of marriage to Elizabeth Manchester, Doug decided that he was tired of it and simply moved out. This was in October of 2008 and was followed by Doug immediately filing for divorce and pushing very hard for a quick settlement of their multimillion dollar estate.

This is where it became a sad imitation of a bad soap opera. Obviously knowing the kind of man she was married too, Elizabeth hired her own lawyers as well as forensic accountants to fully assess Doug’s assets. From there, things devolved very quickly.

Doug apparently began shifting his finances around to make it harder to fully assess his worth. And, despicably, stripped their joint bank account and even stole an 8.2 million dollar tax refund check made out to both of them and deposited it his own private bank account in an attempt to force Elizabeth to agree to his terms.

This is one of those ugly divorces that is probably going to take a few more years to settle. But the actions of Doug Manchester throughout all of this ordeal has certainly spotlighted his true persona. For a man who tried to paint himself as a true and devout Christian when he gave $125,000 to defeat gay marriage in the name of protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage, he has clearly shown himself to be a crass hypocrite - completely dishonest, devious and wholly immoral.

This, to me, is the kind of person who is supporting and funding the fights against anything and everything that might, even remotely, benefit the LGBT community.

How long is it going to take the honest, rank and file religious believers to finally see the ugly, carnivorous wolves beneath the sheep's clothing?

Action Alert For California's Anti-Gay Marriage Proposition 8

Early this morning I recieved a comment to yesterday's post, "Be Careful Out There..." According to the comment by Chino Blanco, a demonstration is being planned for August 14th in Irvine California. It well be against the PR firm Schubert Flint Public Affairs which was just hired to handle the promotion for the Yes on Prop. 8/Protect Marriage campaign.

Although the comment didn't really relate directly to the article, I feel it deserves attention. From what I understand at this point, the Shubert Flint firm was one of the primary players in the public relations campaign to justify the Iraq war and has now agreed to take on Proposition 8 (for a hefty fee I'm sure).

You can read Chino's article about this demonstration at the website Pam's House Blend.

His comment is posted at "Be Careful Out There..."

If you live in California or you might be visiting there, the demonstration will be held August 14th at about 5:00 pm. The address is:

Schubert Flint Public Affairs
2020 Main Street
Irvine, CA 92614

I'll keep you posted as soon as I get more information.

UPDATE...

First, a correction - The Schubert Flint Public Affairs firm was not, itself, involved in the selling of the Irag war BUT its senior partner, Jeff Flint, was one of the people involved in that campaign. Chino Blanco, in an excellent report posted at DailyKos.com said that at the time, Flint was with Russo Marsh & Rogers who represented the pro-Iraq War group Move America Forward which was responsible for the very public campaign to invade Iraq instead of pursuing Usama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

Just to give you a better idea of the kind of people that Jeff Flint and Jennifer Kerns (who was just hired by Schubert Flint as the Communications Director for the Pro-Prop 8 campaign) really are, consider the following statements they recently made publicly: Flint, in mimicking Barack Obama, said "I'm for change....blah blah blah...I's for bringing people together...blah blah blah...let me quote Obama some more....blah blah blah...." If that isn't a not so subtle stab at racism, what is.

And Kerns, in describing how she's going to handle the campaign, said: "One of our campaign cornerstones will be the fact that if the initiative [to ban gay marriage in California] doesn't pass that public schools will be forced to teach the difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage."

Back to the demonstration. They're still working out specifics but I am now in direct contact with Chino and will keep you posted on further details.

If you have any questions about the demo you can post a comment/question here. If you don't want your comment or question to be public you can still use my "Comment" link at the bottom of this posting. I screen ALL comments that come into my blog so I don't have to publish it if you don't want me to. Chino said that you could also go to his blog at chinoblanco.blogspot.com and post there as well. I'm not sure if he screens his comments before they're posted but I'll check with him and let you know.

One last thing - a comment left on one of Chino's postings made a very astute point. Many of the clients of Shubert Flint are, in all likelyhood, opponents of Prop 8 and probably don't know much about the firm's involvement to pass it. That's why this demonstration has an excellent chance of being very successful. Once they know just who is representing them, a lot of those clients just might start rethinking their association with Shubert Flint and very well might decide to change their representation.

Massachusetts Will Allow Out-Of-State Gay Marriages

The Massachusetts House of Representatives voted 118-35 yesterday to repeal the 1913 law that prohibits the marriage of couples from out-of-state if their own state doesn't allow those unions.

The law was originally intended to prevent interracial couples from coming to the state to marry because they couldn't do it in their own state. It became obsolete when those marriages were declared legal nationwide by a 1967 Supreme Court ruling but it was never officially taken off the books. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared gay marriages legal, the then governor Mitt Romney dug out this bill from forgotten, dust covered files and declared that it applied to gay marriages as well.

By their actions yesterday, the House agreed with the Senate (see my July 15th post) and rebuked Ex-Governor Romney by repealing that discriminatory law. Current Governor Deval Patrick has said all along that he would sign the repeal. It now goes to his desk.

Congratulations to the Massachusetts House and Senate for a job well done!

Latest Poll Shows Majority Opposed To Proposition 8

According to The Field Poll survey conducted in English and Spanish between July 8 and July 15th, 51% of likely California voters oppose a ban on gay marriage.

The Field Poll surveyed 672 Californians who are likely to vote in the November election. Only 42% support the ban.

According to The Field Poll itself;

"Democratic and Republican voter sentiments are poles apart on this issue. Sixty-three percent of
Democrats intend to vote No, while 68% of Republicans are ready to vote Yes. Non-partisans are
overwhelmingly on the No side – 66% to 27%.

There are also big differences in voting preferences by region. Voters living in California’s coastal
counties, which represents 69% of all likely voters, oppose Prop. 8 56% to 37%. Opinions are
almost reversed among Californians living in inland counties, where supporters outnumber
opponents 54% to 40%.

The strongest opposition to Prop. 8 is found in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, where
voters oppose Prop. 8 by a two and one-half to one margin (67% to 26%). They are joined by
voters in Los Angeles County who are also on the No side, 51% to 41%.

By contrast, voters in the Central Valley and in other parts of Northern California outside of the Bay
Area are opposed on the order of five to four. In Southern California areas outside Los Angeles
County, preferences are more evenly split (50% No and 45% Yes).

Women voters are lining up on the No side of Prop. 8 to a greater extent than men – 54% No and
40% Yes among women vs. 49% No and 45% Yes among men.

By age, opposition to Prop. 8 is greatest among younger voters under age 30, as well as among
"baby boomers" in the 50 – 64 age bracket. Voters in other age groups are more evenly divided.
White non-Hispanics, African-Americans and Asians are lining up on the No side by five to four
margins. This contrasts with the voting preferences of Latinos, who are supporting Prop. 8 five to
four.

There are also big differences by religion. Protestants favor Prop. 8 56% to 40%, while Catholics
are evenly divided. By contrast, voters affiliated with other religions or who have no religious
preference are opposing Prop. 8 by wide margins.

Evangelical Christians favor the amendment better than two to one, 66% to 31%. However, non-
evangelicals are on the No side 59% to 34%.

There is greater opposition to Prop. 8 among voters who personally know or work with gays or
lesbians. This group, which includes nearly three in four voters statewide, opposes Prop. 8 54% to
40%. On the other hand, those who have no personal familiarity with gays or lesbians favor the
amendment by a narrow margin."

Let's hope that margin not only holds but increases between now and the election. In the meantime, I'm also going to research any polls taken here in Arizona for our own discriminatory anti-gay marriage ballot proposition. I'll keep you posted on both.

To see the entire poll results, go to: The Field Poll

Boycott Of San Diego Hyatt Called For

According to an article posted on signonsandiego.com, a boycott of the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego has been called for. Apparently the owner, Doug Manchester, donated $125,000 to the Anti-Gay Marriage amendment (Proposition 8) in California.

Fred Karger, who is one of the organizers of the boycott, said he is also urging the public to boycott Manchester's other hotel, the Grand Del Mar. “This is someone who is giving an exorbitant amount of money to write discrimination into the constitution for the very first time,” Karger said. “Our goal is to create a business loss for people who contribute. We want to make it a little uncomfortable," he added.

Andrew Pugno, an attorney for protectmarriage.com, which supports Proposition 8 said “Support for traditional marriage is a mainstream view. I can't imagine that efforts to boycott businesses with mainstream views are going to be successful.”

However, in May of this year, after the court ruling legalizing gay marriage in California, the non-partisan Field Poll found a majority of California voters opposed a constitutional ban and by a slimmer majority for the first time supported same-sex marriage. Also, two gay rights organizations, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and PlanetOut Inc., moved events they had scheduled at the Manchester Grand Hyatt to another location. So, it seems that Mr. Pugno's comments about mainstream views and that the boycott wouldn't be successful are turning out to be wrong on both counts.

Mr. Manchester, by the way, said that his hotel doesn't discriminate and that he welcomes the GLBT community. If that isn't the height of crass hypocrisy I don't know what is. He's happy to take our money but doesn't want us to have the same rights that he and his family has. What's wrong with that picture?

If you're planning a trip to San Diego, I would urge you not to stay at either the Manchester Grand Hyatt or the Grand Del Mar.
Staying at any other Hyatt is actually recommended since the Hyatt Corporation itself is a very strong supporter of our community and has scored very highly for their non-discrimination policies. Hopefully, the corporate office will bring a lot of pressure down on Manchester. After all, most people will only recognize the name Hyatt and wouldn't necessarily make the distinction between the whole chain and a single hotel.

You can read the full story at: signonsandiego.com

Heterosexual Mormon Professor Opposes Church Leaders

My partner just sent me this media release he discovered at Affirmation.org which is a support group for gay and lesbian Mormons.

The release is a letter from Professor Jeffrey Nielsen who is currently at Westminster College after losing his job at Brigham Young University for opposing the church's leadership.

In his "Open Letter to California Mormons" he said, in part:

“We should never allow our constitutions, whether state or federal, to become weapons in a crusade to impose a particular religious value system upon a pluralistic democracy”

I am a member of the Mormon Church, a married heterosexual, and a supporter of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. I am asking you to pause and give sincere thought to the letter from our religious leaders you have heard read, or will soon hear read, over our church pulpits asking you to get involved and oppose marriage equality in California. Please think deeply about this, not only as a member of a particular church, but also as a citizen of a democracy.

To press for an amendment to a civil constitution that would legalize discrimination against an entire class of people is no small matter, but of the greatest significance. When the argument, no matter how well intentioned, is based solely upon a religious proclamation; then, I believe, it is a serious contradiction of the wisdom of our founding fathers. It also does tremendous damage to the great progress in civil rights we've made in our country respecting the equal dignity of each person and towards a more certain legal equality for all citizens.

As you can see, not all Mormons think alike. As usual, it's the hierarchy that needs to be educated. Unfortunately, under the current leadership of this church, you can be severely punished for speaking out against policies or teachings you disagree with. Fortunately, there are more and more Mormons with the same courage as Professor Nielsen. Let's hope their numbers grow fast enough to unseat the bigoted leaders that this church still has. It's people like Professor Nielsen who have made this country great. Now, it's your turn. Speak out!

The letter, in its entirety, can be seen at: affirmation.org

Obama Strongly Opposes Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

In stark contrast to John McCain who just switched his position from neutral to outright support for California's Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment, Barack Obama has come out in strong opposition to it.

In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club that was read at Sunday's annual Pride Breakfast, he wrote...

"I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law . . . that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states."

He went on to say that...

"For too long, issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect."

How can we not support someone who supports us in such a strong way.

If you'd like to read the whole story, it's at: Yahoo News

Arizona Anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment

Yesterday, eleven Arizona Senators voted against Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 1042 effectively killing it - for now. This is the resolution that would put the anti-gay marriage amendment to Arizona's Constitution on the ballot in November.

According to Equality Arizona, SCR 1042 failed to pass by a vote of 14-11, with 5 members not voting on final read. It needed 16 yes votes to pass. Openly-gay Senators Paula Aboud (D-28) and Ken Cheuvront (D-15), along with longtime ally Senator Caroline Allen (R-8), stood strong as leaders to defeat this bill.

While the bill failed to pass yesterday, it could be brought back up for another vote because a majority of Senators on the floor at the time supported a motion to reconsider by Senator Linda Gray (R-10)

In its email announcement, Equality Arizona said that the motion to reconsider "...is one more desperate attempt to activate the extremists within these Senators' districts. This is truly divisive politics. Arizonans should be outraged at this abuse of the Legislative process by a handful of legislators who are pandering to the likes of Cathi Herrod and the Center for Arizona Policy, a subdivision of national extremist political groups."

If you live in Arizona, please take a few minutes to either email, phone or fax your state Senator and urge them to vote NO if SCR 1042 is brought back for another vote.

To find who your State Senator is for your district go to: Arizona State Legislature