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?

PROP 8 LAWYERS SPEAK OUT

If you've been following my last two posts, you know that the California Supreme Court let Prop 8 stand but still allowed marriages already performed to be valid and legal. Confusing? Of course. Contradictory? You bet. But because of the way the ruling was worded, the path to future gay marriages in California is still wide open.

On one hand, they made it clear that they were forced to rule only on the legality of Prop 8 being on the ballot but, on the other, they also made it clear that some gay marriages can remain legal which immediately sets up the dichotomous conflict of the same basic citizen right being both legal and illegal in the same state. That kind of legal conundrum can only be finally decided in the U.S. Supreme Court. Which is exactly what's about to happen.

If you saw my article yesterday, you already know that two of the nation's top legal minds who have both argued before the Supreme Court have agreed to act as co-councils in the lawsuit filed by the American Foundation for Equal Rights.

Ted Olson and David Boies argued against each other in the now infamous 2000 Bush v. Gore presidential election Supreme Court case that was watched and scrutinized by virtually the entire world. Earlier this week they appeared on Larry King to discuss their reasons for taking on this historic case. Below is the video of that interview:

The only thing I'm very concerned about with this action is the make-up of our current Supreme Court. Even with the addition of Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor who will replace Justice David Souter, the court will still have the same ideological make-up.

However, even given that, I am still very hopeful that at least one or two of the other justices will vote in favor of this simple and very clear-cut case of civil rights.

Who knows, maybe we'll luck out and Obama will be able to appoint another justice before this case reaches the court. Stranger things have happened.

PROPOSITION 8 HEADED TO U.S. SUPREME COURT

As expected, Tuesday's decision allowing California's Proposition 8 to stand is now, officially, headed to the United States Supreme Court.

According the transcript of a press conference held yesterday and posted at Box Turtle Bulletin, Chad Griffin, board chairman of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, announced that they have filed a lawsuit in the federal courts against the state of California. In addressing the press conference crowd, Griffin said:

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling that had a profound effect on California gays and lesbians. We saw thousands of people take to the streets last night to express their sadness, grief and dismay at the court’s failure to protect their fundamental rights. But yesterday’s ruling had an even more profound impact. It signaled to gay Americans across this nation that we are not viewed as equal in the eyes of the law. To every American whose rights are being denied, we’re here to say this fight is not over and we will win.

We’re taking this fight to the federal courts in order to protect the equal rights guaranteed to every American by the United States Constitution. Our courts exist to protect our rights when they are violated, and we are prepared to go all the way to the United States Supreme Court to find justice.

We are acting now because as Dr. King said, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” For even one couple to live through one more day of state-sanctioned second-class citizenship is one day too many.

The seriousness of this effort is underscored by the stature and reputation of the two attorneys who have agreed to act as co-councils for this action.

Both are seasoned professionals who have argued before the Supreme Court in what is probably the highest profile and most contentious political battle in the history of our country.

Ted Olson and David Boies are the two attorneys who argued against each other in the now infamous Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case that was watched and scrutinized by virtually the entire world. According to Griffin, these two outstanding attorneys are working together to fight this historic civil rights battle because "they share an abiding belief that all Americans are guaranteed equal protection under the law, and are guaranteed the right to marry the person they love."

Ted Olson said at the press conference;

The case we filed on behalf of the individuals that you see before you today is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. We’re here, in part, to symbolize that. This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States constitution.

David Boies followed by saying;

Our constitution guarantees every American the right to be treated equally under the law. There is no right more fundamental than the right to marry the person that you love and to raise a family.

The courts exist to reverse injustices. The purpose of our constitution and the purpose of our court system is to make sure that the promise of our constitution is extended to every American. That’s what this lawsuit is about.

I just hope that when this case does reach the Supreme Court there are enough justices seated at that time who will agree that this is, indeed, a case of equal justice and equal treatment under the law. Hopefully, Obama will be able to replace at least one of the extreme rightist with someone more attuned to the true intents of our founding fathers.

Since Sotomayor's appointment would keep the balance the same, it does seem that my hope is a pie-in-the-sky dream because at least one of those extremists would have to die or resign before then. Would it be wrong to say I'm keeping my fingers crossed?

CA SUPREME COURT RULES - BAD NEWS/GOOD NEWS

A couple of hours ago the California Supreme Court announced it's rulings on Proposition 8 and the validity of the marriages already performed.

The bad news is that they ruled in favor of upholding the infamous Proposition 8. A News Release from the court stated:

The 136-page majority opinion notes at the outset that the court’s role is not to determine whether Proposition 8 “is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals believe it should be a part of the California Constitution,” but rather “is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.”

The court ruled that Prop 8 didn't constitute a "revision" of the state's constitution because it only addressed a narrow definition of the term "marriage" but didn't prohibit legally established same-sex relationships...

Instead, it carves out a limited exception to these constitutional rights by reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples, but leaves undisturbed all of the other aspects of a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and to the equal protection of the laws.

On one hand it sounds like they're saying that their ruling doesn't preclude legal, same-sex relationships as long as the word "marriage" isn't used. And that the ruling doesn't necessarily represent their own, personal feelings about the amendment itself.

It's almost as if their words embody a strongly implied encouragement for us to pursue the legalization of our relationships under any other name than "marriage." Unfortunately, that brings us right back to the "separate but equal" conundrum. And that, to me, is a totally unacceptable option. We've seen how easily legal "civil unions" can be dismissed by homophobic medical and legal professionals and scores of businesses simply by the phrase "well, you're not really married" so they feel they're legally free to ignore our relationships. After all, the laws and regulations do say "married couples" this and "married couples" that.

The good news in this debacle is that the court did uphold the legality of the 18,000+ marriages already performed before Prop 8 passed. The elephant-in-the-room on that one though is the question of how difficult is it going to be for these couples to convince those same homophobes that their marriages are legal when the only thing all these people are going to remember in their tiny little minds is that the court upheld Prop 8.

That aside however, I DO CONGRATULATE those who were "married" and wish each and everyone of them the happy and fulfilling lives they seek.

Obviously, the battle is far from over in California.

If you would like to read the press release or the opinions themselves, go to:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/
They can be downloaded in either PDF or WORD formats.

DEMONSTRATIONS TONIGHT...
As I reported yesterday, there are going to be demonstrations in cities around the country tonight.

IN PHOENIX:
Rally at 6pm on 7th Avenue at Camelback in the lot next to Charlie's.

IN TUCSON:
Rally at 6:30pm in Catalina Park (1st St. & 4th Ave.)

FOR ALL OTHER LOCATIONS:
Go to: DayOfDecision.com

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT TO ANNOUNCE THEIR DECISIONS ON PROPOSITION 8

Today is Harvey Milk's birthday. He would have been 79. There are candlelight vigils planned for this evening from Sacramento all the way down to San Diego to commemorate this day. Queers United has posted the specifics for where and when each of these vigils will take place.

So how appropriate is it then that the California Supreme Court also published a notice today that their decisions on the three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 will be filed at 10:00am (pacific time) next Tuesday, May 26th?

After a long 3 month wait, we're finally going to find out whether we're going to have celebrations or demonstrations. This has been one of the most closely guarded decisions the court has ever issued. No one on the court or in their offices has leaked any information that might give a clue about those decisions so no one, outside of the court, is really sure which way they'll go.

Here in Phoenix (as well as across the country) a Day Of Decision action is planned for Tuesday evening. John Allard, who works with Marriage Equality and Day Of Decision, said this morning:

I'm thrilled that the California Supreme Court gave us an entire three day weekend to spread the word that DAY OF DECISION will be TUESDAY, MAY 26. In PHOENIX we will rally at 6pm Tuesday evening on 7th Avenue at Camelback, next to Charlie's. Please spread the word about this over the holiday weekend. It is important that we mobilize a large number of people in response to this decision.
See you TUESDAY!

If you would like to know where and when an action is planned in your area, go to: DayOfDecision.com

Looks like this is going to be a very long weekend.

NEWLY ANOINTED REPUBLICAN PARTY CHIEF MISSED NAACP'S MEMO

Apparently the newly anointed head of the Republican Party, Michael Steele missed NAACP's recently announced position on California's anti-gay marriage Proposition. He either missed it or just simply chose to ignore it for political expediency and to solidify his newly acquired position.

In NAACP's statement, released just days before the California Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the challenges to Prop 8, President and CEO, Benjamin Todd Jealouse said, in part:

"The NAACP's mission is to help create a society where all Americans have equal protection and opportunity under the law. Our Mission Statement calls for the 'equality of rights of all persons.' Prop. 8 strips same-sex couples of a fundamental freedom, as defined by the California State Supreme Court. In so doing, it poses a serious threat to all Americans. Prop. 8 is a discriminatory, unprecedented change to the California Constitution that, if allowed to stand, would undermine the very purpose of a constitution and courts - assuring equal protection and opportunity for all and safeguarding minorities from the tyranny of the majority."

Accoding to reports by Box Turtle Bulletin and Thinkprogress.org, during a radio interview, right-wing host Mike Gallagher asked Steele, “Is this a time when Republicans ought to consider some sort of alternative to redefining marriage and maybe in the road, down the road to civil unions. Do you favor civil unions?”

Steele's response was,

"No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country? I mean this isn’t something that you just kind of like, “Oh well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage.”

Gallagher continued to push the subject by asking, "So no room even for a conversation about civil unions in your mind?" Steele answered, "What’s the difference?"

In stark contrast to this exchange is the fact that last November, Steele told the Washington Times that the party needs to reach out to new communities and that it “has to realize that there are constituencies in the body politic that have no interest in conservative litmus tests based on same-sex marriage and abortion.”

In fact, just days after Steele won the election to head the GOP, he told ABC’s George Stehanopolous that his party would seek to include those who support gay rights.

And, in another interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday, the following exchange occurred:

WALLACE: You are one of the co-founders of something called the Republican Leadership Council which supports candidates who favor abortion and gay rights.

STEELE: Yes.

WALLACE: Does the GOP need to do a better job of reaching out to people who hold those views?

STEELE: I think — I think that’s an important opportunity for us, absolutely.

This whole thing, at best, illustrates the hypocrisy and duplicity of the Republican Party. At worst, it shows that the religious right-wing is still firmly in control of the party and that Steele's election was nothing more than a smoke and mirror attempt at making the party SEEM more inclusive.

Sadly, that would relegate Steele to the position of the "token black" who is only there for window dressing but has no real authority himself.

Proponents Of Prop 8 Leave An LA Times Editor Speechless

The Los Angeles Times editorial board has a long-standing practice of inviting representatives on both sides of an issue to meet with them (separately) before publishing editorial opinions. This gives each side an opportunity to express their feelings and gives the editors a deeper understanding of the issues.

The LA Times published their opinion on Proposition 8 in an editorial on August 8th. Apparently though, some interesting and outlandish statements were made during a meeting with supporters of Prop. 8 that weren't published in the opinion piece that opposed that measure.

Karin Klein, who is an editor and was at that meeting, published her account of it at the LA Times Blog Opinion L.A.. Karen said:

At one point, the conversation turned to the "activist judges" whose May ruling opened the door to same-sex marriage, and how similar this case was to the 1948 case that declared bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional. According to one of the Prop. 8 reps, that 1948 ruling was OK because people are born to their race and thus are in need of constitutional protection, while gays and lesbians choose their homosexuality. So much for the expert opinions of the American Psychological Assn. and the American Academy of Pediatrics that people cannot choose their sexuality. Oh, those activist doctor types.

As if that weren't bad enough, Karen went on to say that one Prop 8 supporter said:

Gay rights are not as important as children's rights, and it's obvious that same-sex couples who married would "recruit" their children toward homosexuality because otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers.

Even though Karen is an accomplished and seasoned editor, she said that she was left momentarily speechless. She also said that the recruitment argument "made no logical sense at all."

Wouldn't it be great if the editors here in Arizona and in Florida held their own meetings and then reported on those. Give a fanatic the opportunity to talk in that kind of environment and they will invariably show themselves to be the idiotic fools they really are. We just need to make sure that they have that opportunity and that the media covers their comments in earnest.

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