Under such a scenario, unless something new develops, Proposition 8 would be invalidated, but the invalidation would come in a ruling that could never be taken up to the higher courts to set any precedent that might be applicable outside California or that might induce (or even allow) the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in.

Directly after the celebration following Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling, there was disappointment because the ninth circuit chose to overturn Walker’s refusal to stay the opinion. Them, it started in the Gay Press- the speculation that the case was most likely dead, because those who sought the appeal probably didn’t have standing.

An activist friend, posted one of the celebratory posts to Facebook, and I commented that it would be short-lived. This was only a holding time till the next set of legal fights. He scoffed at me- that I hadn’t read the whole article, but I had and I was right all along anyway. The ruling is far from a final chapter in the big battle for equality. The linked post is a detailed description of some of the options and what they may mean for the next phase in the battle over Marriage Equality, in California and across the nation.

I am on record (and have been criticized before) for believing that the main focus for LGBT Rights should be Federal or all state protections in employment, housing and public accommodations. Bills like ENDA must be passed because if people can be refused a job or fired for being Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, or Transgender, there is little value in getting married, only to have that used as justification as they throw you out the door. However, the battle for Marriage Equality is a righteous battle, based on a solid foundation of real equality, and it isn’t going to be stopped or even slowed, so it is important to support it and all the while, keep fighting for other protections and rights. Additionally, these battles are inextricably intertwined as legislators don’t want to support non-discrimination fearing it to be merely a stepping stone towards marriage.

My biggest fear is that Marriage Equality will become another Roe v Wade, where decades after that ruling Abortion remains as controversial today as it ever was. Will we get a case through the Supreme Court but never see an end to the controversy? That’s my worst fear. But in rational moments, I think that once Marriage Equality is legal, and more and more same-sex couples marry, the controversy will end pretty quick. But- will it take getting to the Supreme Court?

If that happens, the findings and opinion resulting from the trial conducted by Judge Walker will also likely be erased.

That would be a tragic step, given how methodical and detailed Judge Walk was in laying down a case full of evidence that could hold up to higher levels in the appeals process.

No matter how passionate you are about Marriage Equality, it is in your best interest to understand the nuances of Walker’s decision, and what the next steps may mean. It could mean the difference between an end to Prop 8 for California, or a cornerstone for the foundation of the case that will allow Same- Sex Marriage across the entire country.

via Understanding “Standing” in the Proposition 8 California Same-Sex Marriage Appeal: Part One in a Series.

Countering NOM may make Marriage Equality supporters feel good, and let them blow off a bit of righteous steam, they also totally play into meeting NOM’s needs and help them garner publicity where they might not otherwise get any. Why are we helping them be successful, even if it makes us feel good?

Truly, a case can be made for counter protesting NOM. They are speaking a pack of lies, and a counter demonstration illustrates to all that not everyone agrees with their twisted ideas. In a counter protest, we (Marriage Equality supporters) are visible, and places human faces on the issue. And it makes us feel good, and that isn’t unimportant. Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and allies face frequent disappointment and struggle so that we need to appreciate and utilize every opportunity to feel like we can make a difference. But that’s the real issue. Do we really make a difference when we counter protest, or if we do, is it enough to warrant the action?

Despite what some people feel, the NOM leadership is made up of some very smart folks. Sure, the do these public things, like their bus tour to have an effect, but their real goal is getting money into states to do damage to our efforts. This was their primary goal in both California and Maine, and it is why they are fighting so hard against the full disclosure of their donors and finances. Things like the bus tour function like a magician’s slight of hand. It feeds their base, and draws attention away from their really damaging activity- the money and funding.

If we really want to harm NOM, or gain any real value, we need to turn our focus towards shining a light on their money and funding ventures, and leave the wacky protestors alone so that the media leaves them alone as well.

I think there is a reason why NOM is coming to Pennsylvania that deserves some discussion.

The governor’s race. Tom Corbett has already promised that if he is elected governor, he will push for the legislature to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. This is exactly the type of thing NOM wants to see. NOM can help solidify support for Corbett. A counter protest probably only helps Corbett more. To benefit Marriage Equality efforts in PA, we need to make sure Tom Corbett is not elected governor.

Diane Gramley and the AFAPA. Like it or not, we have a very active and vocal anti-gar rights activist in Western PA named Diane Gramley. Her loyal followers may not be that numerous but they sure are vocal. NOM can only strengthen the AFAPA. The solution to that isn’t a NOM counter protest but rather we must continue to organize in every community small and large across Pennsylvania so that our voices are loud, and there is always ample push-back to the AFAPA.

Constitutional Convention. I’ve been told I’m so wrong about this one, but I’m not yet convinced. Both Dan Onorato and Tom Corbett are suggesting changes to state government that will require a constitutional convention to be held. While all of the talk is that social issues will be off the table, but how will that play out, especially if the Republicans win big in November? Especially following the CA Prop 8 decision, NOM will be working overtime to get as many states as they can to have as many obstacles as possible to stop gay marriage. A constitutional convention would certainly be a good place to do some of that work.

Those calling for counter protest cite how justified they are and how marriage equality is a right. But not one I’ve spoken to or read can say how, in a tangible way, a counter protest will further our goal of obtaining real equality.

I have one exception to the no counter protest idea, had that is when NOM gets to Washington DC. There, NOM will get the media attention no matter what, and so there, it becomes important to get a huge crowd out.

If you disagree, or agree, leave a reply and explain how you se this issue.

Word is that Judge Walker will release his prop 8 verdict and the blogosphere is all in a buzz! And for good reason. This is probably the single most anticipated court ruling for LGBT issues. Individually, it could impact California law and the prop 8 ruling, but could also impact marriage law across the entire country. Coupled with the recent DOMA ruling in New England, the stage will be set for the next phase of the court battle for marriage equality.

I won’t participate in the speculation, nor add another voice to the discourse about what it (whatever it is) will mean. If all goes well, I’ll weigh in on it after the ruling is released this afternoon.however, it is being reported that the anti-gay prop 8 supporters have already filed a stay pending appeal decision. This may actually be more important than the actual ruling itself.

We know that the ruling will be appealed no matter what then decision is, and Walker, almost painfully, laid out a meticulous case so that there was no stone unturned and the court record would be as detailed as could be as the case moves through the appeals process towards the Supreme Court. But what about the time between now and the appeal? I’m slipping into speculation. More later!

Everything you need to know about Perry vs. Schwarzenegger before the decision is released

Good overview/preview from towleroad.com

He and his fiancée, Elyse Buxbaum, have decided to wed in Connecticut this year in what they described as a protest of New York’s failure to legalize gay marriage. In the half year since the New York State Senate defeated a bill to allow same-sex marriage, a parade of politicians have proclaimed their anger at the inability of gay couples to marry in the state. But Mr. Stringer, a potential candidate for mayor in 2013, may be the first to boycott New York’s marriage bureau — an act that he hopes will encourage his constituents (and fellow lawmakers) to get married in states like Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts that have sanctioned gay marriage. “This gives Elyse and I a chance to take personal responsibility,”

Joe. My. God.: SOLIDARITY PROTEST: Manhattan Borough President To Marry Out Of State.

The criteria used by the Governor, can’t be understood as anything other than, “because it looks too much like Marriage.” Never mind that it isn’t marriage, and still leaves gay and lesbian couples with a vastly smaller number of rights and protections compared to opposite sex couples who can actually get married. If it looks too much like Equality, it must be a bad idea for Hawaii.

For Pennsylvanians, there is another message here. Consider what can happen here, if, our state government becomes Republican controlled, and Corbett supports the anti-gay groups? Corbett has already made clear that once elected he will push for a constitutional amendment in the PA constitution that will make marriage as being only between one man and one woman, and the general consensus is that if he wins, the Republicans will also win the House, and he will have little trouble getting the constitutional amendment through both the Senate and House quickly, setting the stage for a battle at the ballot box in 2 years. Let’s get real. We know how this goes when conservative voters who have been fed tons of scare tactics and lies about same-sex marriage vote on the rights of the minority. If Corbett wins, we can put money on adding that type of discrimination into the PA Constitution, and setting the state back a decade or two.  Did you know that at one time, Pennsylvania was seen as a leader in Civil Rights? Funny what can happen over time.

But another view is emerging, that is both more startling and more encouraging at the same time. Groups like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) try to frame the issue as Gays trying to redefine marriage, when it reality, the issue is anti-gay forces are trying to redefine the Family. Their goal is to make sacrosanct, the notion of the nuclear family of Father, Mother, and Children. A notion of Family like this has never really existed or worked in any time of history or civilization. Since the 50’s, the number of single parent families has risen dramatically, and research shows that children raised with one parent or two parents of the same-sex are often better adjusted and more successful than children raised in a “traditional” setting. Marriage hasn’t been working out too well, since long before gays and lesbians started to push the idea of making their own relationships permanent.

Yes, I called that encouraging, even if it is startling.

Encouraging, because at least the truth is really starting to come out, and the more the anti-gay bigotry is seen for what it is, the easier it is to get moderates to see that Marriage Equality hurts no one and protects and helps many. Encouraging, because no longer can the bigots claim to support the rights of GLBT’s except when it comes to marriage. They will have to start owning that their discrimination goes far beyond the right to marry.

HONOLULU — Hawaii’s governor on Tuesday vetoed legislation that would have permitted same-sex civil unions, ending months of speculation on how she would weigh in on the contentious, emotional debate.

Republican Gov. Linda Lingle’s action came on the final day she had to either sign or veto the bill, which the Hawaii Legislature approved in late April.

“There has not been a bill I have contemplated more or an issue I have thought more deeply about during my eight years as governor than House Bill 444 and the institution of marriage,” Lingle said at a news conference. “I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same-gender marriage, and find that House Bill 444 is essentially marriage by another name.”

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/07/06/general-us-hawaii-civil-unions_7746546.html

This battle is far from over. In Hawaii, in Pennsylvania and across the country.

If you have read my blog for even a short length of time, you probably have gathered that while I fully support Marriage Equality, it is not the highest priority on my list for LGBT rights. Partly because of living in Pennsylvania, where a person can be legally fired or refused housing, simply because they are perceived to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered,  I see non-discrimination as the biggest and most important priority. But if I’m honest, I am one of those queers who also questions why we, in the most general sense of being a GLBTQ community, seek to validate an institution stepped in religiosity, that has traditionally been used to subsume womens’ rights to a male dominated culture. As intellectual arguments go, both of these ideas have real merit. But today, I want to write about why we should get married, as if neither of these intellectual positions were applicable. We should get married. We should be getting married. We should be getting married where it is legal, and where it isn’t legal. We should be getting married.

Yesterday’s wedding was the third same-sex marriage I’ve attended in the last 22 years or so.  The first was Jane and Paula’s wedding, a ceremony in North Carolina. Unlike Brenda and Harriet who chose to wed in a state where marriage is legal, Jane and Paula chose to wed in their home church congregation. Granted, same-sex marriage wasn’t legal anywhere, back when they got married. My, things change in 20 or so years! But I was struck by one aspect that was the same in both weddings. The degree to which the community, represented by all the friends and family gathered were essential elements of the wedding. Sure the wedding is about two individuals who through a public commitment become a single family unit, and cease being two separate individuals. But that is only one aspect of it.

By the way, Jane and Paula- still going strong!

There is plenty of writing out there, which details why gay and lesbians couples deserve to be treated as equal members of our society, and that includes the right to validate our relationships. It is almost a matter-of-fact kind of thing. Just common sense. But today, I want to say that we should be getting married, because it is a radical, outrageous, and activist thing to do.

Probably one of the oddest things about Brenda and Harriet’s wedding, was just how straight the assembled friends were. Granted, we didn’t have name badges that specified sexual orientation, but I’m pretty sure that Brad and I were the only two gay guys there, and we met only one lesbian couple! For me, this was a testament to the way real life works, and the way our sense of family and friends are blind to little details like orientation. The people we come to love, care for, support and depend upon, are those people, not because of their sex, sexual orientation, familial status or any of a number of other things. Rather love, mutual respect and the things that seem to be a part of who we are underneath all the labels is what draws and keeps us all together.

The gathered mix of friends and family say a few things. It says much about the community and families of both choice and origin for these two women. But it also represents something much larger than that. It isn’t only gay and lesbian couples who believe in same-sex marriage. We are not alone, and have many supporters.

There is probably someone gasping right now, because it appears I just called sexual orientation a “little detail.” But I hope you understand my point. The “straightness” of the wedding however, simply demonstrates how normal it seems to many straight people, that when two people love each other, and want to be in a committed relationship, they should get married.

We should be getting married. Our (meaning gay and lesbian) relationships are not new or novel. Same-sex partners get together for all of the same reasons, opposite-sex partners do. And they go through the same ups and downs as any other couple. They face hurdles and struggles and find great rewards and good stuff too. But even though same-sex civil marriage is relatively new, men and women have been forming and maintaining relationships for a long, long time. We should be getting married to make visible these relationships- as one more way of being out of the closet and visible, not just as individuals but as couples and families.

We should also be getting married because through the very act of having the wedding, we invite our friends and family to stand in solidarity with us through the good and the rough times. Part of those rough times are combatting the homophobia and hatred at work that seeks to keep gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people hidden and in the closet. We should get married, because the wedding itself is an act of recruitment. Not the recruit-you-to-be-gay type, nor even the Harvey Milk i-want-to-recruit-you type, but rather the how-can-someone-who-has-laughed-and-danced-and-helped-celebrate-the-joining-of-two-persons,-not-go-out-and-be-more-of-a-spokesperson-for-equality kind of recruiting? In other words, through celebrating our unions, not only do we make our primary relationships more visible and meaningful, but we also name our friends, family and community as real, visible, meaningful, and, dare I say it, sacred.

Brad, does not agree with all of these ideas, and you may not too. On the flip side, looking to marriage to validate our relationships can be seen as a way to dismiss other non-marriage/non-union relationships as less important. This would be a real shame. all relationships where hard work and love come together to make a family are special and important. The other point that can be made that it isn’t the act of getting married that doers the trick. Any way in which we mark as significant our relationships  accomplishes the same thing, and thrusts into the spot light the reality of our lives and the realness of the ways we couple and make lives together.

What do you think? Are you ready to come out through making your relationship visible, or by accepting your responsibility as a part of a person’s community to support equality? Do you see this more like me? Or Brad? or do you have other viewpoints? Add a comment and share your ideas.

Two sex scandals this week (there were more, really) just make these seem like the silliest reasons to oppose same-sex marriage. If you want to protect marriage, children and the family, then perhaps we need to start with the heterosexuals.

Utah House Leader Admits Naked Hot-Tubbing With 15-Year Old Girl

Before you get your panties all in a bunch, I am not going to take any swipes at the Republican party here. Sure, Kevin Garn, the gentleman (haha) in the linked story here is a Republican, but our other top scandal-maker this week, is Eric Massa, who is a democrat. I don’t think straight men scandals are determined by party affiliation.

In a nutshell, here is what Garn did:

Maher detailed the incident in an interview with the paper. She said that in 1985, age 15, she was employed by Garn, then 30, at his business, Pegasus Records and KSG Enterprises. Garn, she said, “struck up a relationship” with her, as the paper puts it. One night, he took her to a location in Salt Lake City — it’s unclear where — where they both got in the hot-tub nude.

Garn states that there was no touching of any kind, but come on- a 30 year old man, who was married at the time, getting into a hot tub with a 15 year old employee in the nude. How many things about that are just plain wrong. Just inviting a subordinate, and a minor to get naked with you- that seems exploitative, bordering on direct sexual abuse.

If the incident itself isn’t wrong enough, the coverup and payoff is truly evil.

After she began contacting reporters and legislators with her story, Garn and his wife arranged a meeting with Maher and her Mormon bishop. Garn offered to pay her $20,000, but Maher’s husband insisted it wasn’t enough, and she demanded $150,000. Garn paid up, and had his lawyer draft a non-disclosure agreement in which she pledged not to go public with her story.

Here is the part that really gets my blood boiling.

Garn and his wife arranged a meeting with Maher and her Mormon bishop…

This isn’t a story about some straight white republican who acts inappropriately with a minor. It is a story of a man, and his wife and a Mormon Church official.

Did you catch that? This isn’t a story about some straight white republican who acts inappropriately with a minor. It is a story of a man, and his wife and a Mormon Church official. So, often these types of stories get portrayed as if it is the man who is a dog, but the wife here is as evil as the husband if you ask me, not to mention that a Church official….

But my partner and I who have been together for 12 years, and simply want the same legal and civil rights as a straight couple. Neither of us have ever done anything inappropriate with a minor, nor have we tried to buy off someone’s silence to keep our evil deeds a secret. But we are supposed to be the ones who are a threat to the family and to children?

Really?

Utah House Leader Admits Naked Hot-Tubbing With 15-Year Old Girl | TPMMuckraker.

Have attitudes changed here about same-sex marriage?

Explain It to me!

May 06, 2009| By John Micek Of The Morning Call

Q. Are attitudes changing about same-sex marriage? The hot-button issue that was once front and center in the Culture Wars recently has been in the headlines. Iowa and New Hampshire have sanctioned same-sex unions, and legislation is moving in New York and Maine. How do people feel about that now?

A: Pennsylvania law bans same-sex marriage, and foes have made repeated attempts to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage.

But a recent Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll shows that public attitudes statewide are softening on the controversial issue.

Fifty one percent of Pennsylvania residents oppose granting same-sex couples who marry the same rights as traditional marriages, down from 54 percent in a 2004 Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll.

More people today (42 percent) say gay marriage should be recognized, up from 35 percent who said that in 2004.

Similarly, public support for civil unions has increased from 54 percent five years ago to 61 percent in 2009.

“In many ways, gay rights issues remain highly polarizing in Pennsylvania,” Muhlenberg pollster Christopher Borick said. “But, when you look over time, you see a gradual acceptance of both civil unions and gay marriage.”

Residents remain divided on whether to amend the state Constitution to outlaw gay and lesbian marriage. Forty-five percent oppose such an amendment, 44 percent support it, a statistically insignificant difference.

Despite the ambiguity, Pennsylvanians are united on one thing: Same-sex marriage isn’t a campaign issue. Six in 10 respondents said a candidate’s stance on the issue would not determine whether they support the candidate, compared to 34 percent who said it did.

The Morning Call/Muhlenberg canvass of 446 adults was conducted from March 9 to March 31. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 5.5 percentage points.

– John L. Micek, Call Harrisburg Bureau

Here in the US, a few strategies have been tried when it comes to selling same-sex marriage. One of these, is to focus on the “civil” part of civil marriage. Same-sex couples who already live in committed relationships,  but they are denied the 1400+ rights and privileges that straight couples take for granted. In other words, it is a simple issue of equality and being treated the same as others. Another strategy has been to focus on the fact that gay families do already exist, and are all around us. Ads such as those used in the Maine battle showed same-sex families- they brought a real human face to the issue.

I have for the most part, focused on the first. It is logical, and non-confrontational. I have felt that it is also the best argument when trying to battle the religious fanatics because it has nothing to do with moral judgement. I have believed that the second strategy is as important, if not more important, but promoting the message, “our families are just like your families” has never really sat well with me. How I am alike a straight person is not why I deserve to be treated equal. My similarity or difference is not the deciding factor. All americans deserve to be treated equally. Period.

But another side of this issue is every bit as real as these, and one I have known, but haven’t really addressed, and it is this one that has all the religious crazies in such a tizzy. Getting married is a way that humans validate their commitment to each other, and set the stage for building a life together. The CEREMONY of it, including all the ritual and hoopla is important and meaningful and these things are every bit as valuable as the 1400+ rights that follow.

I have written quite a bit about the gender role basis of Christian opposition to gay marriage: God the Father and Son; the dutiful virgin mother; the church understood as Christ’s bride; even Adam and Eve. So much of Judeo-Christian orthodoxy relies upon gender roles and a male dominated power system. Same-sex marriage defies those gender and power dynamics and threatens the very nature of the Church’s (as institution) control of our lives.

The ceremony of marriage itself, spare and minimal expressed as a set of questions before a Justice of the Peace, or elaborately expressed through a series of rituals and vows called a Wedding, does something essential, by bonding two individuals together  within a community to be something that didn’t already exist. To be a family.

In some regard our oppressors are correct- same-sex marriage is a redefinition of family. Where they are wrong however is in suggesting that without same-sex marriage , family only means what they claim it does. Family has been redefined by many for a very long time. We are just giving voice to that reality. They are also wrong when they suggest that a redefinition of family will invalidate the meaning and value of their own marriages. The success or failure of straight marriages  is based entirely on the individuals within them, and not on some rule about what is supposed to be. This is why the “sanctity of marriage” argument is so laughable. Even if there was never a gay or lesbian couple who wanted to marry, it isn’t hard to look around and see the institution of marriage crumbling – families destroyed by lies, selfishness, betrayal,all that goes with these behaviors.

The creation of family happens regardless of the gender of the participants. Straight couples and gay couples, and the strength of those commitments over time are not dependent on the gender differences of the two participants. Doesn’t every family deserve the right to begin with a ceremony?

My partner and I have been together for 12 years, but we are not married in the legal sense. If one day we get married, it won’t be the ceremony itself that defines us as a family. It has been 12 years of work that has done that. The strength of our commitment to each other, and how that bond has been strengthened  or tested through the bad as well as the good times. We have not had a perfect relationship. But there is no doubt that it has been a strong, meaningful, and enduring relationship.

I remember as a young man just coming out as gay, reading that I would never be happy. The straight powers that be, have tried to define who we are as gays and lesbians, and tried to tell us what is and isn’t acceptable. Yet, they have been utterly wrong at every turn.  I have had a full , happy and amazing life that I wouldn’t trade for anything! For gays and lesbians, demanding same-sex marriage is one more step in the process of gays and lesbians defining themselves instead of allowing others to define us. For our culture around us, allowing same-sex marriage is simply an act of acknowledging what already exists- that family already means more than what a rigid gender-role definition suggests.

Turin, Italy Mayor ‘Marries’ Lesbian Couple in Symbolic Ceremony – Towleroad, More than gay news. More gay men.

“The church supports this ordinance because it is fair and reasonable and does not do violence to the institution of marriage,” said Michael Otterson, managing director of the LDS Church’s public affairs office.

The Mormon Church has been extremely active in supporting anti-gay marriage battle, and may be recognizing how their previous strategy is a recipe for a back fire, because the strategy has changed. The accusation is that those who are opposed to Marriage Equality do so, because they really want to discriminate in any way against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. Proponents of full equality and equal rights have labeled the opposition as bigots, and now, they are recognizing that label as damaging to their goal. The church is not speaking of this as a change in strategy, claiming that it was articulated in an August 2008 statement.

But August 2008 is really not that long ago.

The LDS identifies their goals here:

…the LDS Church “does not object to rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.”

“The church remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman,” he said.

This may be a more gay-positive stance than that taken by far-right groups like the National Organization forMarriage (NOM) and draws a line in the sand that everyone should be able to understand. But the real problem is that Marriage Equality does neither, and so their arguments against it are irrelevant. Marriage Equality doesn’t force any church to do anything against their religion, so the second point is moot. Their first point, gets a bit muddier, because 1) it assumes that the “integrity of the family” is a set concept easy to define, and that currently exists, and 2) is linked solely and completely to the gender of the parents of a family. The integrity of the family, in other words is all about procreation, at least for the Mormons.

Before going any further, this is a positive development to see the LDS take a public step forward for the rights of gay and lesbians. But otherwise, this is the same old stuff we have been battling and must continue to battle. There is no mention of bisexual, or trans rights in this ordinance, and no protection in public accommodations. So, at least gay people can work, but they can still be refused a hotel room or a seat in a restaurant.

A more interesting story appears if you read down through the comments following the blog post. Here, in the comments is where we see the actual position of Mormons begin to be expressed. Some folks are outraged that their church would say anything supportive of gay people at all. Other see this very matter-of-factly and support it- for them the church is acting fairly and reasonably here, and except for the failure of the ordinance to protect bisexuals and trans people, and failure to include public accommodations, I completely agree.  The line in the sand, is the biblical and/or church ownership of marriage, and GLBTQ activists need to come to grips with that. If we continue to fail to understand the line in the sand, we will continue to fall short in ever battle against our opponents.

I am not suggesting we should accept their line in the sand, rather we have to quit fighting against the wrong enemy! We can say this is hate-based and use the catchy “NoH8,” but in doing so, our attempt to reframe the battle as one of love vs hate misses the mark. They are winning the battle when it comes to framing the issue! The real enemy is a restrictive and unsupportable notion that marriage is between one man and one woman. The enemy is the false notion that the integrity of the family is dependent upon a household with a male and female parent. This is the framing of the issue and the rhetoric we must learn how to confront and beat.

via Deseret News | Mormon Church backs protection of gay rights in Salt Lake City.