Friday, March 20, 2009

If the California Supreme Court decides to uphold Prop. 8

2009 - 2010
Plan of Action

April-May 2009

California State Supreme Court hands down its decision. It is believed that this decision will uphold Proposition 8. If this is in fact the case, there will be various demonstrations and rallies statewide similar to those following the Nov. 4 election results in 2008. The LGBT community in California will then work towards a referendum initiative on the November 2010 ballot to legalize same gender marriage in California.

June - August 2009

Mobilize and train to gather signatures for the 2010 ballot initiative. This will be the first time since the early 1980’s when a referendum initiative was put onto the ballot by an all-volunteer signature gathering effort.

September 2009 - February 2010

Gather over one million signatures from California state residents to include a referendum initiative on the November 2010 ballot, which will make legal same gender marriage in California.

March 2010

Qualify with the California Elections Commission for the above-mentioned initiative.

April - October 2010

We will campaign for the ballot initiative, which will end legalized marriage discrimination in California and provide for full civil rights to same gender couples in our state.

2 November 2010

Election Day

For more information please visit:


Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Julian Bond at the HRC in Los Angeles

An excellent and moving speech by Julian Bond the Chairman of the NAACP at a Human Rights Campaign dinner held in Los Angeles. This is the civil rights movement of this generation.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Decision Day and our response

Click the graphic above for the full text.

March 9th at 7:30 PM, I attended an open forum presentation by David Cruz, a professor at the USC School of Law who specializes in Constitutional Law and Civil Rights issues. A co-presenter was Irving Greines a distinguished appellate court attorney with 40 years experience, who frequently argues before the California State Supreme Court. Both of these legal experts offered their reviews and commentaries on the oral arguments, which were presented before the State Supreme Court last week.

In brief, they noted a tactical error on the part of those arguing for the overturn of Prop 8. We had five attorneys arguing our case; whereas, those arguing to uphold Prop 8 as lawful agreed on only one attorney arguing their case. It was explained that the tactical advantage of having only one attorney argue your case is that it offers both more flexibility and more time to the one attorney. There was also a concern expressed about the degree, or even the existence, of coordination among the five attorneys arguing for our side. Although, Mr. Greines did mention that there was some coordination between some of our attorneys.

While this may all seem technical, it does point to a fatal flaw in our organizing abilities to date, both in the No on Prop 8 campaign prior to the election on November 4th and in coordinating argumentation before the State Supreme Court. A man was asked what party he belongs to, the response was: “I don’t believe in organized political parties--I’m a Democrat.” The genius of an effective joke is that there is a kernel of truth at its core. Of course, it is somewhat easier for political/social conservatives to organize in a tight top-down organization since; they tend to place a premium on external structure and authority.

While discussing the strategies and tactics of the legal argumentation, Professor Cruz stated that while he disagrees with Kenneth Starr’s approach, he performed brilliantly. The one point on which his argumentation was most vulnerable was when he was asked about the right of a simple majority to take away the rights of a vulnerable minority. Mr. Starr answered, that yes the majority has that right. Professor Cruz stated, that should have caused the justices considerable pause--it did not.

This last point was the most disturbing point in the whole evening. Honestly, as I mentioned in a previous posting, I had received several phone calls the day of the hearing before the court. Therefore, I expect the court to rule against us on this matter. What is truly alarming is not the matter at issue, Prop 8 and same sex marriage, what is truly alarming is the line of argumentation employed by Mr. Starr in which he states that a simple majority may strip a minority group of their rights and the lack of expressed concern by the justices.

In 2006 the US Congress passed and President George “W” Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act (MCA). The effect of this law was a casting out of habeas corpus laws which protect against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment. STOP and read that one more time. When I first read that in the morning newspaper, I was incredulous.

Since then the Executive branch of government, under George W. Bush had sanctioned torture, it should come as little surprise that a judicial body would condone the removal of civil rights of a vulnerable minority by a simple majority. This should however give pause to anyone who has thus far supported the “Yes on Prop 8” cause. Most especially, if they are part of a racial, religious or, gender minority or vulnerable group.

Professor Cruz eloquently stated, “The reason that a democracy can function is that minorities enjoy protection from a majority; otherwise, they would never consent to being governed by a majority.” This is a problem not of an “issue” (same gender marriage, etc) but of a “principle”(protection of minority's rights under the law). What is most disquieting about both government sanctioned torture and the stripping of civil rights from a vulnerable minority group, is that it threatens the very principles, which make a pluralistic democracy possible.

Even when we win on this particular issue, we are still left with the precedent that the government has done this and reserves the power to do so once more. I recall Benjamin Franklin’s response at Constitution Hall in Philadelphia when asked by a woman "Sir, do we have a monarchy or a republic? A republic Madame, for as long as you can keep it."

Another disquieting revelation was made when Professor Cruz announced that the “yes on Prop 8” side would most probably seek a referendum issue which would invalidate all same gender marriages which occurred in California between June 17th and November 4th 2008.

So now what? We continue to fight. On the day that the court announces it has decided to uphold Prop 8, various rallies will be held, public statements from LGBT organizations and empathetic religious and social groups. All of this is directed to the next step in our war against legalized marriage discrimination, a statewide referendum issue in November of 2010 that will amend the California Constitution to legalize same gender marriage. What this means is we will need your active help. We need to collect one million signatures in California from legal state residents to put this onto the ballot. This will be done by volunteers and not paid professional signature gathers. It will be the first time since the early 80’s that a ballot initiative will be put on the ballot by volunteer signature gathers.

It is helpful to view this as part of a process of change. In 2000 with the passage of Prop 22, Californians voted by a majority of 61.4% to restrict marriage to heterosexuals. In 2008 with the narrow passage of Prop 8, Californians voted to amend the state constitution to take away the right to civil marriage from same sex couples by only 52.2%. This is a loss of nearly 10% of voters on this issue in eight years. Eight percent who voted “yes” on Prop 8 lamented their vote and said they would vote “no” if they were given the option to do so. Well, we are going to give them that option. Younger voters overwhelmingly voted “no” on Prop 8 whereas, elderly voters overwhelmingly voted “yes” on Prop 8. Time is on our side, eventually, we will prevail.

Why not simply wait? Because, justice delayed is justice denied. Because, young LGBT people who cannot yet vote are being told that they are somehow “less” than everyone else is, that they are defective, that they can never form a union of love and life and have a home with someone they love. Because the same people who pumped tens of millions of dollars into California to strip same gender couples of their right to civil marriage, will now attempt to strip those same gender couples who were legally married of their marriage licenses. Because, other civil rights are in jeopardy for LGBT people both here in California and in the nation.

So, what can you do? Join us in Fresno to move minds and hearts. Contact and lend your time, talent and treasure to make a real difference. Together we will overcome this bigotry in California. Together we will overcome this bigotry in America.

Saving Marriage, a film for marriage equality

Repeal Prop 8?
A film that explains why we should
Friday, March 13 at 8pm - free screening & discussion
Tuesday, March 17 at 7:30pm - 10-minute scene & meeting

In the wake of the probable court decision upholding Prop 8, the next step is a ballot initiative in November 2010. Come see "Saving Marriage," the film that explains why marriage is worth fighting for.
"Saving Marriage" - see how marriage was won in Massachusetts
This Friday, join Love Honor Cherish at the Regent Showcase in Hollywood for a rare screening of the widely acclaimed film "Saving Marriage," about the fight to keep gay marriage legal in Massachusetts. Discussion with the directors will follow.

Friday, March 13 at 8 p.m.
Regent Showcase
614 N. LaBrea
Los Angeles
(suggested donation $5)

And, be sure to join Love Honor Cherish for our regular meeting next Tuesday, where a 10-minute segment of "Saving Marriage" will be shown, to be followed by a discussion about why marriage matters and what's next in California.

Tuesday, March 17 at 7:30 p.m.
Crescent Heights United Methodist Church
1296 N Fairfax Ave (at Fountain)
West Hollywood 90046

Park on Fountain Ave or at public parking lot on Orange Grove - 1 block east of Fairfax and north of Santa Monica Blvd. ($3 fee)


The Massachusetts fight for marriage equality has striking parallels to ours in California. Marriage activists lost at first, and then spent a year and a half changing hearts and minds before the issue came up for a second vote.

"Rambunctious and hopeful . . . an in-the-trenches, defiantly partisan and exuberantly big-hearted movie . . . [that] achieves a rare eloquence." - Jeannette Catsoulis, New York Times

"Acutely suspenseful ... A virtual how-to manual for changing hearts and minds."
- Kevin Thomas, Los Angeles Times

Winner, Best Documentary, New York Gay & Lesbian Film Festival

If you are unable to join us for the screening in Los Angeles please, consider renting this DVD at your local Video Store and watching it at home. We have much work ahead of us and this film is a valuable tool in the fight against injustice.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Love and Marriage.

I received a request to go into greater depth regarding both love and marriage as treated in the Gospel. Since all Prop 8 deals with marriage and therefore, presumably love, I believe this to be a timely question.
Two selections from the Gospel address these matters. The question of Love is addressed in Matthew 22: 36-40 and the question of Marriage are addressed in Matthew 19: 3-9.


Rabbi, which is the greatest commandment in the law? And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, and with all of your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and the first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."

Matthew 22: 36-40

The backdrop to this question is a practical one. There existed 613 distinct commandments in the Law, of which 248 were positive precepts and 365 were prohibitions. There was then a practical question in the minds of people serious about their spiritual life: What does God want of me? What must I do to attain peace and develop spiritually? This question is as timely today as was when first asked and has prompted many people to spend lots of time and money in the self-help section of their local bookstore. Jesus teaches the disciples the “Great Commandment” predicated on two passages taken from the Torah, the first five books of the Bible.

The first passage is taken from the book of Deuteronomy 6:4-5

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.”

This is known as the Shema and constitutes a Jewish confession of faith. People of Jewish faith, to this day, know this passage as people of Christian faith know the Lord’s Prayer.

The second passage is taken from Leviticus 19: 18

“you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Jesus states in Matthew 22:40 “On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

There are therefore three objects of our love: 1) God, 2) our neighbor (others) and 3) yourself. It is interesting that when most people read this passage they overlook the third that we must learn to love. Perhaps this is why we have so many twisted conceptions of God and why we find it so very difficult to forgive, let alone love someone else. If you don’t love yourself, if you fail to esteem yourself, if you think of your self as “damaged-goods” then, chances are that you will ultimately harbor resentments towards God and view others with either envy or, disregard.

You do not need an advanced degree in psychology to begin to see the implications of this for the spousal relationship, familial relationships, as well as for societal relationships. The first step in the spiritual journey is self-acceptance, healing, coming to personal integrity (wholeness) and true self-love. It is only then that we can love God (our Creator) and others.


This leads us to the next subject, that of marriage. This subject is addressed directly by Jesus in Matthew 19: 3-9. Please note that in verse 3 the motivation of those asking this question is revealed, “came up to him [Jesus] and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” It is important to understand the historical realities of Israel in this period 2,000 years ago. That we may understand the significance of this question and why it constitutes a “trap” on the part of those asking the question.

There existed two theological schools of thought in Israel at the time. Hillel was more liberal and Shammai was far more conservative on what constituted grounds for divorce. Shammai interpreted the passage in Deuteronomy, which grants permission to divorce to be limited only to instances of adultery. Hillel held that a man could divorce his wife for any reason.

It is also important to note that in Israel at that time, adultery was considered a sin/crime against a married man. If a married, man had sexual relations with a single woman that was not adultery. If a single man had sexual relations with a married woman, he committed adultery against her husband.

The strategy in asking this question was simple. If Jesus sided with Shammai, they would have effectively discredited him with Hillel. If he sided with Hillel, they would have effectively discredited him with Shammai. Either way, they would “get him.” Their motive in asking the question is itself corrupt since it does not come from a desire to discover the truth, the will of God or to grow spiritually but from a desire to entrap and destroy someone else. However, Jesus responds in a much-unexpected way by appealing to the Book of Genesis.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”
Genesis 1: 27-28

“Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh.”

Genesis 2: 24

This is an appeal to the original institution of marriage; Jesus goes behind the Law to creation. The questioners were inquiring as to their rights, Jesus counters by citing the will of God. No doubt, they were very unhappy with the answer they received but they could hardly contest the insight. The fundamental insight is that marriage has two ends: 1) Procreative and 2) Unitive. The first point requires little commentary; sex is a divine gift, which ensures the continuation of the human race.

The second point has caused countless volumes to be written. It is worthwhile to observe that the family clan was the primary “safety net” of ancient people. The second citation from Genesis implies that the spousal relationship takes precedence even over the parent/child relationship. In other words, your spouse is your primary “safety net.” The spousal relationship is therefore, the most intimate relationship between two human beings in this life at least that is the implied divine intent found in Genesis when it states, “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh.” Sex is also a divine gift, which helps to form intimate bonding between the spouses.

Jesus accomplishes several things by abolishing the right to divorce found in Deuteronomy. He corrects an inequality found in marriages of his time where women were de facto property of their husbands. Since marriage is now “for life” it theoretically makes possible a level of intimacy between the spouses, which was previously practically impossible. Since, a woman could be divorced “at will” by her husband and put out onto the street, she was unlikely to speak her mind or, reveal her heart for fear that she would be divorced. It is important to keep this point clearly in mind, lest we descend into a new form of legalism where marriage is simply viewed contractually and the whole point of mature intimacy is lost once more. Many are in “legal” marriages, which rob both parties of an authentically intimate union of love and life, which is a real marriage. Do not sacrifice the substance for a form.

At this Jesus’ questioners object: “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” In contemporary language, this would probably read but the Bible says we may divorce in Dt. 24:1. Who are you to change things? Their question contains the seed of an answer they do not wish to hear. God speaking in the Torah in Genesis established marriage as between two people. In the Torah in Deuteronomy, God’s spokesperson Moses grants permission for divorce. This constitutes a change in both the law and its practices. Now Jesus changes things yet again in the Gospels.

Jesus offers the explanation “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so.” We forget that the Bible is not a book; it is a library of books written over 1,500 years. As such, while God inspires it, it also represents a movement through history of our collective relationship with God. While God is unchanging, we are not. We are still developing and growing both as individuals and collectively. In the Gospel Jesus is letting us know that God meets us where we are but he walks with us in our personal and collective development. Jesus speaking in John 16:12-13 states bluntly: “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.”

There is still much which we have to learn both as individuals and collectively. The conversation between the questioners and Jesus in the Gospel passage, in many ways reveals the conversation between God and us. All too often, we begin with a set of preconceptions. We often begin asking what is required of me and what my prerogatives are. Jesus corrects these attitudes and places a new question in the mind of the questioners. What does God desire for me? Not what is permissible but what is optimal? In the passage from John, the implication is that what we are called to exceeds our imaginations, that we could not “bear” the thought.

The “Unitive” end of marriage was the farthest thing from the minds of those who questioned Jesus that day. The teaching of Jesus in Matthew 19 is not about replacing one set of marriage laws with a new set of marriage laws. It is about expanding the minds and the hearts of humanity to what a true marriage really means. It is supposed to be a union of love and life, which enriches the married couple and all of society. The concept of marriage has never been uniform throughout the scriptures or, in human history.

Not all marriages are open to procreation elderly couples will not reproduce. Therefore, not all sexual acts are open to conception. This does not invalidate the marriage of two heterosexuals in their 70’s. This does not rob the act of making love between two spouse of its life affirming and tender value, simply because it cannot produce a human offspring. The unitive end of marriage is sufficient for a valid marriage. Why then is this untrue for two people of the same gender?

In 1975 when the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [formerly known as the Holy Office of the Roman Inquisition] of the Catholic Church stated that homosexuality is innate. The Spirit revealed to the Church that God has created some people as gay/lesbian. The Spirit had led us to a new understanding of the truth. As Jesus stated, this would be hard for many to bear but, evidently, the time has come for us to embrace this truth. Once the Spirit revealed this truth, it became the duty of those in ministerial positions to offer sensitive and realistic spiritual guidance to gays/lesbians. Trying to put old wine into new wineskins will not work, as Jesus warned us. It is time to view our faith as an unfolding process worked out in partnership with a loving Creator and not as a static code of laws to which individual lives must be bent and mindlessly sacrificed.

Gay and lesbians have been sacrificed, through depression, through physical abuse at the hands of people who have been taught to despise and hate them in the name of a loving God. Through suicides committed by LGBT adolescents who have been educated to hate themselves in the name of that same loving God. The battle for marriage equality laws is not simply a political battle. It is a battle for human lives and human dignity.

It is time to open our minds and our hearts. It is time to love God, our neighbor and ourselves-authentically.

Friday, March 6, 2009

How do I speak to Christians about civil marriage equality?

I recently spoke to a group working for equality in civil marriage laws. Someone asked me “How do we speak to Christians who have religious issues with same sex marriage?” This is an excellent question and one, which I will attempt to answer in this posting.

Edgar Allen Poe wrote, “The best place to hide something is an obvious place since, no one would ever think of looking for it there.” We are speaking here about CIVIL marriage law and NOT religious marriages. As a Catholic priest for over 23 years, I often had couples come to my office requesting sacramental marriage (a religious marriage) that I had to turn away because they were previously married. Even though they had obtained a valid CIVIL marriage license from the state of California or, in many cases had been married CIVILLY for many years. Such couples are not permitted to be married in the Catholic Church and their CIVIL marriages were viewed by the Catholic Church as invalid, since they had already been married before to someone else.

In the Gospel of Mark chapter 10 verses 11-12 Jesus is speaking and he states bluntly:

“And he said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

For those of you with “red letter edition bibles” these words appear in red ink. Why? Because they are not merely the words of say, St. Paul, etc. but of Jesus. They are not found in one of the epistles but in the Gospel. Yet, when was the last time that a fundamentalist minister went up into the pulpit and read these words to his congregation? Why do they not give “fire and brimstone” sermons condemning “adulterers? Why then, do they not mobilize a referendum initiative and spend tens of millions of dollars to forbid divorce in California? After all, Christ in the Gospels condemns divorce and remarriage.

The simple answer is that most of their congregants would stand up and walk out of the church. Money would dry up! The truth is that many of the faithful have been divorced and re-married to someone else and many of them multiple times! Therefore, it is acceptable to read the bible literally, when you read the words of St. Paul in the first chapter of Romans but, WHOA, we have to be very “pastoral” and delicate in our treatment of the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark! It simply makes more business sense to ignore the words of Jesus.

Therefore, fundamentalists turn out not be such “bible Christians” at all. When it comes to the Catholic Church, the only Christian church that LITERALLY reads the bible on this matter, the church in the United States of America has made a fine art of interpreting Canon Law (church law) in a way that the Catholic Church in England, Mexico, Germany, etc. would not dream of doing. So much so that our Canon Law professor at the seminary told us of Rome’s displeasure in how the local Church (USA) liberally grants questionable annulments. Why does the Catholic Church in the USA do this? Because we would lose untold numbers if we interpreted the bible and church law the way the rest of the Catholic Church does elsewhere.

The highest rates of divorce in the United States are not in California or New York; they exist in the Bible belt! On their own terms, by their own standards, these churches or rather, their leadership is condemned. The very Bible they use to condemn same sex couples convicts them of adultery. Furthermore, the ministers/priests who officiate (d) at the marriages of people who have been previously married are in the light of the Gospel, accomplices to adultery and promoting it within society. In doing so, according to the Bible, they attack and undermine families and the family values which they so vociferously claim to defend.

You want to protect marriage? You believe in Christ and the Bible? Then do as he commands in Mark 10: 11-12.

Perhaps now, you understand the wisdom of your right to a CIVIL marriage. Perhaps now you understand the dangers of literal interpretations of the Bible. Perhaps now you comprehend why it is unwise for a pluralistic society to allow religious institutions to dictate civil law. If so, then extend those same rights to everyone else.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Love the bigot, hate the bigotry.

The rain poured down hard at times; when I spoke, I could see my breath form clouds in the air. I would have expected a very small crowd, at best. I would have expected that they disperse in the face of the cold and harsh rain-they did not. Many of them said we need the rain! It is a blessing for California. They sang and they applauded the speakers. Many of them renewed their wedding vows before the Mayor of Los Angeles. At the end, they vowed to support the state justices if they ruled in our favor and to work to change the law via a ballot initiative if the justices ruled against us.

I went home, drank a Theraflu and went to bed. This morning, I received a phone call from one of the volunteers at California Faith Equality. Her tone was somber as she explained that things did not look too good at the State Supreme Court. I smiled and attempted to comfort her. I received many more such calls during the day.

Will the Court uphold minority rights and protect them against the tyranny of a simple majority? Perhaps, however, a short drive to the ruins of the Manzanar Detention Center just northwest of California City will remind you that they did not intervene to protect Japanese American’s rights during WWII. The water-boarding and other torture, which our government has engaged in during these last many years, is a fresh stain on our flag. Yes, it can happen here because it did happen here and it will probably happen again.

Still, there is reason to hope. Manzanar is closed. Gitmo will be closed and we can organize, elect responsible politicians and change discriminatory laws. Is this a time to be sad, to be angry? Yes, we are human beings after all but channel those emotions positively. Let them be servants and not masters of your intellect. Let them fuel your will and not cloud your judgment.

What can you do right now? Get together with some friends, console each other and then go to

Sign up. Lend your time and your talents. Many good people are working very hard to change the present unjust reality. Ultimately, we will win. In 2000 Prop 22, which denied civil marriage to same sex couples, passed by 61.4%. In 2008 Prop 8, which denied civil marriage to same sex couples, passed by 52.2%. Which means that those in favor of legal discrimination against same sex couples LOST ALMOST 10% AT THE POLLS IN 8 YEARS! That after having spent a record 38 million dollars in a well-organized and deceptive campaign, which was in large part sponsored by non-profit religious organizations especially the California Catholic Conference of Bishops (and their surrogates), the LDS (Mormons) and fundamentalist “Christians.” In 2010, we will win equal rights under civil law.

It is unbelievable but there was a time within the lifetime of many in our state, when people of different races could not enter into civil marriage with each other. It was the will of the majority. One day, people will look at us in disbelief when we tell them that we had to fight for the right of civil marriage for same sex couples. In 2010, we will win equal rights under civil law that will be a happier and better day than today.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Eve of Justice vigil

Tonight, Wednesday March 4th, there will be vigils held throughout California and in other states in our nation. The State Supreme Court will begin hearing a case to consider overturning Prop 8. I have included a letter from Mike Roth, a member of LOVE HONOR CHERISH in this post. Love Honor Cherish is working very hard to help guarantee marriage equality for all of us. Please join us at the vigil here in Los Angeles tonight and bring some friends. We will overcome this injustice!

Tomorrow morning the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the validity of Prop 8. Tonight, I will one of thousands demonstrating statewide to send a unified message to our fellow Californians, including the Supreme Court Justices, that individual liberties like the right to marry are guaranteed by the Constitution to everyone and cannot be stripped away at the ballot box by a bare majority.

In Los Angeles, the demonstration is downtown on Olvera Street. I'm going to be there rain or shine. I hope you can join me.

The event is called "Eve of Justice: Lighting the Way for the Supreme Court" and I've been very involved in its planning for the last several weeks. It started as a simple ceremony downtown and has now expanded to over thirty cities across the state.

We have a very moving program planned:

- Legal update from one of the attorneys who will be appearing before the Supreme Court tomorrow morning (she's hopping on a plane as soon as she's done speaking)
- Recommitment ceremony for already married couples (whose fate will also be determined in this Supreme Court case) performed by Mayor Villaraigosa
- Candlelight vigil
- Musical entertainment
- March down Main Street to the court building downtown where the Supreme Court convenes when they are in L.A. (The Prop 8 case is in San Francisco.)

The media will be there and it is crucial to have a strong showing. My goal has always been to get 1,000 people to show up downtown. The rain will make things difficult, but I still think we can reach the goal. The program starts at 5:30 pm, but don't worry if you can't get there at the beginning. Just get there. Please.

In solidarity,
-- Mike Roth