Republicans Already Stealing Votes in West Virginia and Not Doing It Very Well in California

(Check out the voting technology in your state here. Also, check out stealbackyourvote.org.)

West Virginians have reported electronic voting machines flipping votes for Obama to McCain.

Virginia Matheney and Calvin Thomas said touch-screen machines in the [Republican] county clerk's office in Ripley kept switching their votes from Democratic to Republican candidates.

"When I touched the screen for Barack Obama, the check mark moved from his box to the box indicating a vote for John McCain," said Matheney, who lives in Kenna.

When she reported the problem, she said, the poll worker in charge "responded that everything was all right. It was just that the screen was sensitive and I was touching the screen too hard. She instructed me to use only my fingernail."

Even after she began using her fingernail, Matheney said, the problem persisted.

These types of problems have been occurring since 2000; why haven't they been fixed yet?



Here's what another WV resident had to say:

Shelba Ketchum, a 69-year-old nurse retired from Thomas Memorial Hospital, described what happened Friday at the Putnam County Courthouse in Winfield.

"I pushed buttons and they all came up Republican," she said. "I hit Obama and it switched to McCain. I am really concerned about that. If McCain wins, there was something wrong with the machines.

"I asked them for a printout of my votes," Ketchum said. "But they said it was in the machine and I could not get it. I did not feel right when I left the courthouse. My son felt the same way."

Republicans are responsible for election oversight in both of the counties where fraud has been reported. They are giving the media all the same snarky lying bullshit that they spewed in 2004 and 2006 about it being the voters' faults, the incidents being isolated, blah blah blah. We've all heard this before! and the consequences are no less dire.

But Ma'amselle, you say, maybe it's just a computing error and not anything intentional. Then why is it that there has never been an instance of GOP votes switching to Democratic in the 4+ years this has been happening?

Congress has been remiss in passing legislation to ban these pernicious electronic voting machines. My least favorite Democratic Senator next to Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein--who has voted recently for things like telecom immunity and unwieldy blanket copyright legislation--introduced this stupid bill in May that would force electronic voting machines to print out a record of your vote as some sort of receipt. Here are the problems with that:

• The legislation would not go into effect until 2012 (2 years after I've voted Feinstein's dumb ass out of Congress and 4 years into the Presidency of whoever wins this November), so it doesn't actually do anything of any use to anyone right now. Way to posture on empty promises again, Feinstein, you jerk!

• A machine's "source code" is the software programming that outlines, "When a user does this, the computer responds by doing this." The source codes of these machines are proprietary; that means that the companies who write these codes into the machines (like Diebold, owned and operated by Republicans) will not let anyone see the codes. Their defense is, "If we were to show you the code, someone might steal it, and then our company would no longer be competitive in manufacturing voting machines." (Heaven forbid.)

Hey, Dianne Feinstein, someone at one of these companies could write something into the code that said, "Change an Obama vote to a McCain vote, and then print out a receipt that says, 'Obama'," and no one would ever be able to catch it.

Now that I've worked myself into a good rage, let's talk about exit polling for a second. Exit polling is when someone goes out and asks voters immediately after they've cast their votes: "Who did you vote for?" and records the results. People tend to, well, not lie when asked about something they've just done, so these stats are remarkably reliable. Funny as it might sound, this simple technique is used internationally by organizations as big as the U.N. as a tool to gauge whether an election is rigged; if the exit polls don't match the polls themselves, something is amiss. For instance, let's say I won by 46% in the exit poll but only 39% in the actual election; that would indicate my opponent had stolen votes. You can see how even a seemingly small percentage--just a couple of points--makes an enormous difference.
I bring this up because 2006 saw the defeat of two incumbent Republican Senators, George Allen of Virginia (the "Macaca" guy) and Conrad Burns of Montana. These guys were defeated by very narrow margins--so narrow that they were entitled to state-sponsored recounts (i.e. they wouldn't have to pay anything for them). Even though they both could have asked for recounts--free of charge--neither accepted, each conceding the race to his Democratic challenger. Everyone wondered, why? Why would these morally bankrupt, thieving, lying scumbags who would stop at nothing to win suddenly have a change of heart and gracefully step into the shadows?

Well, because their exit polls were off! Challenger Jim Webb (full of awesomeness) beat Allen in the exit poll 52%/47%; the election itself yielded a victory of only 49.6%/49.2%--a five percentage point discrepancy. Challenger Jon Tester (full of super-uprising-awesomeness) beat Burns in the exit poll 53%/46%, while the election itself was 49%/48%--a six-point discrepancy. Just about everywhere else in the country saw accurate exit polling that year--a huge step up from the 2004 elections and partially the effect of the rejection of electronic machines in some places; however, these two places had voting machines, the only electoral tools that could have possibly produced errors such as those stats--errors far beyond the human capacity to have been that wrong by accident.

Here's my point: any recounts in those areas would have required the manufacturers of the systems to reveal their source codes. They would have had to go inside the machines to expose not just which votes were logged for whom but exactly how they got logged inside the system. Burns and Allen, Republican jokers both, knew this and couldn't concede fast enough to protect their shadowy conspirators from having to demonstrate exactly how their machines took all those Democratic votes and turned them Republican magically. (For a fantastic and in-depth look at this, please visit this truly awesome article on InTheseTimes.com.)

Are you still not convinced voting machines are a bad idea? Really? Fine. Watch this Princeton prof. hack into a machine in one minute:

This electronic machine monkeybusiness is still legal, everybody, because Congress has been sitting on its lazy ass passing things like making November National Methamphetamine Awareness Month. I mean, really! I am a total stoner, and I can only imagine if there were a "Marijuana Awareness Month" to alert people to the dangers of smoking weed. Let me tell you, hardly anyone is more aware of danky herb than I am, and if I were to hear people talking about awareness of the ganj day in and day out, I would compulsively have to smoke bowlz. Oh, Congress!

But I digress. Some places have been passing local resolutions to ban electronic voting machines, and we should all pressure our local elected officials to do the same. Check out what the Deputy Secretary of State in West Virginia (a Republican) had to say:

"Sometimes machines can become miscalibrated when they are moved from storage facilities to early voting areas," Bailey said Friday. "We get a couple of calls about this each election year."

Miscalibrated! Like one of those pesky zeroes in the software code accidentally flipped to a "1" when someone shook the machine too hard! That makes total sense! And even assuming that could happen, she obviously suspected it could happen and didn't care--didn't bother to recalibrate any machines or check to see if they were working beforehand. Well, exactly! She's a crooked-ass elected official!

Look, O.K.? you don't want this to happen:

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

In other election fraud news, in the midst of all this ACORN bullshit is a real story--an actual arrest in California:

SACRAMENTO (L.A. Times) -- The owner of a firm that the California Republican Party hired to register tens of thousands of voters this year was arrested in Ontario over the weekend on suspicion of voter registration fraud.

State and local investigators allege that Mark Jacoby fraudulently registered himself to vote at a childhood California address where he no longer lives so he would appear to meet the legal requirement that all signature gatherers be eligible to vote in California. His firm, Young Political Majors, or YPM, collects petition signatures and registers voters in California and other states.

So please don't get distracted by the Republican crocodile tears about Democratic voter fraud. They are afraid they are going to lose, so they are trying to claim foul play in a desperate last-ditch attempt to garner sympathy (or something)--"Look, Obama stole the election before it even happened!" Give me a break. Look at the headline of this article. Go ahead, I'll wait. Now look at the data I've just given you. What can you infer? That's right, Republicans are covering up lies with more lies plus extra-special fake outrage. These crooks acting all offended make me sick.

So I said it up there but I will say it again: go visit Steal Back Your Vote.org. They can't steal the election if we all turn out!

Lesbian Politics: Is Gay Marriage Good for McCain?

MotherJones.com has a very interesting article this week entitled "Will Gay Marriage Help McCain?"

Much has been said about the impact of the gay marriage debate on political discourse. Senator Dianne Feinstein notoriously said in 2004 that the efforts of our community had been "too much, too fast, too soon." This was echoed by many who argued that Kerry's defeat lay in the hands of gay couples who united a base of "fiscal conservatives who see promoting marriage as a way to reduce state dependency, anti-gay voters who quail at the notion of same-sex unions, right-wing Christians who seek to enforce biblically determined family law, and the mass of voters anxious about the instability of marriage" (cite). As Democrats wailed that gays had ushered this motley conservative crew into the ballot boxes to vote Republican, the 11 states that passed anti-marriage initiatives that year did so without showing any actual boost to Bush in the polls.

Despite this, the primary LGBTQ community strategy to combat homophobia and gender discrimination at the polls has relied most heavily on legislative methods (i.e. legal decisions by judges) rather than popular votes. Barack Obama's rhetoric about gay marriage being a states' rights issue might offend many of us, but his determination to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act would mean that the question of gay marriage would once again fall not to the states and their voters but to the U.S. Supreme Court. The bench might lean a little to the right at present, but we cannot deny that most of our gains--even in domestic partnerships--were achieved by judicial decision and not by popular vote; the same can be said for the majority of civil rights triumphs. E.g., 94% of whites polled in 1958 did not approve of interracial marriage, and courts legalized it anyway in 1967. I'm sure there must have been people then, too, griping about "activist judges legislating from the bench," but can anyone deny the value of that landmark ruling?

The MotherJones.com article poses the question: "Should Barack Obama brace for another round of backlash at the ballot box?" The answer I infer from reading the article is, maybe not! Consider this: a Quinnipiac University poll from September 2008 shows that 55% of Florida voters polled support their prospective gay marriage ban (margin of error ±2.6%); however, a Rasmussen poll from this week shows only 46% of Florida voters support John McCain (margin of error ±3%).

From whence does this disconnect come? Chris Lehane, former communications director for the Kerry campaign, is quoted as having said: "McCain has gone to such pains to try to distance himself from Bush and to make clear that he represents a different kind of politics that he's ultimately going to be forced to address this. [. . .] Either he waffles on it, which just irritates everyone; he takes the conservative position, which undermines his brand; or he takes a more open-minded, progressive view of the world, and he really hurts his base. What worked great in 2004 doesn't work so well in 2008."

Two recent Gallup polls indicate that even as the perceptions of homosexuality become increasingly tolerant, the idea of gay marriage lags behind in popular acceptance. Why is this?

Some people have argued that anti-marriage sentiment is not homophobic but rather about preserving one of the last vestiges of traditional stability in an increasingly unstable world. Others like Jonathan D. Katz, Prof. of Women's and Gender Studies at Yale, have said, "This isn't about lesbian and gay Americans being treated equally, which is a constitutional guarantee. It's not about that. It's about making money, wedge issues, forging boundaries. It's about dividing this country." Apart from these seemingly well intentioned or cynical foes, you and I can also recognize our homophobic detractors when we see them, whether they identify themselves that way or not.

Even with these traditional opponents, it appears that change is imminent. Some have started to take issue with anti-marriage initiatives as they affect gay and straight couples alike, preventing household diversity not only in gay relationships but also in those of foster parents, adoptive parents, and any number of other "nontraditional" living arrangements. A federal judge actually struck down a Nebraska anti-marriage initiative on these grounds in 2005. Similarly, a generational shift is occurring that shows younger voters have a more favorable view of gay marriage than their predecessors, and the percentage of under-30 voters with a favorable opinion increases each year. Our prospects improve as more tolerant voters come of age.

Copyright © 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

Richard Kim of The Nation also points out: "The premise that Democrats are still on the losing side of the culture war defined the last weeks of Hillary Clinton's campaign, which, aided by the mainstream media, dredged up nearly every assumed liberal Achilles' heel of the past forty years--race, religion, guns, elitism, patriotism and '60s radicalism--in order to paint Barack Obama as a general election loser. But, like Christian conservative attempts to portray same-sex marriage as a 'threat to civilization,' the culture war against Obama--waged around flag pins, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers and bowling scores--was a whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Thankfully, the majority of Democratic voters refused to be manipulated by these symbols sheared of substance, and now it is time to retire the paradigm altogether." In other words, being liberal about stuff just isn't that politically dangerous anymore.

In response to Dianne Feinstein's "too much, too fast, too soon," I point to Prof. Katz again when he says: "We did not put gay marriage on the front burner of the national LGBT agenda; it was put on the agenda by the right and we had no choice but to respond." I believe that as more voters realize that their woes (unaffordable healthcare, unfair wages, increasing disenfranchisement, and undereducated children to name a few) are a direct result of the predatory behavior of the Bush administration, powerful lobbies, and underqualified cronies, they will feel less inclined to blame their eroding security on the queers. Even if this realization does not take place this election cycle, an Obama presidency could make all the difference, putting the fight back in the courts where it belongs.

Doesn't it cheer you to think the day might be here where it is no longer politically expedient to throw us under the bus? when it might expose one as a hypocrite to oppose us? when discrimination and hate would keep one from achieving office? Let us march with our allies to the polls on November 4, secure in McCain's ignominious defeat, chanting all the way: "Let Freedom Sting!"

Obama Needs You and Your Laptop

My blood is racing from all the free coffee down at the Los Angeles Obama campaign headquarters where I spent four hours making phone calls today. To be sure, my.barackobama.com is a great resource for making calls from home, but after Obama's lame vote for the bailout plan this past week I don't have enough love for him right now to rack up charges for him on my cell phone. If you are a frequent reader of my posts you also know what a sucker I am for venues where other hot politically savvy young ladies might be chillin'; also, I am way broke right now, and I knew they would have free food at the office. So I signed up at california.barackobama.com to let them know I was coming, and they gave me a selection of shifts to work.

Now how many of you out there hate being on the phone like me? I don't know if it's a sad comment on lives that are increasingly isolated through technology or if it's just my antisocial tokhes, but I dread making phone calls--even to my best friends. I have smoldering thumbs from all the texts I send. It's nothing personal; I just prefer to reserve my "Hey, how are you?" chitchat for family and sick people. I especially hate calling people to ask them for things, so I was totally kicking myself when the head organizer at the campaign headquarters today asked me if I wanted to do data entry instead of make phone calls.

Data entry? I am the Frickin' Queen of Data Entry (FQDE)! I'm exactly the type of anal-retentive obsessive-compulsive person who is physically pained by spelling mistakes, and every job I've ever had has purposefully indulged me with hours of solitary work painstakingly logging things with code. What could be better for an angry hermit with a mild personality disorder like me than to sit in a dark corner doing meticulous work by myself?

Well, no laptop today, so to the phones I dutifully proceeded. I sounded like a total dipshit for the first, I don't know, ten calls or so, but I got into the rhythm after a while--that, or after enough coffee I could talk to anybody. Anyway, after the first two pages they gave me (36 calls), I said to myself, "Well, that was kind of fun; I'll go back and get another couple of sheets, and then I'll bounce." That kept happening until I had run out two different campaign cell phone batteries and made over 200 phone calls. It was like political crack; I kept saying, "Just one more . . . I need to talk to just one more person in Nevada . . . then I'll quit . . ."

I am actually pleased to report that I had to sit cross-legged and hunched over on top of a small desk the whole time because the place was slammed with people wall-to-wall. Excellent variety--all colors represented, lots of people who spoke English as a second or third language, kids drawing pictures for Obama that were going up on the wall (the pictures, not the kids--and some kids were even making awesome phone calls!), college students, gays, people with disabilities, veterans--all working together and laughing and smiling and constantly moving, waves of them coming through the door and orientations for new volunteers every couple of minutes. Hooray! The organizers acknowledged, though, that they need more people with laptops to help log all the phone calls being made.

Why don't you go down there and add to the diversity at your local campaign headquarters? All happy multicultiness aside (and awesome homemade lasagna too, btw), there were totally not enough hot lesbians down there, neither with nor without laptops. That is why I'm making this appeal to y'all. Please, for my sake, go to [your state].barackobama.com to find a campaign office near you.

Levi Strauss & Co. joins PG&E as Co-Chair of No On Prop 8 Equality Business Council

Levi Strauss & Co. has joined PG&E as the Co-Chair of The No On Prop 8 Equality Business Council along with a $25K donation. Levi Strauss & Co. is one of the oldest and most prestigious clothing and apparel companies in the world.

"As a company with a long history of standing up for equality, civil rights and social justice on behalf of our employees and other stakeholders, we are proud to co-chair the business council with our friends at PG&E,” said John Anderson, President and CEO of Levi Strauss & Co.


In 1992 Levi Strauss & Co. became the first Fortune 500 company to extend health benefits to the unmarried partners of its employees, and in 2007, it was the only California company to file a brief with the state’s Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage.

The No on Prop 8 Equality Business Advisory Council (now co-chaired by PG&E and Levi Strauss & Co.) has joined civil rights and religious leaders, elected officials and other fellow business leaders who are pledging to vote “NO” on Prop 8 this November.

Geoff Kors, a member of the NO on Prop 8 Executive Committee, welcomed Levi Strauss to the campaign. “We’re delighted to have Levi Strauss & Co. join our efforts to defeat Prop 8,” said Kors, who is Executive Director of Equality California. “Everybody wins when businesses take an important leadership role in ensuring that California remains a place where no one is treated differently under the law. Levi Strauss & Co., and other members of the Business Council, recognize that gay and lesbians are their employees, their shareholders, customers, neighbors and friends. We welcome Levi Strauss & Co. as Council Co-Chair and look forward to many more California businesses joining our effort.”

Businesses can endorse the campaign, join the council, lend use of their company name and give monetary contributions to help defeat Proposition 8 by visiting www.NoOnProp8.com.

You can read the original press release here.

Women Rising- Clinton and Palin Will Not Be The Last

The arguments against voting for Sarah Palin are innumerable to many of us. If nothing else, the fact that she is a vindictive, cronyistic, hypocrite who distorts her own record for public gain should cause all of us to wonder about Senator John McCain’s sanity, and his ability to govern this nation. Unfortunately, the only argument that I have ever heard for voting for McCain-Palin on the issue of Palin is that she is a woman. Yes, Sarah Louise Heath Palin has a vagina. Why should I vote for a politician whose views run counter to everything I believe simply because she has a vagina?

It comes down to the idea that we should vote for Sarah Palin simply because we, as women, should vote for a woman because they believe that no other woman will manage to stand for the Highest pair of Offices in the land in my, the speaker’s, life time. This might be true if you have the life expectancy of a mayfly. I have seen it twice in my life time so far. The first was in 1984 when Geraldine Anne Ferraro stood as Walter Mondale’s Vice Presidential candidate, and the second is twenty-four years after that with Sarah Palin. Given that, why should we vote for a woman who wishes to eviscerate the rights of the poor, middle-class and anyone who opposes her? Why should we vote for a woman whose appointed police chief felt that it was wrong to bill the tax payers for rape kits and instead billed the victims instead? Why should we vote for a woman who opposes any kind of equality for gays and lesbians, and belongs to a church which promotes ‘conversion therapy’? If the answer is simply ‘because she is a woman, and no other woman will run for those two offices again soon’, then that answer is wrong. After all, it has now happened twice in the span of thirty years.

But, Palin's cadidacy highlights the rise of women in the political arena today. There are a total of one hundred and one women in major office today. Rumors have swirled around Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona for some time now. It is likely that this popular governor will be running for the Senate in 2010, and may even attempt a run at the White House after that. There are, currently, eight women sitting in Governor’s Mansions across the country, including Sarah Palin, and many have far more experience than the Alaska governor. There are sixteen women including Senator Hilary Clinton sitting in the Senate today, and any one of them might choose to run for the Presidency in four to eight years. Of course, a woman also holds one of the four most powerful positions in the Land, the Speakership of the House.

Women are coming up the ranks all the time, as well. Women are taking over Governorships and running for Congress all the time now. With all the negatives surrounding Governor Sarah Palin, I think I will wait for the next woman to run. It is doubtful that it will be another twenty-four years before she arrives on the scene.

For Our Children: Marriage, Children and Society.

"We must protect the children." That is the rallying cry of so many who oppose same-sex marriage. It is a lie designed by the Cultural Conservatives to gain acceptance by the mainstream media. And yet, these bastions of "righteousness" push a lie about how same-sex marriage harms children. Evidence, however, proves the opposite. The reality is that, as long as a child is wanted, loved and supported, they will grow up happy and healthy. Children need a stable, loving family, and it does not matter if they have two mothers, two fathers, or one of each. What is more, children of gay, lesbian, and transgendered parents are no more likely than any other child to suffer from sexuality and gender issues.

Given the difficulties involved for any same-sex couple having a child, children are often wanted. Children of same-sex couples are often a huge investment in time and money long before they are even conceived. Ultimately, same-sex couples are just like opposite-sex couples when it comes to raising a family with good and bad families populating both, according to all the research that has been done on this subject for the last ten years. Still, the desire to have a child through birth or adoption often means that child is wanted and loved.



A. P. Buxton’s 1999 study of one and two parent families is the most often used to attack the fitness of same sex couples to raise children, and how same-sex marriage would harm children. The reality is that Buxton’s study showed just the opposite. It is not the kinds of parents which are important, but the number- two parents are better than one. He isn’t the only one to make that point either. In preparation for the passage of same-sex marriage in Canada, a review of the known literature, and what was found is that there is no statistical difference between having two mothers, two father, or a mother and a father.

The reality is that children of same-sex couples are not harmed by the experiences that they get at home, but rather, are often harmed by their peers who may attack their ‘unconventional’ life. Indeed, in an article prepared for the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the findings were that the legally imposed instability of same sex marriages, and the lack of social acceptance of these families, were more detrimental to the mental health of a child. In terms of the mental development of children in, especially, lesbian families, there was almost no difference between them and the children of heterosexuals. In fact, a statistically significant number of the children of lesbian families showed a greater tendency to be affectionate and nurturing than the children of opposite sex couples. It should be noted that the bulk of the study dealt with lesbian families since it has been notoriously difficult to find same-sex male couples with children.

In the end, the lack of recognition of same-sex marriage is what harms children, not the existence of it. Children of same-sex couples are just has happy, healthy, and loving as the next child of a stable marriage. It is, however, society which harms children by preventing same-sex couples from having the stability that a family requires to thrive. We want marriage rights for our children as much as for ourselves. In an election cycle when three anti-marriage laws go before the voters, we must do what we can to protect our children.

I urge those in California, Florida and Arizona to set aside their discomfort of and forget the lies surrounding same-sex marriage and vote NO on Prop 8 (Cali), Amendment 2 (Flor) and Prop 11 (Ariz.) For the children, that should really be our rallying cry. In truth, we do this for our children, and for the children of our friends. This is as much about them as it is about us.

For the data presented by the AAP- http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349

(I hope to continue to present more posts on the issue of same-sex marriage and to undermine many of the myths and lies that abound on this topic.)

The LGBT Community is Called to Action

Election Day is 8 short weeks away and your vote is becoming ever critical in this landmark election.

Proposition 8 is a measure currently on the ballot in the State of California which is helping set the stage for human rights around the world. The Proposition would state that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" and would effectively ban gay marriage in the state if passed on November 4th, 2008. There are a handful of initiatives such as Protect Marriage.com which encourage voters to vote for the proposition in efforts to have it pass. Lori Hahn of HahnAtHome.com recently came face to face with what she calls ‘paper spam’ from one of these initiatives on her car and decided to ask her readers for ideas on how to thwart their efforts. She herself tried to reach out to the organization who distributed the flyers for more information on their plans. Hahn is a lesbian blogger who resides in California and feels that “by passing the anti-gay marriage amendment in California, they (proponents of Prop 8) are doing the very thing, that if done to them, would send them into civil unrest”.



Like Hahn, other gay and lesbian bloggers have become vocal about striking down the proposition and some have organized a civil protest against Proposition 8 while simultaneously showing support for a major corporation who recently joined the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).

Fellow lesbian mom bloggers Paula Brooks of Queen of The Surf Pirates, and Julie Phineas of Lesbian Mommy have initiated an “LGBT Community Call to Action” in efforts to strike down the measure by encouraging all members of the LGBT community and those who support them to "get out and about" in their community every weekend until Election Day. The bloggers are hoping to "Personalize Prop 8 Across the State" with these efforts, encouraging the community to participate in everyday activities out in the community, rather than staying at home or indoors over the weekend. The number one recommended way they are suggesting the community get visible? Visit their local McDonalds.

The initiative is hoping to use the popularity and support of McDonald’s as a common ground for those who are for the measure to interact in daily life with those in the community that the measure would affect.

Here is the statement released by lesbian mom blogger Julie Phineas in regards to the official LGBT Community Call to Action:

With 8 weeks to go until Proposition 8 comes to a vote in the State of California, in effort to strike down the measure we call all members of the LGBT community and their supporters to take action with us!

We need your help to put a face on the lives of those that this proposition affects!! Help us to ‘get visible’ and let our presence as upstanding citizens of this world be seen by all. We need to raise awareness amongst all citizens of the good State of California of the need to stand up for equal rights by vowing to Vote NO on Prop 8 on the up and coming Election Day, November 4, 2008. We call all who support equality and fairness to help us "Personalize Prop 8 across the State!"

You can join us in taking action every weekend (Saturday and Sunday) from now until Election Day on November 4th, to “get out and about” in your community!

The idea behind this LGBT Community Call to Action is to put a familiar face on the LGBT community and give those in the heterosexual community a chance to interact in daily life with those that the measure would directly affect.

Here are Some Ideas for What to Do Over the Weekends :

• The number one recommended way to become more visible on your community is to visit your local McDonald’s one day each weekend until Election Day, November 4th. McDonald’s is a highly recognized and popular business that is located in most communities across the state, country, and planet! Many locations offer a McDonald’s Play Land if you have children, plus you can find many choices on their menu to fit your lifestyle and budget. McDonald’s is a corporation who has recently shown their support to the LGBT community by joining the NGLCC. Visiting your local McDonald’s over the weekend is a great way to get highly visible in your community, and is one way that we can show support for a corporation that supports our community!

• The next way you can become more visible in the fight against Prop 8 is to get out and about in other ways such as attending birthday parties and weddings, going to the mall or movies, taking your laundry to the laundry mat, walking your pets, grocery shopping, or take your kids to the park. Visit straight friends and family members and tell them why you are making it a point to get out and about, and let them know how important their vote is to you this Election Day. You could even just drive, ride your bike, roller skate, or just go for a walk around your neighborhood!

• Take it to the next level! Purchase “No on Prop 8” tools and merchandise to wear while you are out and about in the community or hanging out at McDonald’s. You can put a bumper sticker on your car (or window decal), wear a No on Prop 8 t-shirt (men’s here and women’s here), or a No on Prop 8 button.

• Want to take it even further? Report your experience from the weekend or your visit to McDonald’s on social news websites like iReport or on your personal blog! Download the NO on 8 ToolKit here for good examples.

Even if you don’t live in California or are not a member of the LGBT community, you can still help in the fight to strike down Proposition 8 on Election Day!

You don’t have to be married or planning to get married to vote for freedom, equality, and fairness for all by voting NO on Proposition 8. Everyone can and should support equality for all in any way that they can… it could be your rights that are up for debate one day! We are all in this together.

Here Are the Ways That You Can Help:

• In California – Visit your local McDonald’s to show your support for our efforts every weekend until Election Day. You can let us know about your pledge to Vote No on Prop 8 by utilizing the tools mentioned above, and/or reporting your experience on iReport or on your personal blog. Above all else make sure that you register to vote and Vote NO on Proposition 8 on Election Day, November 4th.

• All Over the U.S.– Sign the Million for Marriage petition by clicking the banner below:



• Around the World - Voice your opinion about gay rights and let’s open up the conversation to discuss equality worldwide. Comment and discuss the issue on your favorite social networking websites, message boards, or even write your local newspaper. You can also join the fight in our efforts to strike down Prop 8 by joining the NO on Prop 8 web pages on MySpace and FaceBook.

Wherever you are, please pass this message on!

Re-post, forward, or link to this post and spread the word to help in the fight.

Every vote counts, and every vote matters...

The call to action was reportedly sent via email to gay and lesbian bloggers across the internet, gay and lesbian centers in the State of California, as well as known celebrity gays and lesbians. The message was also posted on gay and lesbian social networking websites and major social news portals as well.

McDonald’s was notified of the call to action, though they are not an official sponsor of the event.

More information on the efforts of the lesbian bloggers to call the LGBT community to action can be found at www.Lesbiatopia.com.

The original call to action was posted by Julie Phineas on lesbianmommy.blogspot.com.

The website for the official campaign against Proposition 8 is http://www.noonprop8.com/home.

This Ain't Politics - No on Prop 8

By Senior Consulting Editor Lori Hahn

Hate politics? This isn’t about politics – this is about our lives and the lives of our sisters and brothers who need your help.

Prop 8, Prop 8. Why, why can’t people see that by passing the anti-gay marriage amendment in California, they are doing the very thing, that if done to them, would send them into civil unrest? How dare they?

I could say that if it passes, I’m heading for Canada. But, that would be stupid. This is MY country too. It’s the country I served in uniform. It’s the country to which I pay taxes. It’s the town in which my children attend school and I help make sure they grow up into productive, positive additions to my country’s next generation. It’s the place in which my neighborhood sits where I mow my grass, grow flowers, and feed birds. It’s the place where I volunteer my time and money to help others not as fortunate as myself.


It’s the place where on many a Sunday morning, I see fathers with little children going out for breakfast – weekend dads getting their little moment of influence in their kids’ lives. It’s the place I see police cars swoop in to haul out an abusive lay-about as the kids and wife stand in the doorway, bruised and battered emotionally and physically. It’s the place where people can wipe away any vestige of a 20-year marriage in an instant by some sort of voodoo so they can once again take Holy Communion. It’s the place where about half of the participants in a marriage cheat. It’s the place where the divorce rate is over 50%.

Obviously, those who wish to deny me an equal opportunity to enjoy the rights and responsibilities of matrimony have done a really swell job of maintaining its high standards.

So, maybe I don’t want that. It’s the kind of institution that has a pretty bad name. But, along with that supposedly holy, sanctified little construct comes tangible and important rights: probate and estate rights, tax benefits, retirement benefits, family law protections, health care options, and a myriad of other little things that should be made available to us if we choose to participate.

The bottom line is what exactly? Equity. As an adult human being in this country, I deserve each and every right granted to the rest of its citizens. Period.

Aren’t in California? Well, it’s time to get on the big lesbian roller coaster kids, because if Prop 8 does pass in California, you can kiss any chance of advancement of rights in this arena goodbye in your state for many, many years to come.

If you’ve ever sat on your ass to watch events unfold, this is not the time. Now is the time to take action. Start here: HRC No on Prop 8 and No on Prop 8

Then, make sure you vote in every single election from city council to president for the candidates who will advance our cause. Your vote DOES count. Every single one of them.



Lori Hahn is the respected author of Hahn at Home and a mother of three.