Melissa Etheridge wrote an interesting piece for the Daily Beast concerning Proposition 8.

“Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now. Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books.”

While I appreciate Etheridge’s sentiment, I have mixed feelings about her approach. The state didn’t take away our right to marry, the people of California did (with the Mormon and Catholic churches aiding and abetting). Twice the California legislature passed a same-sex marriage bill and twice Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it. But to the Governor’s credit he was against Proposition 8 and voted against it.

I think our time is better spent shining a spotlight on the Mormon and Catholic church’s involvement and putting their tax exemption status on the table. Hitt’em in the pocket book where it hurts.

To learn more visit How to file an IRS 501(c)(3) for the the LDS Church

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the events of the past few days. It’s been both joyous and disheartening; a giant leap forward and huge step back. And based on some of the hate-email I’ve received from Utah and oddly enough Calgary recently, they seem perfectly cool with stripping away rights due to our disgusting habits. More on them later.

Taking all of this into account, I have reached the following conclusions.

While chickens gained new rights in California, gays and lesbians lost them.

Religious groups learned if you exert enough money and influence, they can strip your equal rights.

No how matter how hard you push your own brand of McCarthysim, your electorate can still be stupid enough to put you back into office.

Religion often provides shelter for hate, intolerance and fear of “other”, opening up a whole host of possibilities.

A better educational system would reduce the number of bigots and improve spelling.

And finally…

Exit polling for MSNBC revealed that 24% of Americans are afraid of this black man…

My partner and I was among the 2000 standing outside of San Francisco City Hall tonight, declaring that our fight to secure marriage equality for all Californians was far from over. Similar vigils were held across California in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose and other major cities.

I had hoped the turn out would be closer to 5000 but the lateness in notice and hour likely affected the attendence. Speakers included local politicians, religious leaders and people who played key roles in the No on 8 campaign. All worked hard to buoy our spirits and instill a sense of hope, encouraging us to keep up the fight. It was a cathartic experience that helped ease the seesaw of emotions I had felt all day. Here are a few photos from the vigil.

Inside, Looking Out is very pleased to publish this special guest column by
Mark D’Elicio, a personal and long-time friend who, like many of us, is deeply affected by the passage of Proposition 8.

With the passage of Proposition 8 in California on November 4th, the state constitution will be amended to contain a definition of marriage in California as being the “union of a man and a woman,” and while there are many who now believe that the institution of marriage is now and evermore defined within a context is pleasing to God, I’d like to point out what the amendment will NOT state:

1. The constitution will not state that a marriage is between
a man and a woman who love each other.

2. The constitution will not state that a marriage is between
a man and a woman who respect each other.

3. The constitution will not state that a marriage is between
a man and a woman who take care of each other.

4. The constitution will not state that a marriage is between
a man and a woman who are faithful to one another.

5. The constitution will not state that a marriage is between
a man and a woman who are able to raise a family.

6. The constitution will not state that a marriage is between
a man and a woman who give back to the community-at-large.

7. The constitution will not state that a marriage is between
a man and a woman who want to make the world a better
and more caring place.

You see, by defining the paradigm of marriage as merely the union of a man and a woman, the constitution will not take into account that “normal” marriages are quite often marred by infidelity, abuse and disrespect.

What many often fail to remember is that constitutions are the laws of man and not the laws of God. As Christ said, “give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s,” what he was really saying was that God cared not about man’s money, taxes or laws — these are conventions of mortals and not of God. As a dear friend (a born-again Christian in fact) once said to me: “God sees and respects love not laws.”

No law will ever take away my heart or my soul. No law will ever take away my aspirations and dreams. No law will ever diminish that which I cherish. No law will ever relegate me to being something that I am not.

I suspect that in the afterlife, I will be surrounded by those I loved and who loved me. God has no time for those who wish to deprive others of their rights. I trust there are about 52% of Californians I will NOT see in the afterlife. If it were up to them, no one would gain admittance to heaven except those of like-mind and that by definition is un-Christian.