Gay Uganda Says Thanks;
Nov 19 DC Vigil Details Announced

Today I received a note of thanks from a leader with Gay Uganda, who must remain anonymous for his or her safety, in response to my recent blogging on the situation in his country for our brothers and sisters, and I was quite moved by his gesture.

And I wish to expand and share his word of thanks beyond me to all the folks in London who protested at a Ugandan government office on November 7, and the growing number of people organizing demonstrations to take place next week.

I'm pleased to play a small role in any global solidarity actions for gay Ugandans and hope everyone reading this who lives near NYC or DC, is at the November 19 actions. Mark Bromley of Global Equality shared the following information on the action at the embassy:

Save Lives, Oppose Cruelty and Speak Up For LGBTQ Human Rights in Uganda And Against Bill No. 18: The Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda

WHAT: Demonstration in solidarity with LGBTQ Ugandans

WHEN: Thursday, November 19, 2009

TIME: 2:00 PM – 3 PM ET

WHERE: Ugandan Embassy
5911 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20011

CONTACT: Mark Bromley, mark@globalequality.org

Directions: 2 miles north of Columbia Heights Metro Stop on 16TH street; or 1 mile northwest of the Georgia Ave/Petworth Metro Stop on Quincy Street; also accessible via 16th Street buses.

The DC organizers explained the reasons for their action: "If passed, Bill Number 18 introduced in the Ugandan Parliament, will make homosexuality an offense punishable by death in Uganda. The vote on the bill may take place as early as January 2010. The Ugandan LGBTQ community has urged demonstrations of solidarity around the world in protest and to let Ugandan leaders know the whole world is watching. In America, we will let our leaders know that this bill, if adopted, would undermine Congressional funding for PEPFAR and other U.S. tax dollars that help Uganda fight AIDS. "

Carey Alan Johnson from IGLHRC sent along this info on another action for next week:

IGLHRC is also collaborating with the Coalition of African Lesbians and other groups for a demonstration at the Ugandan Embassy in Pretoria, South Africa on Tuesday next week. We are very much in favor of direct, public action as a strategic tool for LGBT liberation.

Hey, Mark and Carey, good work on this street activism at embassies and UN missions. We need more of it from you guys, and others in the gay community joining in your actions.

If anyone knows of a web site listing all the cities, times, locations, contact persons, etc., for the action, lemme know the URL. And if one doesn't exist, I'll create such a page here.

Evan Wolfson and ABC's Twittercast
on Gay Marriage

A gay political insider from DC told me a few days back that I simply had to watch Evan Wolfson lose a debate with Maggie Gallagher on ABC News Nightline Twittercast. He's the leader of Freedom to Marry, while she's head of the National Organization for Marriage. Actually, debate is the wrong word, because the reporter did a lousy job of keeping the discussion civil and respectful. As too often happens on TV, the debate was really an interruption-fest, especially by Maggie, who was not adequately reined in by the reporter.

That being said, I wasn't impressed with Evan's performance and told him so in an email, asking him to reply to my concerns. Unfortunately, he declined to engage with me on the record. His response was off the record and I'll respect this. Evan's excuse for not wanting to be quoted? He'd rather not be quoted evaluating his own performance. Sounds like extreme "control queenism" to me.

A few things that bothered me were Evan's insistence that we came very close to winning in Maine last week, we're not fighting for gay marriage per se, but for marriage freedom, and that gays aren't out to redefine marriage. I believe the vote was far from close, that saying this battle is not gay-specific is not a view the voters agree with, and that gays, like straight people, are indeed reinventing the institution of marriage.

The part where Evan really tried my patience with his lawyerly and stiff debating style, was when he didn't directly answer the reporter's question about why gays can't just accept the benefits of civil unions and giving gay marriages another name. See vid number 2, at the 4:40 mark.

For once, Maggie didn't immediately interrupt Evan, but he totally avoided addressing the question at hand. Instead, Evan went off on a tangent about groups that oppose civil unions giving money to Maggie's organization, and that NOM is under investigation in three states. He tried desperately to be heard over her sniping, and the cross-talk was beyond irritating.

About 4 minutes after the civil unions question was posed, some calmed reigned, and Evan offered a response about vocabulary nuances associated with marriage as one reason why civil unions aren't enough for the gay community, which I don't think would satisfy average voters who aren't English majors. I would have preferred to hear a cogent answers why civil unions just don't cut it, and to hear the answers before a tirade about bad donors or state investigations.

Overall, I found Maggie came across on the computer monitor as a very sore winner, but one with a demeanor that lots of voters in Maine apparently like because they voted as she and her allies asked them to. And again, the ABC News reporter must be spanked for her lame control of the segment and failure to keep the talk respectful, following basic rules of decorum for a political debate, yet still entertaining to viewers.

But my biggest frustration from the program was with Evan's performance. This is unfair, but I have to say watching and listening to Evan brought back painful memories of all the infuriating appearances on TV by No on Prop 8 leaders Geoff Kors and Kate Kendell, leading up to the election last year. Just like Evan this week, when Geoff and Kate went on TV to discuss gay marriage and ballot measures, they didn't win my empathy, all because they projected cerebral lawyerly parsing of language and spent too much time denying the issue before voters was indeed gay-specific.

If we want to radically change how the gay community fights these gay marriage ballot initiatives, and potentially winning the hearts and minds of average Americans and voters, we're going to have to engage in public criticism and constructive suggestions to improve the performances of our leaders who get on national TV.

We gays are not helping the situation when we only examine how Maggie comes across in such TV interruption-fests. Over at GoodAsYou, Jeremy Hooper analyzes just Maggie and what he doesn't like about her performance. Sure, we don't like her, her arguments or her style, but she's racking up more wins than us. No one on our side is helped when we ignore or fail to evaluate how our leaders behave in such appearances.

Nov 19 Gay Uganda Actions in NYC & DC

(Gay Ugandan exiles and their allies demonstrated on November 7th in London.)

Earlier this week I called attention to a demonstration over last weekend at the Uganda House governmental office in London, because of a horrific and potentially deadly bill being considered by Uganda politicians and religious leaders. It cheered my activist heart to see a street protest took place in London, organized by unpaid volunteers, after a call to action was issued by gay Ugandans, who, for myriad security and safety reasons can't demonstrate in their own country.

However, I also took the well-funded human rights non-governmental organizations in New York and DC, where many are based, to task for not getting out of their suites and into the streets on behalf our brothers and sisters in the African nation.

But today I received this information about street protests on November 19 in those two cities, and other global locations, and I am pleased to see the NGOs I criticized are taking action. I offer sincere thanks and high praise for this development by the NGO staffers on behalf of the beleaguered gay Ugandans. Let this upcoming action become a regular occurrence by NGO staffers at embassies in Washington and UN missions in Manhattan.

From an email circulating today on the web:

RALLY AGAINST UGANDA'S ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY BILL!

When: Thursday, November 19, 12:30 pm
Where: Uganda House, 336 E. 45th St. (Btwn 1st & 2nd Aves)

This demonstration is being organized in response to the global call for action from November 9th to December 10th, Human Rights Day, by SMUG (Sexual Minorities Uganda) a network of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people's organizations based Uganda.

Join with African Services Committee, IGLHRC (International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission), Human Rights Watch, Health GAP and many other local HIV/AIDS and social justice organizations in the area on Thursday, November 19th at 12:30pm outside the Ugandan Consulate [sic, it's the Ugandan mission to the UN] in New York to protest this assault on the basic human rights for the Ugandan LGBT community as proposed in Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

Similar actions are happening around the world including in Copenhagan, Ottowa, Pretoria and on the same day in Washington D.C.

The Issue:

The Ugandan Parliament is now considering a homophobic law that would reaffirm penalties for homosexuality and criminalize the "promotion of homosexuality." The Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 targets lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Ugandans, their defenders and anyone else who fails to report them to the authorities whether they are inside or outside of Uganda.

Background:

Uganda's Penal Code Article 145a already criminalizes "carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature" – a charge used to prosecute, persecute and blackmail LGBT people with the threat of life imprisonment. The new bill would specifically penalize homosexuality, using life imprisonment to punish anything from sexual stimulation to simply "touch[ing] another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality." It also punishes "aggravated homosexuality" – including activity by "serial offenders" or those who are HIV positive – with the death penalty.

A tip of the hat to Bill Dobbs, for sharing this important info.

Suspect in Jamaican Gay Murder Makes Bail

(Danesworth Boucher in an undated photo from one of his web profiles.)

At the end of October I blogged about Rudolph Gschloessl, a German national found dead in his Jamaican home, and the rumors that he was a gay man. The police launched an investigation into the crime and recently took a suspect, Danesworth Boucher, into custody. He was charged with the murder and yesterday made bail.

From the Radio Jamaica news account of recent developments in the case:

The man accused of the murder of Rudolph Gschloessl, the operator of Cafe Aubergine, was released on bail Wednesday.

Twenty-four year old Danesworth Boucher was released on $50,000 bond when he appeared before the Corporate Area Criminal Court.

Senior Magistrate Judith Pusey offered him bail after the investigator told the court that he was not opposed to the accused getting bail. [...]

Mr. Gschloessl, who was also the financial controller at King Alarm, was found dead at his Mona Heights residence in St. Andrew on October 25.

His throat was slashed.

Mr. Boucher who lived in the same house with the German national was charged after the cops determined that he was the [alleged] killer. [...]

The cops entered the house and found Mr. Gschloessl's nude body lying in a pool of blood with a knife wound to the neck.

Mr. Boucher who called the cops told them that an intruder had entered the house and committed the murder.

But the police became suspicious and following investigations he was charged. [...]

Boucher's next court appearance is on December 16. Prior to his arrest, Boucher created a web presence for himself. A Google search of his name turned up a number of interesting hits, like this Twitter account, a Facebook page, and a profile at Graduates.com.

I expect the Jamaican press will run updates when Boucher next appears before the court and I plan to continue monitoring this case. Let's hope justice is carried out for Gschloessl.

(Rudolph Gschloessl)

FBI Has 3,000 Pages on Ted Kennedy

When a person dies, you can file a Freedom of Information Act request with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for any records on the deceased. My open government bone gets itchy many times when famous people pass away.

I experienced an episode of nosiness when homo-hating Sen. Jesse Helms died, I filed a FOIA, and the FBI soon revealed it had more than 1,000 pages on him. But more than a year after his demise, the feds still have not released a single page on the North Carolina politician.

The feds received another request from me in the summer when closeted gay singer Michael Jackson died, and in response the FBI said it had 600 pages on him, but didn't say when that file would be released.

And when the Lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy passed away, the FBI got a FOIA request from me for his file. Last week I got a letter from the feds saying there were over 3,000 pages located responsive to my request. That's a lot of pages.

As with the Helms and Jackson requests, the FBI doesn't know when the Kennedy pages will be ready for public inspection. The agency is to be commended for quickly locating the number of pages on these men, but as with so many FOIA requests, actual release of the information can stretch on for years.

Here's an idea for President Obama to consider as part of a package to improve the nation's FOIA law: Find the money to hire more FOIA staff at all federal agencies. More staff would speed up the review and release of documents, giving us a better understanding of our government and our leaders.

Here's the letter from the FBI on the Kennedy file:

Obama's Town Hall Lesson
for HRC's Solmonese

(Joe Solmonese sits for Washington Life magazine's photographer, Clay Blakemore. September 2009.)

It's not required by law, but modern presidential hopefuls, as part of running for the nation's highest office, must subject themselves to town halls with voters. I don't know how many such forums candidate Barack Obama held, but since taking office he's held quite a few.

The White House in March created a web page to help Americans participate in an online town hall a few days later, and we saw the President begin a commitment to use the forums to keep in touch with average citizens.

Since then, Obama has held town halls abroad in Turkey, France, across the United States in Virginia, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, Montana, Colorado, and Louisiana. Counting all in-person and online forums, Obama has conducted nine town halls. As if that's not enough, while in Asia next week, he'll hold a public forum with students in China.

The President reaped many large and small rewards from the dialogues, including engaging Americans to support his legislative and political agendas, leading to accomplishments such as the House passing a health care reform package last weekend. I don't think there are any serious drawbacks to town halls for Obama, indeed, they've assisted in keeping him connected to regular folks and vice versa.

But no such town halls ever take place before a new person is installed and crowned as America's Gay Leader when they take over the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay organization.

When the then-obscure Joe Solmonese was plucked from EMILY's List in March 2005 to head up HRC, it was because the board of directors met behind close doors and picked him to be the new executive director, and for many gays, the thing they said after the decision was announced was, "Joe who?"

There was no public auditioning of the candidates for America's Gay Leader by HRC, a fact that I believe leads to lack of connection and engagement many non-HRC members and donors have toward Solmonese. This lack of commitment from the larger gay community with Solmonese is clearly exhibited in the criticism he constantly faces from a loud chorus demanding a more assertive approach by him and his organization with the Obama administration.

These days, when Solmonese issues a weekly letter to HRC supporters or appears on national TV and does a masterful job of apologizing for lack of action from Obama, many bloggers and traditional gay media folks are ready to pounce on him. He is given no slack.

If Solmonese were to learn a few lessons from Obama in how to use town halls to bring people to endorse and work for your agenda, it would be a big step forward in convincing me that HRC truly has a roadmap for pressuring the White House, but also to more fully engage a wider spectrum of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.

Imagine if Solmonese began holding regular monthly town halls at HRC's state-of-the-art media center at their DC headquarters, with any member of the gay public allowed to ask direct questions and questions submitted from gays around the country via email, YouTube and Twitter, and all of it streamed on HRC's web site.

Why, we'd have some genuine transparency and utilization of modern communication tools to better mobilize and organize the community to move forward more cohesively on a gay agenda. HRC would also be seen less as a monarchy given to ruling from an ivory tower with a rainbow hued foundation. Just as with Obama's town halls, there are great things to come of Solmonese's town halls, if they ever occur.

If the leader of the free world can find the time to host many town halls to carry out his vision and dreams for America, the de facto leader of the nation's gay community should do likewise. Town halls aren't as glamorous as sitting all gussied up in formal wear for a photo session, but they should be an integral duty of Solmonese's in the very near future.

(Solmonese, back row, second from left. Washington Life magazine. Photo credit: Clay Blakemore. September 2009.)

New Prop 8 Federal Suit
Transcripts Now Online

(Ted Olson and David Boies meet the press after a recent court session over their Prop 8 challenge.)

The good people at the American Foundation for Equal Rights, who are behind the federal challenge to California's Prop 8 passage last year, have shared with me transcripts from two recent hearings before Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco.

Back in July, I made an effort to secure the transcripts of such hearings, even though I was sitting through some of them, because I believed the gay community, and lots of other interested parties, would be keen to follow the case through the written word. The foundation readily agreed with me and provided me with the July 2 transcript.

So far, the proceedings have not been aired on TV, but that could change. According to UniteTheFight, Walker is considering allowing cameras into the court room, which is something I believe we all should support.

But thanks to Chad Griffin and Yusef Robb of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, anyone with a computer can follow the case thus far through the transcripts.

Click here for a PDF of the August 19 hearing, which is 70-pages.

To read the 103-pages from the October 14 proceeding as a PDF, click here.

Many big thanks to the foundation for making the transcripts available and giving America a great glimpse into this important case. Oh, and much gratitude for filing the lawsuit. May we prevail on this matter, and put an end to the hatred and tyranny of the state ballot measures on gay marriage.

Gay Ugandan Protest in London;
No USA NGO Street Visibility

(London, November 7 demonstration.)

A call to action was issued in late October by the Gay Uganda blog and the Sexual Minorities Uganda group, in response to a proposal for new draconian anti-gay law. What's so terrible about this bill? The answer comes from the BoxTurtleBulletin blog, which has performed an excellent job of following homo-hatred in the African nation:

The Ugandan legislature is considering a bill that would enhance sentencing for gay people to include the death penalty for “repeat offenders”, among other “aggravated homosexuality” offenses, and life imprisonment for others.

Much outrage has been expressed by international human rights organizations, but little has happened in the streets over the Ugandan situation. The call to action was for the second weekend in November, and as far as I have been able to determine, a single action took place, in London on November 7, at the Uganda House, a governmental welcome center.

This report comes from Dennis Hambridge, an organizer with Gay Activists Alliance International:

The protest was joined by gay Ugandan John Bosco Nyombi who was illegally and forcibly put on an air flight back to Uganda by the UK Border Agency while seeking asylum in the UK, causing British courts to order his return back to the UK.

Amongst the banners and placards that were fixed to the front of the building, were banners stating “Unconditional Love for Ugandan LGBT” and the words of Dr Martin Luther King ("An Injustice Anywhere Is a Fight for Justice Everywhere” and pledging support for the Ugandan lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and other gender variant people.

Hundreds of leaflets asking for the “witch hunt” of gays in Uganda to be ceased were handed out to passersby, not just to Brits, but also to people from many countries visiting Trafalgar Square on Saturday. There were many people stopping and applauding the protesters, and taking pictures of the action, pledging their support and to highlight the injustice LGBT people face in Uganda to their own governments.

(At the megaphone is Davis Mac-Iyalla, a gay Nigerian man granted UK asylum earlier this year.)

Bravos to all who participated in the action and brought much-needed street visibility to gay Ugandans, and also put some pressure on a Ugandan government office.

Unfortunately, no effort was made by USA non-governmental organizations to stage similar peaceful actions at the Ugandan embassy in Washington or the country's mission to the United Nations in New York City.

Early last week, I emailed many paid international and domestic LGBT advocates from HRW, IGLHRC, HRC, NGLTF and Global Equality, including Scott Long, Carey Alan Johnson, Joe Solmonese, Rea Carey, Julie Dorf and Mark Bromley, asking if they had any plans to leave their suites for press conferences at the embassy or mission in their cities, and none of them replied, not did they stage a visibility action for the Ugandans.

I believe the NGO advocates should get out of their offices more often and organize press conferences and vigils at embassies and missions, because it will pressure foreign governments and carry other tangible benefits for our oppressed brothers and sisters around the globe who can't stage such actions. Yes, the NGOs have sent letters to Uganda's leaders, but more should be done by the NGO advocates.

(Rep. Baldwin, holding glass award, and NGO advocates.)

Recently, several of these advocates staged a photo-op with openly lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin in her office to bestow a leadership award on her for advocacy on many fronts, including at the international level. That is laudable, but how about these folks, including the good Congresswoman, getting out of their comfort zone inside Baldwin's office and pounding the pavement in front of the Uganda embassy in DC?

Gay Ballot Measures Since '72:
102 Losses, 23 Wins

From the NY Times obit after William F. Buckley Jr died:

To the New York City politician Mark Green, he purred: “You’ve been on the show [Firing Line] close to 100 times over the years. Tell me, Mark, have you learned anything yet?”

This amusing anecdote sprang to mind after I compiled a list of all winning and losing ballot propositions over the decades related to gay people. Leave to conservative Buckley to sting an opponent into spirited debate, with a simple question, one that expresses what I want to ask my gay community.

Information from three lists shows gay people have suffered 102 losses and 23 wins since 1972 through the ballot initiative process. The setback in Maine this week became our 102nd loss. That is some string of failures for the sissies. Triple digits losses over forty years, and I ask, have we learned anything yet?

I took data from this list published by a straight University of Kansas professor, Don Haider-Markel, (thank you, so much, Don), and also from this Wikipedia entry on LGBT ballot initiatives, along with info at the Wikipedia entry on gay marriage measures, and tallied up wins and losses.

Last week I was upset when Maine became the 31st gay marriage prop loss, but I didn't know the larger context of all gay-specific props, and it's even more disturbing to have to wrap my head around the total figure of 102 ballot measure losses.

Like a screaming queen at the Stonewall Inn riot and rebellion, I'm fed up with being treated like dirt by the establishment, and the Mr. Nice Gay leadership that produces endless ballot box bashings damaging our collective psyche and community karma.

Let's not forget the high price of the campaigns, sucking up money that could go to better use like housing subsidies for gay/bisexual/lesbian/transgender seniors. How many millions are we talking about? David Mixner has part of the answer:

We have poured over $100,000,000 in the last two years into efforts where Americans feel it is there obligation to vote on our freedom.

One-hundred million in just two years and I shudder to think of the cost to the gay community pocketbook after _decades_ of these ballot props.

How much higher than 102 failures must our losses number climb to before things change? Much higher, with the thinking expressed by a man whose career is working on these losing campaigns. From a recent Washington Post article:

Advocates say there was a partial victory even in Maine, where the vote was closer than it had been in previous campaigns.

"We're hopeful that it's a signal that there is increasing support for gay couples to marry," said Dan Hawes, field director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Nationally, we're going to continue education efforts to move the needle of public opinion, especially in California."

Sorry, Dan Hawes, and the rest of the Gay Inc folks who have without question helped create 102 setbacks, with so many gay millions down the toilet. It no longer is good enough to change move the needle.

Will Gays Again Squander
A Ballot Loss Crisis?

Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff to President Obama, believes no serious crisis should be wasted to bring forth necessarily and valuable changes unlikely to happen at any other time.

Such a crisis befell the American gay community in the wake of Prop 8 passing in California last November, and despite many street protests, angry blog postings, the formation of dozens of new splinter groups, and other reactions, we are essentially at the same (losing) place politically. If there have been radical changes to the structure and leadership of Gay Inc and the California gay community, I've missed seeing them take effect.

Here it is, that time of the year when we've suffered another ballot proposition, No on 1 in Maine, while also racking up two wins, in Washington and Michigan, that don't wipe away the awful pain of the New England loss, and Gay Inc leaders are again pleading for the criticism to go away.

Actually, there was a preemptive move by Matt Foreman of the Haas Jr Fund, a week before the Maine failure, to keep the lid clamped tight on holding our leaders accountable for their decisions. In a column at the Bilerico.com site, Foreman opined that TV ads weren't the answer for us:

As the campaign in Maine enters the home stretch, our skeevy opponents have unleashed yet another ad claiming that unless marriage equality is overturned, same-sex marriage will be "pushed" on elementary school children.

Our side has responded with calm, rebutting the attacks with facts, statements from authoritative figures, and appeals to higher values. Sadly, that approach has been condemned by well-respected figures in our community, including Andrew Sullivan, Mike Tidmus, the Box Turtle Bulletin and the Bay Area Reporter. [...]

If, goddess forbid, we lose [Maine], can we remember why that was - and it sure as hell won't be because our side was somehow responsible.

Well, our side's response, however noble it was, again lost us the battle. Instead of considering that his way of thinking is wrong, Foreman choose to cannibalize gay bloggers and newspaper editors for having the temerity to call for new approaches in ad and campaigns. I strongly disagree with Foreman's belief that our side bears no, or little, responsibility for our 31st loss. Reading his words, there is no sense, at least at the end of October, that he'd be willing to consider us taking responsibility for our Maine effort, the great and not-so-good stuff.

The question of how important the ads were to Maine's ballot measure can be summed up by this opening sentence in an AP story:

Stunned and angry, national gay rights leaders Wednesday blamed scare-mongering ads - and President Barack Obama's lack of engagement - for a bitter election setback in Maine that could alter the dynamics for both sides in the gay-marriage debate.

While some believe the TV ads from our side weren't our answer, our opponents again were able to use commercials to prevail with voters. Might our 31st gay marriage ballot loss finally be the opportunity for new thinking and diverse ad messages from us? Must we always lose with the same lame Hallmark marketing?

One gay political consultant, Steve Hildebrand, who served as an assistant campaign manager to Barack Obama, had this to say about Maine's ads:

We are fools to have spent all this money and time and not have defined the opponents. It's not enough to answer their charges. We need to hit them back and not let up on it until voters don't buy their lies anymore. Malpractice in my opinion.

Not helping with an honest assessment post-Maine, by his extremist framing of the issue, is the head of Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese. In an email shared by John Aravosis at AmericaBlog, Solmonese said:

For a lot of people in the community and our supporters, Tuesday's results feel like a good reason to throw up our hands and say forget politics. It's also tempting to find someone to blame, or a missing piece, that pesky "if," to cling to. I'm not asking you not to. I'm telling you that we can't.

First of all, no one other than Solmonese is expressing a belief Maine is a reason to forget politics. And while the community is searching for betters ways of fighting at the ballot box, and potentially winning, HRC frames the search as a blame game. Good way to deflect rightful anger that is being directed at HRC and others. Who the hell is this HRC loser to tell the rest of us what we can't do?

Can we expect some new thinking from the head of Equality California, Geoff Kors, a key leader in the Prop 8 debacle, one year later? Sure, in some ways, Kors will never repeat the mistakes he made last year, but I wonder if he'd consider re-evaluating his approach to our next gay marriage ballot initiative out here. Take a look at an interview Kors gave last week to Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic:

I think we have to really look at the vote and analyze it before we can draw any specific conclusions, but what's clear is, even though we significantly outspent the opposition for the first time, and supporters of equality out-organized the opposition, our side still fell short. [...]

I think if we do the work we need to do and we can stay equal or out-raise the other side, I believe we will win in 2012.

What I would like Kors to think about is the fact, as he noted, that in Maine, even with significantly more money than our opponents, we still failed to persuade enough voters to agree with us. This means money, and lots of it, may not be the answer to gays winning in California, or any another state. Yet, Kors concluded his interview saying if the money flows like a river, we'll do well. Sorry, I just don't have faith in that method.

Money is surely important to any election, and gays sure like to open the checkbook for these losing campaigns, but I believe it going to take more than big bucks to turn the tide. We're going to need a new ideas and marketing.

But will the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community muster the courage to use the Maine crisis to bring about better, lasting changes to Gay Inc and the future campaigns on the horizon?

This skeptic is not hopeful that will happen. A recent Washington Post piece on the aftermath of Maine, delved into how Gay Inc will move forward:

For the gay rights movement, the defeat is another setback to its long-held strategy of building the case for marriage equality state by state. Historically, the tactics have been to target places where conditions seem favorable, and Maine, characterized by its governor as a libertarian state, seemed to fit that criterion.

Still, advocates say the strategy remains effective.

If the strategy is so damn good, why are suffering so many setbacks? Those advocates are entitled to their views, and the Post article is not about the ads and tactics employed in Maine. However, if we are to most beneficially use this latest current electoral loss and crises, we would be wise to place every aspect of the gay marriage battle on the table for discussion.