Send money to Maine. Volunteer. It’s a small state – a few changed minds will make a giant difference.

From the Daily Kos:

QUESTION: As you may know there will be one question on the ballot this November in Maine addressing the issue of same-sex unions. In part it will read “Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry?” A yes vote takes away the right of same-sex couples to marry. A no vote keeps the right of same-sex couples to marry. If the election were held today would you vote YES or NO on this question?

QUESTION: Regardless of how you might vote do you favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally?

The “everything but marriage” measure broadens recognition of domestic partnerships by granting gay and lesbian couples all the remaining state-provided benefits presently extended only to married heterosexual couples.

After a month of counting petition signatures, the secretary of state’s office said that Referendum 71 had 121,486 valid signatures – nearly a thousand more than needed to advance to the general election.

But supporters of the expansion of the law asked a King County Superior Court judge on Monday to at least temporarily block the referendum from the ballot, arguing that election officials have accepted thousands of invalid petition signatures.

The new law was supposed to take effect on July 26. But the referendum campaign put it on hold, and the law can now only take effect if approved by state voters Nov. 3.

It would expand the domestic partnership law passed in 2007 that granted gay couples hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will.

Lawmakers expanded that law again in 2008 to give gay domestic partners standing under laws covering probate and trusts, community property and guardianship.

The new benefits under the current measure for gay couples range from adoption and child support rights to public employment benefits – although any benefits that cost the state money, such as pensions, are delayed until 2014 because of the state’s recession-fueled budget problems.

If the referendum leads to a rejection of the law’s expansion, legislation approved in 2007 and 2008 would be retained, but it would roll back the additional rights granted in the “everything but marriage” bill.

As of this week, more than 5,800 domestic partnership registrations had been filed in Washington since the first law took effect in July 2007.

(San Francisco) LGBT groups have begun efforts to put a repeal of Proposition 8 on the 2010 ballot. 

Prop 8, passed by voters in November, bars same-sex marriage in California.  The constitutionality of the measure will be taken up by the state Supreme Court in 2009, but LGBT groups say they are taking no chances on how the court will rule and have begun making plans for a ballot measure that would reverse the ban.

One group announced Wednesday that it will air five 30-second commercials to run throughout Inauguration Week in January. 

The group, GetToKnowMeFirst.org, said the spots will run in both urban and rural markets throughout California. They are currently being previewed on the group’s Web site.

“It’s important that our fellow Californians see the faces of the real families that are directly affected by the passage of Proposition 8,” said John Ireland, the group’s organizer.

One of the spots in the campaign will feature Sonia and Gina, a couple who are raising a son and daughter, ages 6 and 3. 

“Don’t take my family’s rights away. Get to know me first,” Sonia says in the ad. “Our families may look different from yours, but we’re not. We need the same things… like marriage… so we can protect and provide for our kids.”

Another spot will feature Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, two of the original plaintiffs in the marriage lawsuit that led the California Supreme Court to legalize marriage for same-sex couples in May 2008. That ruling was overturned by the passage of Proposition 8 in November.

Two of the ads will also be in Spanish. One profiles a Latina couple and the other profiles a family with triplets, headed by two men.

The spots were financed and produced by Power Up, an award-winning LGBT cinema incubator based in Los Angeles.

The final results of the November election were certified this week, showing that Prop 8 won by 599,602 votes. The results showed that the 52-48 percentage point spread held from early results on election night. It was approved in 43 of the state’s 58 counties. 

Meanwhile, in another development, the American Civil Liberties Union has blasted a high school for ordering a 16- year-old student to remove a T-shirt opposing Prop 8 the day before the election.

The T-shirt that Mariah Jimenez wore to class at Big Bear High School on Nov 3 said ”Prop. 8 Equals Hate.”

A teacher ordered her to remove the T-shirt.  When Jimenez refused she was sent to principal Michael Ghelber’s office.

The ACLU said that Ghelber told the student to either remove the T- shirt or remain in his office.

Jimenez reluctantly changed shirts and returned to class.

The ACLU in a letter to schools superintendent Carole Ferraud said that Jimenez’s federal and state constitutional rights of free speech had been violated.

The letter said that Jimenez deserves an apology. Ferraud had not responded by Wednesday morning.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars are flowing into the coffers of both sides of the issue.

The latest contribution to LGBT groups fighting the proposed ban, called Proposition 8, is $100,000 from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.  The money is in addition to in-kind services donated by the group to the campaign.

“GLAAD’s board of directors and staff are proud to play our part in this vital effort to ensure that all loving and committed couples in California continue to have the protections and the security that marriage provides,” said Dr. Yvette Burton, co-chair of the organizations National Board of Directors.

The contribution will go to support public education and voter outreach efforts in California. In addition, the organization is working with campaign coalition partners to provide staff support and resources for the campaign.

Ten days ago, California’s largest public utility gave a quarter-million dollars to the fight against a proposed constitutional amendment.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company turned the check over to NO on 8 – the organization formed by Equality California, the state’s largest LGBT civil rights group to fight the measure. The contribution is the largest corporate donation the group has received.

Neither side on the ballot measure has said exactly how much has been raised but it is believed to be in the millions.

Earlier this week the Knights of Columbus donated $1 million to Protect Marriage the group behind the ballot measure. The money is in addition to the $250,000 the Catholic group already had donated.

Among other major donors to Protect Marriage are a group of San Diego County businessmen. 

Developer Doug Manchester alone has contributed $125,000, prompting gays to urge a boycott of his properties.  Manchester owns the Manchester Grand Hyatt and the San Diego Marriott Hotel and Marina.

Mission Valley developer Terry Caster has donated $162,500, Carlsbad car dealer Robert Hoehn gave $25,000, and La Jolla businessman Roger Benson has given $50,000, according to state records.

Earlier this month a state appeals court in Sacramento turned down an urgent appeal of a lower court ruling that upheld Attorney General Jerry Brown’s definition of the proposed constitutional amendment.

Protect Marriage had alleged that Brown’s wording for the ballot of the measure was prejudicial.

The ballot question originally had been described as a measure to limit marriage between a man and a woman. Last month, Brown changed the description to say the proposed amendment would eliminate the right of same sex couples to marry and that it could result in California losing tens of millions of dollars in taxes.

Brown, a Democrat, opposes the amendment. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) oalso pposes the amendment and has said he will campaign against it.

A poll released in July suggests the measure is likely to be defeated.

Fifty-one percent of likely voters said they would vote against the proposed amendment while 42-percent would support it.

Connecticut voters will be asked Nov. 4 whether to hold a constitutional convention. Under the state constitution, the question goes on the ballot only every 20 years.

The Family Institute of Connecticut wants a system of direct initiative – in which people can petition to get issues onto the ballot – because it hopes voters will eventually pass a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Other groups involved in the campaign have other concerns, such as eminent domain and taxes.

So far, though, the Connecticut Constitution Convention Campaign has raised only $1,110.

Meanwhile, the state’s largest teachers union, the Connecticut Education Association, has contributed $40,000 to the group “Vote No: Protect Our Constitution.” Planned Parenthood of Connecticut has given $5,000 to the same cause, according to filings with the State Elections Enforcement Commission.

Matthew Daly, of Glastonbury, who is heading the convention campaign, said he’s not worried yet about being grossly outspent.

“Our fundraising has been slow, which kind of goes hand in hand for this time of year,” he said. “I’m not surprised. If we’re where we are by the end of September, then I will be concerned.”

If a majority vote yes in November, a convention will be held consisting of people appointed by the General Assembly. There, advocates can recommend that the state change its constitution to allow citizens to petition issues onto the ballot, such as a tougher three-strikes-and-you’re out law for violent felony offenders.

Twenty-four states have the initiative petition processes allowing citizens to place proposed new laws or constitutional amendments on the ballot, according to the Initiative & Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California.

Daly’s coalition hopes to raise enough money to buy newspaper, radio and television ads, explaining the importance of including direct initiative in the state constitution. He believes it’s an issue people will support.

“I think we have a winning issue,” he said. “The question is reaching as many people as we can.”

Anne Stanback, president of the group Love Makes A Family, said her group – which supports same-sex marriage – is urging people to vote no, and plans to contribute money to the effort.

She fears voters will be misled into thinking a constitutional amendment will lead to real change.

“It’s the legislators who will be deciding who the delegates are,” Stanback said. “They will be the ones who decide what questions get raised in the convention and if anything happens at all.”

Kathy Frega, a spokeswoman for the Connecticut Education Association, said the Legislature should be focusing on educational improvement instead of a convention.

“The state constitution works, and there’s already a procedure in place to amend it without holding a taxpayer-funded convention,” she said.

Groups that already have influence at the state Capitol, such as the education association, are among those most worried about a constitutional convention, Daly said.

“There’s no question this is an insider-versus-outsider campaign,” he said. “I’m not surprised by those who are opposing us. They want to control our legislature.”

The Project Marriage Coalition said it made the decision after a state appeals court in Sacramento turned down an urgent appeal of a lower court ruling that upheld Attorney General Jerry Brown’s definition of the proposed constitutional amendment.

In a one-paragraph decision an appeals court panel order cited previous appellate court rulings holding that an attorney general’s title and summary should be presumed to be accurate and should be upheld even “if reasonable minds differ.”

Further legal action would be moot even if the group won since the case could not be heard in time for any change to ballots prior to the election.

The ballot question originally had been described as a measure to limit marriage between a man and a woman. Last month Brown changed the description to say the proposed amendment would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry and that it could result in California losing tens of millions of dollars in taxes.

The Project Marriage Coalition, the umbrella group that collected enough names to have the question placed on the ballot, went to court, accusing Brown of twisting the wording to influence the vote.

At a hearing last week, attorneys for Brown’s office said the original definition was written before the California Supreme Court in May struck down the state ban on same-sex marriage. Hundreds of gay and lesbian couples began lining up for marriage licenses the following month when the ruling took effect.

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley said that the title and summary accurately summarized the proposition.

“There is nothing inherently argumentative or prejudicial about transitive verbs, and the Court is not willing to fashion a rule that would require the Attorney General to engage in useless nominalization,” Frawley wrote.

The coalition then sought the expedited appeals court hearing.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) opposes the amendment and has said he will campaign against it. Brown, a Democrat, also opposes the amendment.

Despite the legal wrangling over the initiative, a poll released in July suggests the measure is likely to be defeated.

Fifty-one percent of likely voters said they would vote against the proposed amendment while 42-percent would support it.

The ballot question originally had been described as a measure to limit marriage between a man and a woman. Last month Attorney General Jerry Brown changed the description to say the proposed amendment would eliminate the right of same sex couples to marry and that it could result in California losing tens of millions of dollars in taxes.

The Project Marriage Coalition, the umbrella group that collected enough names to have the question placed on the ballot went to court, accusing Brown of twisting the wording to influence the vote.

At a hearing Thursday attorneys for Brown’s office said the original definition was written before the California Supreme Court in May struck down the state ban on same-sex marriage. Hundreds of gay and lesbian couples began lining up for marriage licenses the following month when the ruling took effect.

In a written ruling issued Friday morning Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley said that the title and summary accurately summarizes the proposition.

“There is nothing inherently argumentative or prejudicial about transitive verbs, and the Court is not willing to fashion a rule that would require the Attorney General to engage in useless nominalization,” Frawley wrote.

The decision is a setback for gay marriage foes who say they will appeal.

Brown praised the ruling saying the lawsuit was “was more about politics than the law.”

In a separate court battle the state Supreme Court last month refused to hear a challenge by LGBT groups to declare the ballot initiative illegal.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) opposes the amendment and has said he will campaign against it. Brown, a Democrat, also opposes the amendment.

Despite the legal wrangling over the initiative a poll released in July suggests the measure is likely to be defeated.

Fifty-one percent of likely voters said they would vote against the proposed amendment while 42-percent would support it.

On Tuesday, Citizens for Good Public Policy turned in more than the required number of signatures to have the repeal effort placed on the ballot next spring.

The measure would tie the city’s human rights law to the protections offered by the state.

Unlike city law, Florida state law does not include either gender identity or sexual orientation in proptected categories categories.

Citizens for Good Public Policy says that it has never fought sexual orientation in Gainesville’s human rights ordinance in the 10 years that it has been on the books, but adding trans rights went too far.

Gender identity was added to the ordinance last January.

Cain Davis, the president of Citizens for Good Public Policy, said that the main concern is the use of restrooms by transpeople in restaurants and other places.

Davis told the Gainesville Sun that under the ordinance a biological male with an “inner sense” of being female could legally use the women’s restroom.

“Tell the woman who gets raped, tell the family who gets their spouse killed, that it’s no big deal,” Davis told The Sun.

The signatures submitted this week still need to be verified.

If the measure gets on the ballot LGBT activists say they will mount an aggressive campaign to preserve the law.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company turned the check over to NO on 8 – the organization formed by Equality California, the state’s largest LGBT civil rights group to fight the measure. The contribution is the largest corporate donation the group has received.

In addition, the publicly-owned PG&E announced it will become a founding member of the Equality Business Advisory Council, an organization that will challenge other businesses to join in the fight against the ballot measure.

“We are thrilled to partner with PG&E to ensure that the laws of our state are not used to treat people unfairly,” Equality California executive director Geoff Kors.

“Across California, individuals and businesses like PG&E are pledging to vote no on Proposition 8 because they know it’s wrong to single out one group of people to be treated differently,” he said.

PG&E serves more than 15 million Californians in Northern and Central California.

“For years, PG&E has advocated for equality and fairness in the workplace, and across California,” said PG&E spokesperson Nancy McFadden.”

” In that same spirit, PG&E is honored to be a founding member of the Equality Business Advisory Council and urge our business colleagues to join us as we work to guarantee the same rights and freedoms for every Californian.”

Supporters of the proposed amendment also have received large gifts from business leaders in the state.

Among the major donors to Protect Marriage are a group of San Diego County businessmen. Developer Doug Manchester alone has contributed $125,000 prompting gays to urge a boycott of his properties.  Manchester owns the Manchester Grand Hyatt and the San Diego Marriott Hotel and Marina.

Mission Valley developer Terry Caster has donated $162,500, Carlsbad car dealer Robert Hoehn gave $25,000, and La Jolla businessman Roger Benson has given $50,000, according to state records.

This week Protect Marriage filed a lawsuit against California Attorney General Jerry Brown after he changed the wording that would appear on the ballot in November. 

The ballot question had been described as a measure to limit marriage between a man and a woman. Last week, Brown changed the description to say the proposed amendment would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry and that it could result in California losing tens of millions of dollars in taxes.

A poll released this month suggests the measure is likely to be defeated.

Fifty-one percent of likely voters said they would vote against the proposed amendment while 42-percent would support it.