“I have never labeled myself as a politician, so I am not going to run for anything else,” Schwarzenegger told reporters on Tuesday.

Schwarzenegger said he will spend the next year trying to solve problems including a projected multibillion dollar shortfall in next year’s budget.

Himself gay and Mormon, Cowan clashed with his family over his sexual orientation and the beliefs of their faith, but it was a conversation between him and a sibling about her support of Proposition 8 cemented his commitment to make the film: “8: The Mormon Proposition.”

“I thought, if this is the dialogue in my Mormon family, then what is like in other Mormon households,” the Miami-area filmmaker and former Utah television journalist said. “If this is the pain I feel over Prop. 8 and other Mormon efforts to quash (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) rights, what is the pain of others multiplied all over the world?”

While the 80-minute documentary is still in production, a trailer posted on the Internet has caught the eye of both sides of the debate, viewed by roughly 70,000 people in its first 78 hours online. And the Web site that hosts the video has had nearly 28,000 visitors since it went online last month.

Cowan contends that the church was the most influential force in the campaign and paints the faith’s theology and culture as historically anti-gay.

Internet commentary on the trailer is divided.

Depending on the source, the movie is either an emotional and scathing indictment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or an unfair characterization of the Utah-based church’s beliefs and motivation for political involvement. The church was part of a coalition of faiths and conservative groups that pushed for approval of a gay marriage ban in California’s constitution.

Church officials have seen the trailer and other online materials about the film, LDS spokeswoman Kim Farah said, and “it is obvious that anyone looking for balance and thoughtful discussion of a serious subject will need to look elsewhere.”

Like many faiths, Mormonism defends traditional marriage as an institution ordained by God that is central to a healthy society. The church has consistently worked against legislation to legalize gay marriage since the 1990s. Last week, however, church leaders endorsed a pair of Salt Lake City ordinances that make it illegal to discriminate against LGBT persons in employment and housing.

Narrated by Academy Award winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black – also gay and raised Mormon – the film chronicles the campaign and includes personal stories from straight and gay Mormons, including newlyweds Tyler Barrick and Spencer Jones, who married in San Francisco on June 17, 2008, the first day same sex marriage was legal in California.

The film touches on gay suicide and homelessness, which many believe occur at higher-than-average rates among gay Mormons and highlights the strong opposition to gay rights from the Utah Legislature and lobbyists who are predominantly Latter-day Saints.

It also draws on past statements of former leaders and efforts to cure homosexuality with electroshock therapy at the church-owned Brigham Young University.

Mormon church officials appear in the film in footage obtained through other filmmakers, media outlets and in a church-produced video that appeared on the Web.

Cowan said he “begged” for church participation – through both official channels and personal connections – but was rejected. “I got an immediate no,” he said.

Alex Nibley, a Utah filmmaker and digital media instructor said the trailer’s powerful, high-quality footage promises an emotional look at it subject. Still, he said, it appears to fit within the typically polaraized spectrum of film takes on the Mormon church – most either that promote the faith or attack its views.

“I suspect that the impact will be to confirm certain ideas that people have about the church,” Nibley said. “It may expand some perceptions in the public at large, but it will probably not shake the faith of a lot of those who aren’t going to pay much attention to it.”

Cowan said his goal for the film was to document what he believes is a crusade against gay people and to illustrate that the faith operates as both a church and a political action committee.

A release date for the film, believed to be the first about Prop. 8, is uncertain. Cowan is shopping the film to festivals.

The strategy worked. Overruling the courts and lawmakers, voters defeated gay marriage ballot measures in California last year and in Maine this week after conservatives convinced residents that same-sex unions would become common classroom fodder without any say from parents.

The punch-to-the gut claim has emerged as the latest tool in the ever-evolving playbook of same-sex marriage opponents, and the Achilles’ heel of the gay-marriage movement. Voters seem to be swayed by the notion that gay marriage will be a corrupting force among children, even though critics blasted the message as a blatantly misleading case of fear-mongering.

“It was very effective. It’s drawing on the fears of the unknown,” said Sandy Maisel, director of the Goldfarb Center for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement at Maine’s Colby College. “There’s no evidence that it’s going to happen, but there’s very clear evidence that it’s an effective campaign tactic.”

Gay marriage opponents discovered the effectiveness of the schools message in last year’s successful effort to pass Proposition 8 to outlaw gay marriage in California.

After signing up to lead the campaign, political consultants Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint knew they had a problem: Polls were showing that residents tended to not have much of a problem with gay relationships.

With the help of focus groups, surveys and ammunition unwittingly supplied by their opponents, Schubert and Flint soon found a new way to frame the issue, by focusing on education.

It was a departure from past elections when the issue was defined in simpler terms – that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. The various strategies have helped conservatives win 31 consecutive ballot initiatives on gay marriage.

“We bet the campaign on consequences, especially on education,” Schubert recalled in March when he and Flint were named the “public affairs team of the year” by the American Association of Political Consultants for their work in California. “Education from the beginning, while it was one of three consequences, it was the one that was the most emotionally charged and the most powerful.”

In California and Maine, gay marriage supporters countered the claims with spots featuring prominent elected officials – California’s chief of public instruction, Maine’s attorney general – who insisted that same-sex marriage had nothing to do with schools.

They also angrily denounced as deceptive the visuals the Sacramento team employed, including a Massachusetts couple who lost a lawsuit seeking parental consent before same-sex families are discussed in elementary classrooms.

But the response did not defuse the hot-button issue, advocates on both sides of the issue observe, in part because they failed to address what many parents knew to be true: Many public schools already have lessons that include references to gay families in the younger grades and confronting anti-gay discrimination for older students. Although the topics usually are broached in the context of appreciating diversity and tolerance, for some parents any discussion of gay people is too close to talking about gay sex.

“The trend that we are seeing is homosexuality is being promoted more and more in schools, and the increase in this is creating a hostile environment for kids with Christian or socially conservative viewpoints,” said Candi Cushman, education analyst for the Christian group Focus on the Family.

Cathy Renna, a public relations consultant in Washington who is married to a woman and has a 4-year-old daughter, said that equating references to gay parents with sex is “like saying that introducing someone’s mother and father to a class means you are talking about heterosexual sex.” But Renna agrees that same-sex marriage supporters need a different comeback to the kids-and-schools argument.

“This idea that gay people are coming to eat your children is a long-standing tactic of the right wing,” she said. “The response to those ads that not only has more truth, but more integrity, is that we live in a diverse world and our kids know that and it’s irresponsible for us not to talk about the world we live in in age-appropriate ways. Dismissing them as lies actually does a disservice not only to the people in our community, but to the public that knows better.”

In California, some gay rights groups want to try to repeal Proposition 8 at the ballot box next year. There has been talk about including language in the new measure that would state that nothing in it is meant to mandate the teaching of same-sex marriage in schools. Some gay rights advocates fear, though, that the wording could be used to undermine the way gay subjects are treated in schools now, said Chaz Lowe, founder of Yes! on Equality.

Melissa Murray, an assistant professor at the UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law who researched the messages used in the Proposition 8 campaign, said gay marriage advocates underestimated how deeply Schubert and Flint’s carefully crafted schools message resonated with the public.

One reason it resonated so deeply is it changed the debate from one of equal rights to the equally cherished notion of individual rights, something gay activists should keep in mind as the marriage moves to other states, Murray said.

“Parents are always thinking about how do I keep unwanted influences out of my children’s lives, and it’s a lot harder to do that as a parent if that influence is the state,” Murray said. “That’s the fear they are tapping into. … and they are just going to keep repackaging it, because it works.”

A 365Gay history lesson: last year before the Proposition 8 vote, I wished it failed because I knew a few would jump on the “black people are such homophobes” line. Unfortunately Golden State citizens voted against marriage equality and that tired memo got a lot of play here and elsewhere. Research the site and read the comments. They ranged from folk informing me how “my brothers and sisters” screwed over the LGBT community to suggestions it would be a good idea for gays to discriminate against blacks in retaliation. Look at the stuff if you want.

On this week’s election night, was listening to WNYC, and Nate Silver was being interviewed. I have no issues with Silver, link to 538 all all the time and think he adds to the political discourse. It was early in the night and he was asked to give  thoughts on what would happen in Maine. He noted the dearth of an African-American population in the state and said gay marriage would make it. A strange comment coming from a guy who threw needed cold water on those who  decided to blame the small California black population for the Prop 8 defeat.

Well as we all know marriage rights did not make it in the Pine Tree State and to steal from one of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ readers here is the question for the day:

“Why are posters here, and the media generally, ignoring the fact that these results were driven by Maine’s overwhelming number of black churches?”

For those who don’t get it, the question is rhetorical and ironical.

Before a few of you throw up, let’s get the obvious out of the way. Homophobia, is a problem, no matter where it comes from. Too many blacks adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy when it comes to sexuality. Oh we will groove to the music of Luther Vandross, and wonder out loud why he never found himself a wife. Or we will clap our hands in joyous celebration at the music on church Sunday but go silent when it’s announced the choir director is sick with a “blood disease.”

These realities of black-American life cannot, and should not be ignored; however, too many of us blithely support a narrative where homophobia is somehow  purer  in black and brown communities. Yes we have California, but there is also Washington, DC, and those who leaned on race to explain Prop 8 have been strangely silent on the DC City Council.

From Maine to California, many  black, brown, and white faces will gladly vote against gay marriage. If there is anything that crosses the racial divide it’s bigotry for lesbians and gays.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has ended his campaign to be governor of California. In a press release, Newsom pointed to his family as the reason.

“With a young family and responsibilities at City Hall, I have found it impossible to commit the time required to complete this effort the way it needs to – and should be – done,” the mayor said.

There is  suggestion, however, that the real reasons are because there was no grondswell for Newsom and donors were not willing to give up cash.

More about this later.

A Democratic assemblyman who heckled the governor during a recent event in San Francisco actually received two messages: the veto letter itself and a not-so-subtle rebuke creatively hidden within it.

Like a find-the-word puzzle, the second message was visible by stringing together the first letter of each line down the left-hand margin. It consisted of a common four-letter vulgarity followed by the letters “y-o-u.”

“My goodness. What a coincidence,” said Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear. “I suppose when you do so many vetoes, something like this is bound to happen.”

Schwarzenegger’s veto messages are sent to the lawmakers who authored the bills, and posted on the governor’s Web site. McLear noted that the left-hand margin of past veto messages has spelled out words such as “poet” and “soap.”

The target was San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, who had sponsored AB1176. The bill, which passed unanimously in the Assembly and Senate, would have granted the Port of San Francisco expanded financing power to redevelop a former shipyard into a new neighborhood known as Pier 70.

“Kudos to the governor for his creative use of coincidence,” said Ammiano’s spokesman, Quintin Mecke. “You certainly have to have a sense of humor in politics. Unfortunately, this humor came at the cost of the Port of San Francisco.”

Whether coincidence or smackdown, the phrase contained in Schwarzenegger’s Oct. 12 veto message could be seen as retaliation for Ammiano’s behavior during a local Democratic Party fundraiser earlier this month in San Francisco.

Schwarzenegger, a Republican, had been invited to the event by former San Francisco mayor and Assembly speaker Willie Brown, a Democrat.

His appearance at the Fairmont Hotel caught many of the attendees by surprise and came after a summer of contentious budget negotiations that forced lawmakers to cut billions of dollars from core state services, including education and health care programs.

On a video clip of the governor’s appearance, Ammiano can be heard shouting “you lie” and other derogatory phrases as other attendees booed and heckled Schwarzenegger’s brief speech.

After the governor left, Ammiano took the stage and gave a rambling diatribe in which he criticized Schwarzenegger for a wide variety of perceived offenses. In part, the freshman lawmaker was upset that Schwarzenegger had vetoed bills in 2005 and 2007 that would have legalized gay marriage.

The governor has said the issue should be decided by voters or the state Supreme Court. Schwarzenegger also opposed Proposition 8, the initiative voters passed in November to ban same-sex marriage.

Of the eight Ammiano bills sent to the governor’s desk this year, Schwarzenegger vetoed six – five of them after the Oct. 7 heckling incident.

Mecke, Ammiano’s spokesman, said the lawmaker wants to move on.

“We will call it even and start with a clean slate with the governor from here on out,” he said.

Earlier this month, he threatened a mass veto if legislative leaders didn’t agree to a comprehensive water deal, then backed down at the last minute and signed two-thirds of the 707 bills before him – similar to his annual record on legislation. After twice rejecting bills to honor slain gay rights activist Harvey Milk, he signed a bill giving him a statewide day of recognition without explanation.

He mocked lawmakers over the summer for wasting time debating bills about cows’ tails, honey labeling and a blueberry commission, then approved all three.

Those are among recent examples of Schwarzenegger’s erratic style that have both puzzled and angered lawmakers and policy advocates in the capital. The Republican governor has said he likes to remain flexible, while others say he is just untrustworthy.

His recent flip-flops prompted Assembly Minority Leader Sam Blakeslee, a fellow Republican from San Luis Obispo, to warn his caucus that Schwarzenegger isn’t always good to his word. He cited the governor’s “shocking reversal of position” on a number of bills.

The governor’s flair for drama helped propel him to international stardom, first as a bodybuilder and later as a Hollywood action star. In politics, that style has sometimes been misused by Schwarzenegger or misread by those he is trying to influence, leaving lawmakers and interest groups wondering whether he is telling them what he believes or merely saying what he thinks is convenient.

The questions about Schwarzenegger’s reliability come at a time when he has called lawmakers into special sessions on water policy, education reform and an overhaul of California’s tax system – issues fraught with partisan differences that will require cooperation to solve.

Schwarzenegger has defended his reversals by saying there is nothing wrong with him changing his mind, telling ABC’s George Stephanopoulos last year that “flip-flopping is getting a bad rap.”

This week, he said he was not bothered if others get upset during negotiations, what matters in the end is whether he and lawmakers reach a deal.

“People sometimes get upset if you sign a certain bill that they don’t like – you know, the Harvey Milk bill or something like that. You know, he (Blakeslee) sees it and says, ‘Oh my God, this is outrageous.’ So you know, that’s his problem,” Schwarzenegger told reporters. But, he said, “We want everyone to work together to make sure that we have the water infrastructure, because … it will be a historic accomplishment.”

Questions about whether Schwarzenegger was a reliable negotiating partner arose shortly after he took office in 2003, when he lost the trust of a key political constituency, education lobbyists. They charged him with reneging on a promise made behind closed doors to repay billions of dollars he wanted to borrow from schools to balance the state budget.

Schwarzenegger denied making the promise, but the disagreement was resolved only after education groups filed a lawsuit. Now he has icy relations with the California Teachers Association, whose input will be crucial to his special session on education reform.

More recently, Schwarzenegger has upset the largest state employee union with what its leaders claim is a similar backpedal.

The Service Employees International Union Local 1000 said it spent nine months negotiating a contract for its 95,000 employees with the Schwarzenegger administration, only to see the governor pressure Republican lawmakers not to approve it.

“He has set in place the notion that you can negotiate with the governor of California and it really doesn’t mean anything,” said Yvonne Walker, president of the local.

Adam Mendelsohn, a political adviser and former communications director for Schwarzenegger, called the governor “absolutely trustworthy.”

He characterized Schwarzenegger’s actions as attempts to cajole lawmakers into agreeing on issues of statewide significance. Resorting to threats only shows the governor’s frustration with legislative gridlock and lawmakers’ inability to compromise, Mendelsohn said.

“One of his greatest frustrations is that he doesn’t understand why it’s so difficult to meet in the middle to address these issues,” Mendelsohn said.

Schwarzenegger also infuriated city and county leaders earlier this year by opting to borrow about $2 billion in tax revenue from local governments, requiring the suspension of a law he had championed to prevent such raids. Local governments responded by suing the state to get the money back.

In September, Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill to honor Vietnam veterans with a day of remembrance, saying lawmakers should have other priorities. When lawmakers rushed through an identical bill weeks later, Schwarzenegger not only signed it but held a photo-friendly ceremony at a Marine Corps base in Southern California to promote his action.

Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California, said Schwarzenegger’s recent mass veto threat may have done the governor more harm than good.

“Empty threats are worse than useless,” Pitney said. “They undermine credibility and make it harder to influence legislators.”

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker also signaled Wednesday that the measure’s sponsors will need to show that allowing gay couples to wed threatens traditional male-female unions.

Walker said significant questions remain about whether the voter-approved ban discriminates against gays and lesbians in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Before ruling, Walker grilled a lawyer for the measure’s backers who asserted that Proposition 8 was legitimate because it fostered “naturally procreative relationships.”

The judge demanded to hear how that goal would be undermined if same-sex marriages were legal.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks referred to gay marriage as an “alleged civil right” in an address at Brigham Young University-Idaho that church officials described as a significant commentary on current threats to religious freedom.

Oaks suggested that atheists and others are seeking to intimidate people of faith and silence their voices in the public square, according to his prepared remarks.

“The extent and nature of religious devotion in this nation is changing,” said Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, a church governing body. “The tide of public opinion in favor of religion is receding, and this probably portends public pressures for laws that will impinge on religious freedom.”

Oaks’ address comes as gay-rights activists mount a legal challenge to Proposition 8, the ballot measure that overturned gay marriage in California. His comments about civil rights angered gay rights supporters who consider the struggle to enact same-sex marriage laws as a major civil rights cause.

“Blacks were lynched and beaten and denied the right to vote by their government,” said Marc Solomon, marriage director for Equality California, which spearheaded the No on 8 campaign. “To compare that to criticism of Mormon leaders for encouraging people to give vast amounts of money to take away rights of a small minority group is illogical and deeply offensive.”

Solomon said the Mormon church hierarchy has every right to speak out, “but in the public sphere, one should expect that people will disagree.”

In an interview Monday before the speech, Oaks said he did not consider it provocative to compare the treatment of Mormons in the election’s aftermath to that of blacks in the civil rights era, and said he stands by the analogy.

“It may be offensive to some – maybe because it hadn’t occurred to them that they were putting themselves in the same category as people we deplore from that bygone era,” said Oaks, a former Utah Supreme Court justice who clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Salt Lake City-based Mormon church, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has shied from politics historically but was a key player in the pro-Proposition 8 coalition. The LDS First Presidency, its highest governing body, announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter read at every California congregation, and individual Mormons heeded the church’s calls to donate their money and time.

After the measure prevailed, its opponents focused much of their ire on Mormons, organizing boycotts of businesses with LDS ties and protests at Mormon worship places. While some demonstrations were peaceful, in others church windows were shattered and slurs were hurled at the church’s founding fathers.

Some of the most pointed comments in Oaks’ Tuesday address focus on Proposition 8. Oaks said the free exercise of religion is threatened by those who believe it conflicts with “the newly alleged ‘civil right’ of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage.”

“Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights,” Oaks said. “The supporters of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage …”

Oaks said that while “aggressive intimidation” connected to Proposition 8 was primarily directed at religious people and symbols, “it was not anti-religious as such.” He called the incidents “expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest.”

“As such, these incidents of ‘violence and intimidation’ are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic,” he said. “In their effect they are like well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.”

The Mormon church has faced criticism for its past stances on race; it wasn’t until 1978 that the church lifted a prohibition that denied full church membership to black men of African descent.

In an interview Monday, Oaks said the Proposition 8 saga was one of several trends that motivated him to deliver the address, but it was “not the trigger.”

“There are civil rights involved in this – the right to speak your mind, to participate in the election,” Oaks said. “But you don’t have a civil right to win an election or retaliate against those who prevail.”

Fred Karger, founder of the gay rights group Californians Against Hate, said Oaks’ speech is part of a public relations offensive to “try to turn the tables on what has been a complete disaster for the Mormon church … They are trying to be the victim here. They’re not. They’re the perpetrators.”

In his address, Oaks also rejected any religious test for public office. He said that if “a candidate is seen to be rejected at the ballot box primarily because of religious belief or affiliation, the precious free exercise of religion is weakened at its foundation …”

In the interview Monday, Oaks said he was referring in part to the 2008 presidential bid of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whose Mormon faith troubled some evangelicals.

(Sacramento) Today Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law two historic LGBT rights bills – recognizing the contributions of slain civil rights leader Harvey Milk and a bill that underscores that same-sex couples married before the passage of Proposition 8 are entitled to full recognition as married spouses in California, regardless of whether they married in California or out of state.

Both bills were sponsored by Equality California (EQCA) and were introduced by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco). The bills were the top priority of EQCA, the state’s leading LGBT rights organization and were targeted by right wing anti-gay groups who worked to defeat the bills first in the legislature and then by urging the Governor to veto the measures.

“We are grateful to the Governor for signing these critical and groundbreaking measures into law and rising above partisan politics to improve the lives of LGBT Californians,” said EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors.
The Harvey Milk Day bill marks the first time in the nation’s history that a state will officially recognize and celebrate the contributions of an openly LGBT person with an annual “day of special significance.”

“Californians will now learn about Harvey’s amazing contributions to the advancement of civil rights for decades to come,” Kors said. “He is a role model to millions, and this legislation will help ensure his legacy lives on forever.”

The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act, also signed today, holds that same-sex couples married before the passage of Proposition 8 must be recognized as married spouses in California, regardless of whether they married in California or in another state or nation. In addition, the new statute also confirms that same-sex couples married outside of California after November 5, 2008, must be given all of the rights, protections and responsibilities of married spouses under California law, with the sole exception of the designation of “marriage.”

“We are grateful that the Governor has signed this critical bill, which provides much needed protections for same-sex couples who have legally married out of state, or will in the future, and who deserve to be treated like any other married couple,” Kors said. “This bill will allow same-sex couples to get married in other states and countries and ensure they are treated equally under the law when they return to California. Ultimately, however, restoring the freedom to marry is the only way to ensure that all Californians receive the dignity and respect that comes with marriage.”

“When California offered marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2008, spouses who were already married in another state or country were prohibited from re-marrying in California,” said Senator Leno. “Now those couples and their families are in limbo because their rights and protections under law are not clear. This new law will ensure that same-sex couples are protected by existing California law that recognizes all marriages equally, regardless of where they are performed.”

The Governor also signed EQCA-sponsored legislation by Assemblymember John A. Pérez to help leverage funding for same-sex domestic violence services and vetoed two bills on the grounds that existing law and policy already provided the protections the bills sought to put into statute: the Equal ID Act, allowing transgender people to obtain new birth certificates and the LGBT Prisoner Safety Act, considering sexual orientation and gender identity to safely house prisoners.

“While we believe it is important to have these protections in statute rather than just as policy or court precedent and are disappointed by the vetoes, the Governor’s reaffirmation of these policies will hopefully help ensure they are enforced,” Kors said.