Equality California announced yesterday that they intend to wait until 2012 to put a reversal of Proposition 8’s marriage ban on the ballot. It’s a move spurred by, what they call, little shift in polling numbers. As well, younger voter turnout in a presidential election year gives an extra edge to gay marriage.

The funny thing is, Courage Campaign isn’t biting. They, with the help of Obama’s Steve Hildebrand, are looking to put Prop8 up to a vote in 2010.

That leaves the California LGBT community with a choice: hit now and show no weakness, or take the safe route and rely on the numbers. It is likely, and Equality California agrees with me, that putting Prop 8 to a vote in both elections will only garner voter disapproval.

First and foremost, I am interested in hearing what you have to say about this question. It’s rare, I know, that a problem arises where coming up with an opinion proves difficult for me, but this is certainly it.

That said, I think that California should wait.

The sign of weakness is damaging, yes, but risking a move before the proper funds have been raised and the ground work completed would be disastrous. Equality California is taking the safe route, for sure. But we all have to adjust our thinking to acknowledge that the west coast might not be the civil rights frontier we had hoped for.

Instead, let’s take the legal marriage battle on the road, lobby congress for a repeal of discriminatory legislation and let Cali catch up in due course.

Once that state takes a look around and realizes that it’s policies on LGBT rights are archaic, to say the least, it might just shape up and start acting like the bastion of freedom it once could legitimately claim to be.

Food for thought: A quote from Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texes

“Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U. S. C. s654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640 (2000).”

Is this an impartial observation or the legitimization of American homophobia?

Immediately after the Proposition 8 ruling was handed down by the California Supreme Court, a newly formed group in Los Angeles filed a Federal law suit challenging that Proposition 8 violates the Federal Constitution. The two lawyers bringing the suit are politically charged and come from opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Still, the ACLU and Lambda Legal, two groups behind most of the successful state rulings are scared the suit will lead to a negative decision which will create a bad precedent for future groups hoping to litigate for Federal gay rights.

I believe that court chellenges should be brought despite a possibility of failure. I believe in the rule of law and trust that, eventually, even the perverted meaning of the equal protection clause handed down by the Supreme Court will protect LGBT Americans.

But I worry about this new law suit.

The first tip is that those on the front lines of the marriage fight are against the suit. If Lambda and the ACLU are worried, you need to take a second look at your tactic.

The second is that the current interpretation of the Federal Constitution only requires government – or an intervenor on behalf of the existing law – produce a rational basis for the discrimination against same-sex couples.

Formally explained, rational basis review requires the challenged legal distinction to, “bear a rational relationship to an independent and legitimate legislative end.” (from the U.S. Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans [1996]).

At certain times, courts have used this language to create a fairly useful test. In 1985, the Supreme Court found that the motive for distinguishing between two groups can’t just be prejudice or the desire to harm. If reasons that are obviously false are offered to justify the discrimination, the court should ignore them. As well, according to the Kansas Supreme Court, simple moral objections are not the same as a rational basis.

But the essence of rational basis is that an explanation, any explanation for the discrimination can be used to uphold the challenged law. Laws are presumed constitutional and the onus is on the Plaintiff to disprove every conceivable justification for the discriminatory regulation (according to the U.S. Supreme Court in FCC v. Beach Communications [1993]).

In Florida, this kind of reasoning permitted the Eleventh Circuit to conclude that in 2004 there was not sufficient evidence to disprove the claims that homosexuals are not as capable as heterosexuals at guiding children during their sexual development and homosexuals are less able to create stable home environments. This, after more than one generation of openly gay families in the United States and the state sanctioned existence of homosexual families in many other countries (including Israel, Canada and Norway).

In California, it could be said that the preservation of the word marriage as a religious and historical notion of a relationship between a man and a woman forms a rational basis for Proposition 8.

The current Supreme Court is very conservative. And the bar is set very low.

This is potentially a dangerous combination. Without significant state support and a brilliant public campaign leading up to the Supreme Court argument, the federal Prop 8 suit is doomed to failure.

She also said that Mancow Muller’s commendable admission that he was wrong and waterboarding is torture will change the torture debate “to the extent that it is honest.”

So not at all, then. Carry on.

Ready, Fire, Aim
Rachel started her own show off with the latest evidence that, African-American President or not, racism is still thriving in our great land, and not just in the little backwoodsy parts that everyone likes to make fun of.

I am referring, of course, to the appalling reaction to President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

After shocking rumors surfaced that Sotomayor may have both Puerto Rican ancestry and a uterus, many Republicans have announced that she can’t possibly have really earned degrees and top class ranks from Ivy League schools, and she must have gotten them because she went on double coupon day or something.

Thank you, gentlemen, for warning us of the dangers of appointing a judge who will automatically throw white men in jail because her Latina feminine empathy will make her go all crazy with rage.

And then she’ll force you to watch chick flicks while eating scary new food and making you pronounce her name with the emphasis on brazenly unconventional syllables!

Mark McKinnon, former media advisor to President Bush, dropped by to remind us that many Republicans are just as horrified by their scum-spewing brethren and give a little insight into the anxiety that thoughtful conservatives have over the push to court the coveted Frightened Racist demographic.

The Obaminee
Rachel took on the flimflammery about the Supreme Court reversing some of Judge Stotomayor’s decisions.

Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog.com joined Rachel to help her blast great big shotgun holes through this tissue-thin argument.

Ms. Information
Rachel introduced us to America’s most lovable new odd couple. David Boies represented Gore in the Bush vs. Gore recount battle, and Ted Olson represented Bush.

The third-best possible scenario would be that now they’ve escaped from prison, shackled together at the ankle.

And the best, of course, would be that they’re now lovers and a techno-pop duo, touring the country and working their way up the charts.

But they’ve still done really well by hitting the second-best possible scenario, which is that they have filed a lawsuit challenging Prop 8 together.

Attention TV executives: I am begging you to make a reality show of this.

Throw in a road trip to D.C. and a quest to find love of their own and I will watch it slavishly. (OK, I will pretend not to watch it, but it will be secretly all over my DVR.)

GOP in Exile
Republicans have been trying to score big scary political points by opposing the closing of Guantanamo.

Except that Defense Secretary Bob Gates wants it closed. And so does General David Petraeus. And Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Oopsie.

Jonathan Alter of Newsweek dropped in to talk about the political advantage of having guys who wear a whole lotta medals on your side and look at shifting political lines in the military.

Rachel and Alter noted that the Republican hard line on Guantanamo is close to the opposite of what our most respected military authorities are saying. With luck, Democrats will manage to peek out from under their desks long enough to point that out.

The Blago Tapes Part 2
To get us up to speed on the latest developments on Rod Blagojevich, Senator Roland Burris (D), and the State of Illinois continuing to wear a hat and dark glasses in public, Rachel ushered us into the opening night of The Rachel Maddow Show FBI Wiretap Theatre.

It was delightful, unless you are Roland Burris or one of the Blago Brothers.

Ana Marie Cox (hooray!) of Air America Radio and just the word parts of Playboy joined Rachel in the studio (extra hooray!) to chat about what may happen to Senator Burris.

Burris won’t win his primary? With all due respect, Ms. Cox, I lived in Chicago for nine years; I think you underestimate the good people of Illinois.

Just Enough
Kent filled Rachel in on the creepy fertility porn that is Jon & Kate Plus 8, which has apparently only gotten creepier. I don’t care if it’s all a ratings stunt or not. I don’t want to hear about it.

I beg you, please watch Advocates of Love instead.

Cocktail Moment
Rachel reported that the incredible glass-sided cantilevered house from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is for sale.

Buyers, remember: no throwing stones or driving Ferraris. And no calling someone a racist after you’ve just baselessly questioned her intellect.

And on that note, I would like to take a moment to offer my thanks to NOM and the Yes on 8 Campaign. Your dedicated efforts have galvanized the LGBT community and its many straight friends and supporters, and your complete asshattery has shown many people who were on the fence about gay marriage just how backwards and mean-spirited your position really is.

Thanks for teaching a whole new generation that bigotry isn’t cool.

Which is not to say that the Prop 8 ruling shouldn’t scare the bejeezus out of everyone. The court has essentially said that, fair or not, under the California Constitution a majority of voters can take basic rights away from any minority they care to single out.

And while that opens up some amazing pranking territory – Nobody tell the redheads we’re taking away their right to sleep next year, OK? – it also opens up the possibility for HippieProgressiveDoWhatYouFeelLand to slide right into the Dark Ages.

OK, fine: I will sign on to take away the voting rights anyone who puts “Escape (The Piña Colada Song)” into the music mix of any restaurant, bar, or public place, but that’s IT.

But that’s all part of the road ahead. Tuesday night was about showing that we will not take the revocation of rights quietly, and we will not back down.

We gathered at Santa Monica and San Vincente at 7 p.m.. The police on the ground were already well prepared, and choppers were already circling. March organizers circulated through the crowd taking donations and passing out signs, and the gathering protesters – myself included – went into a flurry of compulsive documentation.

We took pictures, we made phone calls, we texted and Twittered. What did people do at protest starts before cell phones and online social media? Make meaningful human connections and fall in love? Well, hell, it was a marriage rally – many of the people there had already taken care of that. (Though one enterprising gentleman had a sign with the coda “P. S. – I’m husband hunting!”)

The signs, as always, were terrific. I’d tossed my hand-made sign from the November rally downtown and didn’t set aside the required 37 hours to make a new one, so I self-consciously went with an old-but-cherished “Vote No on 8” sign.

I needn’t have worried – in many ways the rally was an eco-friendly Prop 8 Protest Greatest Hits collection. I saw signs I recognized from the protest at the Mormon Temple and the march downtown… One couple even had candles from the candlelight vigil.

Among the new signs, Bill from the “I’m Just a Bill” Schoolhouse Rock episode was a definite trend, though he was cast very differently in every sign I saw. One showed him crying, another showed him with devil horns and a Prop 8 badge. And one I’ll just call disturbing and leave it at that. I may need to have those brain cells removed.

An astonishing number of people showed up to speak at the rally, including the mayors of Los Angeles and West Hollywood, several members of the clergy, and Jennifer Pizer of Lambda Legal, who announced the Marriage Watch: California project.

There was also a microphone that was something of a drama queen, cutting out just as people hit the highs of their speeches. The crowd was good-natured about it, chuckling and applauding the return of sound rather than assuming evil machinations of The Man.

Speaking of The Man, incumbent Democrats who haven’t yet had best review footage of the speeches – one of the biggest cheers of the evening was for divorcing the Democratic party if they don’t begin to follow through on years of promises.

Lieutenant Daniel Choi was on hand and drew huge applause – not just for his bravery on several fronts, but because he has already become a powerful and inspiring speaker. Choi also marched the route with the crowd, mingling and shaking hands at times, but also just marching and chanting like everyone else.

He took the stage with “My name is Dan Choi, and I am still gay!” and started the best chant of the evening: “Love is worth it!”

George Takei and his magnificent voice energized the rally with his funny and romantic proposal story, and Kathy Griffin sent the crowd off marching on a wave of good cheer by, well, being Kathy Griffin.

And, at last, the marching. After a burst of simultaneous texting as everyone tried one last time to find the friends we had thought it would be so easy to meet up with, we set off down Santa Monica Boulevard at a good pace.

I am, in an odd way, proud to report that my personal streak of always having someone directly behind my left ear who is determined to lead the chants through sheer volume and force of will remains unbroken.

We marched through West Hollywood, distinctly friendly territory. People darted in and out of the flow of protesters, saying hi or gently teasing each other for watching instead of marching.
Other neighborhoods offered more bemused spectators – particularly the firemen who found themselves the objects of some enthusiastic attention – but overall the march was uneventful.

It was an odd march, more of a placeholder or a promise than anything else. 14,000 people showing up just to make the point that we’re paying attention and this isn’t over.

Hitting the streets is the fun part; now it’s time for the less sexy but equally important slog: collecting signatures, canvassing, and data entry. Leaning on our elected officials and not letting them get away with weaseling. Noodging friends into coming along for that phone banking shift and writing courteous but pointed letters to public figures who need to be reminded that you don’t get to be a dickweed without consequences.

It may be a long push, and sometimes the road to equality will be filled with tedious,  difficult, or even scary work.

But last time I checked, love is worth it.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D – Califorgetaboutgaymarriage) joined Rachel to say that new nominee Sonia Sotomayor won’t be crazy-conservative, and to give a quick reaction to the California Supreme Court’s decision on Prop 8. (SPOILER: Boo.)

I share Rachel’s amazement that we’ve allowed Republicans to frame the argument as “Is she conservative enough?” Even after the Republican spanking at the ballot box in November. Dems, any chance you could nard up and make a little noise? Or at least stand firm until we get the court to the left of Genghis Kahn again?

For those needing a little ammo to fight the dumb-ass arguments about how Sotomayor is so terribly scary and biased because she’s female and Latina, please enjoy this think piece by frequent Maddow guest and expert skewerer of dumbassery Melissa Harris-Lacewell.

We Begged You To Send Him to Costa Rica
Former Governor Rod Blagojevich won’t let go of the news cycle no matter how many times people whap at his fingers with hammers. Turns out Senator Roland Burris and Brother of Blagojevich may have had the kind of talk you really don’t want to have when the wiretaps are on. Don’t people know to use clever codes like Pig Latin or Ubbi Dubbi?

Liberal?
And just when Rachel had me firmly behind Sonia Sotomayor, Ms. Maddow mentioned Sotomayor’s support of Bush’s global gag rule. That’s the trouble with not just picking a shouty person to go with: Really looking into a Supreme Court nominee’s record can make your head explode.

The excellent Dahlia Lithwick of Slate.com stopped in to add a needed note of sanity and dismantle the “empathy” criticism. And also to earn double bonus points by using the word “unhinged.”

As bold as the insidious anti-woman talk has already gotten, I’m really looking forward to the nutbags (and the opportunists) stepping it up over the next month or two.

$10 on someone using the word “hysteria.” And another $20 on someone who read only the first paragraph of an article on male and female brains whining that Sotomayor is guaranteed to think in a particular way.

Ms. Information
As you may have heard, the California State Supreme Court ruled 6-1 to uphold the Prop 8 gay marriage ban. The more than 18,000 marriages that happened during the five-month window when gay marriage was legal are still valid.

Which means there are now two classes of people in California, and two tiers of people in the second class. Nope. shouldn’t cause any future legal problems at all.

There were protest rallies across the country Tuesday. Rachel reported that hundreds of people were arrested in San Francisco, including dozens of clergy.

Which can’t possibly be true because just yesterday someone informed me via Twitter that supporting gay rights springs from a grave disorder that makes you naturally against Jesus Christ.

I’m sure Ms. Maddow will issue a correction tomorrow.

Rachel also plugged the Meet in the Middle rally in Fresno this Saturday, noting their devilishly clever tactic of appealing to map dorks.

And just to add a little perspective to your day and scare the bejabbers out of you, Rachel reported that North Korea has detonated a nuclear weapon.

Sure, that gives you free-floating anxiety during the daytime, but what about something closer to home to haunt your dreams and make you sit bolt-upright in bed covered in a sheen of sweat? No problem! Rachel detailed the Canadian Governor General’s consumption of the raw heart of a freshly slaughtered seal.

This was allegedly to show her solidarity with the Inuit, but was clearly to make sure that no one ever messes with Canada ever, ever again lest they plunge their icy fists into our abdomens and tear out our livers for sustenance.

Scaring up Money
Hey, we’re really rolling with that fear theme! Rachel seemed to be of the opinion that the high-pitched shrieking triggered by Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination might just have a little something to do with whipping up the conservative base until they become so agitated that their wallets fly open.

She illustrated this with The Flashlight of Doom, always a welcome prop.

Senator Byron Dorgan (D – North Dakota) was charmingly easygoing about the flashlight thing, and seemed fairly convinced that all the noise is just political theater. Why can’t it ever be pantomime?

A more real danger, according to Dorgan, would be failing to clean up the mess we caused with two Presidents’ worth of bipartisan deregulation. Just in case you didn’t have enough things to be quietly freaking about.

“Maria”
Need a break from all the veiled racism you’ve been seeing in reaction to Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination? How about some overt racism? Former Governor Mike Huckabee wrote about “Maria” Sotomayor’s nomination on his website.

At least the aw-shucks super nice guy act he pulls out on talk shows is pretty much destroyed.

The wonderful Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post dropped in to talk about exactly how creepy this is all going to get.

Just Enough
Appropriately enough for a day when gay rights lost out, Kent Jones did a story on impressive beards.

Looks like they’re coming back in style. But only until 2010.

Proposition 8 stands.

It wasn’t unexpected, but the news still stung.

If I lived in a part of the country where protests and rallies were being held today, I’d probably find myself at one of them.

There’s anger. There’s disappointment. There’s frustration. It’d be nice to share it with a few thousand other people feeling angry, disappointed and frustrated, too.

I keep thinking, though, about the 18,000 couples who got good news today. Their marriages weren’t erased. Their families are still intact. The life they woke up to this morning will be the same life they take to bed with them tonight, and I think that’s a solace on a day like today. I think that’s a reason to celebrate.

I don’t begrudge anyone their anger today. While I tend to demure from it, I think there’s something cathartic about lashing out on day like today with a little directionless anger. Some of the responses to the ruling I’ve read online seemed to unpack the frustration of our whole struggle into this one single opinion, and while it’s not constructive, I can appreciate its comfort. So be angry today, if you feel as though you must. Rage against this with others who share your anger and find some satisfaction in the camaraderie of outrage.

(tangential thought on anger today: Our anger can’t supersede our reason. While it might feel good to punch Maggie Gallagher in the face, it won’t necessarily further our cause. I’m not advocating punching Maggie Gallagher anywhere, mind you. Or anyone else, for that matter. It was just a random example. I just hope our anger becomes an informed anger, a respectful anger, one that blossoms into activism and advocacy. Not a bruised eye, a spray-painted wall, or unnecessarily hateful language directed at anyone.)

But don’t forget about those 18,000 couples.

When our anger subsides, and our lives return to normal, we will have 18,000 couples in California who are living examples of the power and benefit of marriage equality. And if we know what’s best for us, we are going to throw every ounce of resolve and determination behind those 18,000 couples and make sure every Californian (hell, every American while we’re at it) sees, in their faces, what marriage equality truly means and and looks like: loving and productive couples, loving and productive families, loving and productive people that make our communities better.

Today is a setback, not a defeat. When you doubt that, remember those 18,000 couples. And the couples in Massachusetts, in Connecticut, in Iowa, in Maine. We have proof that marriage equality doesn’t bring down the whole of Western Civilization. And we’ll have that proof tomorrow and every day after that.

Anger today. Activism tomorrow.

And to the 18,000 couples in California, congratulations. May your marriages last forever. They endured today. They can endure anything.

Brown made the comments during a speech to British gay rights leaders during a reception at the Prime Minister’s official Residence 10 Downing Street the British Broadcasting Corporations reports.

“This attempt to undo good that has been done is unacceptable,” Brown said. “This shows why we have always got to be vigilant, always got to fight homophobic behavior and any form of discrimination.”

The Prime Minister praised UK gay leaders for pushing to have civil partnerships legalized in 2005, giving same-sex couples all of the rights of marriage except the name.

He praised the rights leaders for “changing opinion” about same-sex unions.

“You have shown how the legislative process, by your pressure, can respond,” he told the group.

Last May the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage.  Some 18,000 gay and lesbian couples married before voters by a slim 52 percent approved Proposition 8.

Brown’s comments came only hours after the California high court heard arguments challenging the legality of the proposition.  It could be up to 90 days before a ruling is made in the case.