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.

Citing “a young family and responsibilities at City Hall,” Newsom announced Friday that he was quitting the gubernatorial race to spend more time with his wife and newborn daughter.

The telegenic mayor tried to connect with voters at town hall forums across the state, but never finessed his message. He excitedly skipped from topic to topic, promising never to blunt his left-leaning positions on gay marriage, the environment, immigration and universal health care to win votes.

Newsom’s campaign hinged on his appeal as a progressive, as he attempted to tap into the currents of change that helped sweep Barack Obama into the White House last year.

But Democrats appeared to prefer the 71-year-old Attorney General Brown, who has formed an exploratory committee but has yet to officially announce he is seeking the nomination.

Brown has maintained a 7-to-1 fundraising edge over Newsom and won heavy financial support from unions, a core Democratic constituency. A Field Poll earlier this month showed Newsom trailing Brown by 20 points among likely Democratic voters.

In a short written statement, Brown wished Newsom and his family well. “Mayor Newsom is a talented public official, and I believe he has a bright future,” he said.

Newsom, 42, sought to portray himself as best-suited to usher in a new era for the state, contrasting his vigorous, youthful image with Brown, whom he portrayed as out of touch.

“He looked at the numbers and the numbers weren’t good, although he’s been on the campaign trail for a while and generated a lot of enthusiasm,” said Democratic party chairman John Burton, a longtime family friend of Newsom’s.

“He would raise money, but it was going out the door. I just think he looked at it and said it doesn’t make sense to do it,” Burton said.

Newsom had a team of highly paid political consultants.

Even an early endorsement from former President Bill Clinton was seen as lukewarm and failed to net the anticipated fundraising windfall from Southern California, despite tickets selling at up to $50,000 apiece.

The Democratic nominee is likely to need a large bank account. Two of the three Republicans seeking their party’s nomination, Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former eBay chief executive Meg Whitman, are Silicon Valley millionaires. Poizner, Whitman and former congressman Tom Campbell are all social moderates.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein would be the favorite if she chose to enter the Democratic field, a decision she has said she would not make until early next year.

The Field Poll showed neither Brown nor Newsom came close to having Feinstein’s appeal. Gil Duran, a spokesman for the senator, said she had “no immediate comment” when asked for her reaction to Newsom’s withdrawal from the race.

Burton also dismissed speculation that Feinstein would enter the race, saying the chances were “slim and none and slim left town.”

Newsom’s successes in San Francisco on such issues as providing universal health care and promoting alternative energy became pillars of his gubernatorial campaign, but also reinforced his image as a liberal who might not be able to capture independents and more conservative Democrats.

His administration came under intense criticism last year after three teenage boys escaped from a group home where they were placed by the city, prompting Newsom to reverse the city’s 20-year-old policy of shielding young immigrant offenders from federal deportation under San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy.

State Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles, chairman of Newsom’s campaign, claimed lackluster fundraising and low poll numbers were not major factors in the mayor’s decision and said nothing went wrong.

Newsom “has a demanding day job and he cares about his young family,” Padilla said. “I personally felt things were going well” with the campaign.

Newsom’s high-profile entry into the race last spring was announced on Twitter, and he kept his supporters updated regularly via his Facebook page. Within minutes of posting his withdrawal announcement on Facebook, hundreds of supporters posted notes, many expressing disappointment.

Newsom is in his second term as mayor of California’s fourth-largest city and is best known for directing city agencies in 2004 to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. While the courts quickly stopped the practice, Newsom’s actions sent the debate over gay marriage to the forefront of California politics, beginning a series of court challenges and ballot initiatives.

Newsom struggled to define himself beyond gay marriage in the rest of the state. In last year’s successful campaign to ban same-sex marriage in California, supporters presented Newsom as the face of gay marriage advocates.

Newsom also entered the governor’s race on the heels of an unseemly affair with the wife of his mayoral campaign manager. After admitting the dalliance in 2007, he sought treatment for a drinking problem.

After winning re-election later that year, he seemed to catch a second wind in office. Last year, he married actress Jennifer Siebel, who gave birth to the couple’s first child, a daughter, last month.

In bowing out of the race, Newsom said he will continue to pursue the issues for which he cares deeply – health care, a cleaner environment, education and equal rights.

“This is not an easy decision,” he said. “But it is one made with the best intentions for my wife, my daughter, the residents of the city and county of San Francisco, and California Democrats.”

Why?

Because a San Diego Scientology church supported Prop 8, the measure which took equal marriage away from gay and lesbian Californians. And because Haggis feels that the church leadership has lied.

The full letter, published by ex-Scientologist Marty Rathburn:

Tommy,

As you know, for ten months now I have been writing to ask you to make a public statement denouncing the actions of the Church of Scientology of San Diego. Their public sponsorship of Proposition 8, a hate-filled legislation that succeeded in taking away the civil rights of gay and lesbian citizens of California – rights that were granted them by the Supreme Court of our state – shames us.

I called and wrote and implored you, as the official spokesman of the church, to condemn their actions. I told you I could not, in good conscience, be a member of an organization where gay-bashing was tolerated.

In that first conversation, back at the end of October of last year, you told me you were horrified, that you would get to the bottom of it and “heads would roll.” You promised action. Ten months passed. No action was forthcoming. The best you offered was a weak and carefully worded press release, which praised the church’s human rights record and took no responsibility. Even that, you decided not to publish.

The church’s refusal to denounce the actions of these bigots, hypocrites and homophobes is cowardly. I can think of no other word.  Silence is consent, Tommy. I refuse to consent.

I joined the Church of Scientology thirty-five years ago. During my twenties and early thirties I studied and received a great deal of counseling. While I have not been an active member for many years, I found much of what I learned to be very helpful, and I still apply it in my daily life. I have never pretended to be the best Scientologist, but I openly and vigorously defended the church whenever it was criticized, as I railed against the kind of intolerance that I believed was directed against it. I had my disagreements, but I dealt with them internally. I saw the organization – with all its warts, growing pains and problems – as an underdog. And I have always had a thing for underdogs.

But I reached a point several weeks ago where I no longer knew what to think. You had allowed our name to be allied with the worst elements of the Christian Right. In order to contain a potential “PR flap” you allowed our sponsorship of Proposition 8 to stand. Despite all the church’s words about promoting freedom and human rights, its name is now in the public record alongside those who promote bigotry and intolerance, homophobia and fear.

The fact that the Mormon Church drew all the fire, that no one noticed, doesn’t matter. I noticed. And I felt sick. I wondered how the church could, in good conscience, through the action of a few and then the inaction of its leadership, support a bill that strips a group of its civil rights.

This was my state of mind when I was online doing research and chanced upon an interview clip with you on CNN. The interview lasted maybe ten minutes – it was just you and the newscaster. And in it I saw you deny the church’s policy of disconnection. You said straight-out there was no such policy, that it did not exist.

I was shocked. We all know this policy exists. I didn’t have to search for verification – I didn’t have to look any further than my own home.

You might recall that my wife was ordered to disconnect from her parents because of something absolutely trivial they supposedly did twenty-five years ago when they resigned from the church. This is a lovely retired couple, never said a negative word about Scientology to me or anyone else I know – hardly raving maniacs or enemies of the church. In fact it was they who introduced my wife to Scientology.

Although it caused her terrible personal pain, my wife broke off all contact with them. I refused to do so. I’ve never been good at following orders, especially when I find them morally reprehensible.

For a year and a half, despite her protestations, my wife did not speak to her parents and they had limited access to their grandchild. It was a terrible time.

That’s not ancient history, Tommy. It was a year ago.

And you could laugh at the question as if it was a joke? You could publicly state that it doesn’t exist?

To see you lie so easily, I am afraid I had to ask myself: what else are you lying about?

And that is when I read the recent articles in the St. Petersburg Times.  They left me dumbstruck and horrified.

These were not the claims made by “outsiders” looking to dig up dirt against us. These accusations were made by top international executives who had devoted most of their lives to the church. Say what you will about them now, these were staunch defenders of the church, including Mike Rinder, the church’s official spokesman for 20 years!

Tommy, if only a fraction of these accusations are true, we are talking about serious, indefensible human and civil rights violations. It is still hard for me to believe.  But given how many former top-level executives have said these things are true, it is hard to believe it is all lies.

And when I pictured you assuring me that it is all lies, that this is nothing but an unfounded and vicious attack by a group of disgruntled employees, I am afraid that I saw the same face that looked in the camera and denied the policy of disconnection. I heard the same voice that professed outrage at our support of Proposition 8, who promised to correct it, and did nothing.

I carefully read all of your rebuttals, I watched every video where you presented the church’s position, I listened to all your arguments – ever word. I wish I could tell you that they rang true. But they didn’t.

I was left feeling outraged, and frankly, more than a little stupid.

And though it may seem small by comparison, I was truly disturbed to see you provide private details from confessionals to the press in an attempt to embarrass and discredit the executives who spoke out. A priest would go to jail before revealing secrets from the confessional, no matter what the cost to himself or his church. That’s the kind of integrity I thought we had, but obviously the standard in this church is far lower – the public relations representative can reveal secrets to the press if the management feels justified. You even felt free to publish secrets from the confessional in Freedom Magazine – you just stopped short of labeling them as such, probably because you knew Scientologists would be horrified, knowing you so easily broke a sacred vow of trust with your parishioners.

How dare you use private information in order to label someone an “adulteress?” You took Amy Scobee’s most intimate admissions about her sexual life and passed them onto the press and then smeared them all over the pages your newsletter! I do not know the woman, but no matter what she said or did, this is the woman who joined the Sea Org at 16! She ran the entire celebrity center network, and was a loyal senior executive of the church for what, 20 years? You want to rebut her accusations, do it, and do it in the strongest terms possible – but that kind of character assassination is unconscionable.

So, I am now painfully aware that you might see this an attack and just as easily use things I have confessed over the years to smear my name. Well, luckily I have never held myself up to be anyone’s role model.

The great majority of Scientologists I know are good people who are genuinely interested in improving conditions on this planet and helping others. I have to believe that if they knew what I now know, they too would be horrified. But I know how easy it was for me to defend our organization and dismiss our critics, without ever truly looking at what was being said; I did it for thirty-five years. And so, after writing this letter, I am fully aware that some of my friends may choose to no longer associate with me, or in some cases work with me. I will always take their calls, as I always took yours. However, I have finally come to the conclusion that I can no longer be a part of this group. Frankly, I had to look no further than your refusal to denounce the church’s anti-gay stance, and the indefensible actions, and inactions, of those who condone this behavior within the organization. I am only ashamed that I waited this many months to act. I hereby resign my membership in the Church of Scientology.

Sincerely,

Paul Haggis

Ps. I’ve attached our email correspondence.  At some point it became evident that you did not value my concerns about the church’s tacit support of an amendment that violated the civil rights of so many of our citizens. Perhaps if you had done a little more research on me, the church’s senior management wouldn’t have dismissed those concerns quite so cavalierly. While I am no great believer in resumes and awards, this is what you would have discovered:

* Founder, Artists For Peace and Justice,
- sponsoring schools, an orphanage and a children’s hospital in the slums of Haiti
* Co-Founder, BrandAid Foundation and BrandAid Project
- marketing the work of artisans from the poorest countries in the world,
* Board Member, Office of The Americas
- supporting peace and justice initiatives around the world
* Board Member, Center For The Advancement of Non-Violence
* Member and active supporter, Amnesty International
* Member, President’s Council, Defenders of Wildlife
* Member and fundraiser, Environment California and CalPirg
* Member and Award Recipient, American Civil Liberties Union
* Member and supporter, Death Penalty Focus
* Member and supporter, Equality For All
* Fundraiser, NPH (Our Little Brothers) – for the children of the slums of Haiti
* Member, Citizens Commission on Human Rights
* Patron with Honors, IAS
And formerly:
* Trustee, Religious Freedom Trust
* Board Member and fundraiser, Hollywood Education and Literacy Project
* Board Member and fundraiser, For The Arts, For Every Child
– supporting art and music in public schools
* Board Member and fundraiser, The Christic Institute
- supporting Human Rights in Central America
* Founding Board Member, Earth Communication Office
* Working Board Member, Environmental Media Association
* Fundraiser, El Rescate – Human Rights for El Salvador
* Fundraiser, PAVA – Aid and Human Rights in Guatemala

Awards for outspoken support of Civil and Human Rights:

* Valentine Davies Award – Writers Guild of America
“for bringing honor and dignity to writers everywhere”
*Bill of Rights Award – American Civil Liberties Union
*Hubert H. Humphrey Civil Rights Award – Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
*Peace & Justice Award – Office of the Americas, presented by Daniel Ellsberg
*Signis Award, Venezia, World Catholic Association
*ALMA Award – National Council of Latino Civil Rights
*Ethel Levitt Award for Humanitarian Service – Levitt & Quinn
*Prism Award – Entertainment Industries Council
*Humanitas Prize (2) – Humanitas
*Legacy Award, for Artistic and Humanitarian Achievement
*Environmental Media Award – EMA
*EMA Green Seal Award – EMA
*Image Award – NAACP
*Creative Integrity Award – Multicultural Motion Picture Association
*EDGE Awards (2) – Entertainment Industries Council
*Artistic Freedom Award – City of West Hollywood
*Catholics in Media Award – Catholics in Media Associates

And many dozens of fundraisers and salons at our home on behalf of Human and Civil Rights, the Environment, the Peace Movement, Education, Justice and Equality.

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.

And you can make the difference.

From an email:

I hope you are well. The heat is still on here in California, as we’re waiting for Governor Schwarzenegger to sign the bills the legislature just passed.

Anti-LGBT organizations like Ron Prentice’s ProtectMarriage.com are trying to convince Governor Schwarzenegger to veto SB 54, the Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act (Leno, D-San Francisco).

SB 54 clarifies that couples married out-of-state pre-Prop 8 are regarded by the state as married. It also clarifies that couples married out-of-state post-Prop 8 get all the rights of marriage without the label of “marriage” (the most we can do because of the California Supreme Court’s ruling).

It’s on the governor’s desk right now, and he could sign or veto it at any moment. We are trying to get the word out now for Californians to call the governor at 916-445-2841 and ask him to support this bill, so these couples can be sure where they stand.

The opposition is claiming we are trying to circumvent the law, undercut the Constitution and disregard the will of the people. They are telling their supporters it is “a direct assault on Proposition 8” and “an absolute and total affront to the seven million Californians who passed Prop 8.”

You may remember that when the CA Supreme Court upheld both Prop 8 and the 18,000 marriages performed here before it passed, they pointedly left open the question about couples married in other states and countries before Nov 5, 2008.

These couples could not get married in CA when it was legal, since you can’t get married again if you’re already married. SB 54 clarifies that these couples are legally married in CA.

And, like I mentioned earlier, the bill clarifies that couples married out of state after Nov 5, 2008 are entitled to all the same CA rights as married couples, just without the designation of “marriage.”

If you live in California, call the governor today. Equality California has a list of all his office numbers.

After you’ve called, check in below!

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco heard arguments Friday from lawyers seeking the information, including strategy memos and e-mails between top campaign officials.

The attorneys are challenging Proposition 8, saying it denies equality to gay couples in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Arguing for the Proposition 8 campaign, lawyer Charles Cooper says the discussions were meant to be private. He says making them public would violate free speech rights and possibly subject Proposition 8’s supporters to harassment.

The judge is expected to rule on the issue this week.

Los Angeles-based Love Honor Cherish proposed ballot language to strike the ban approved by state voters in November as Proposition 8.

The new ballot proposal says religious institutions would not be required to perform same-sex unions if it conflicts with their beliefs.

“The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution,” reads the exemption, an attempt by Love Honor Cherish to defuse one of the arguments Proposition 8 sponsors used to garner support last fall.

Submitting wording to the California attorney general is the first step in qualifying a measure for an election. Once the language is approved, backers would have until mid-April to gather the 695,000 signatures needed to put the initiative on the November 2010 ballot.

“Our group has said since last November that we were going to go forward in November 2010, and we are living up to that promise,” said John Henning, executive director of Love Honor Cherish, a volunteer-run group.

Since Proposition 8 eliminated the right of gay couples to get married in California, gay marriage supporters have been divided over how and when to try to win it back.

The state’s largest gay rights group, Equality California, joined the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and several other established groups in arguing that before going back to the ballot, more work needs to be done to change the minds of voters who favored the ban.

Also working against reversing Proposition 8 in 2010 is the fact that next year is a midterm election in which Californians will elect a new governor. Conservatives typically turn out in large numbers for midterm elections and will certainly be a larger share of the overall electorate than they were during last year’s presidential election.

Still, a dedicated cadre of smaller groups has insisted that the disappointment and anger stirred by Proposition 8’s passage, along with the legalization of gay marriage in Iowa, Vermont and other states, could give them the momentum to pull off a victory next year.

Los Angeles-based Courage Campaign, the most prominent group in the pro-2010 camp, has enlisted President Barack Obama’s former deputy campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand, to chart a course for a possible campaign.

Before endorsing the proposal by Love Honor Cherish or filing its own ballot language, Courage Campaign wants to know if gay marriage supporters have the money, expertise and cooperation to win.

“We have said from the very beginning that to go back to the ballot we need the research to help define the path to victory, we need a governance structure that is clear and that can make efficient decisions, we need a strong, smart campaign manager, and we need the finances,” said Courage Campaign founder Rick Jacobs.

Henning said he wanted to get the process started this week so supporters have as much time as possible for signature-gathering. If another group comes up with a different version that seems to be more popular with activists and the electorate, Love Honor Cherish would withdraw its initiative, he said.

Geoffrey Farrow, a Roman Catholic priest who was suspended from the ministry last year for opposing Proposition 8 in defiance of the church’s official stand, is one of the nine people who signed up to be official proponents of the Love Honor Cherish initiative.

He thinks the language clarifying that churches would not be required to sanction same-sex marriages will boost its chances of success.

“This is about civil marriage, not about religious marriage,” Farrow said. “In our society, even prisoners have a right to marriage.”

There’s not much to add about the life of Edward M. Kennedy. Youngest in a family of wealth and power, lion of the legislature, flawed father and man, Irish politician who knew the art of the deal, patriarch, weaver of tales. All of those parts were touched upon today at his funeral.

As his body heads to its final resting place—Arlington National Cemetery–its worth remarking that the younger brother of John and Robert had the enduring affection of two communities that squabble too many times in the “oppression Olympics”: blacks and gays.

Considering all the heat generated since the Proposition 8 vote, this is  remarkable and should serve as a lesson. Yes Kennedy was a partisan who could swing with the best of them, but he  understood progress comes about when people reached across the aisle and made deals based on common ground. Look at the number of Republicans who came to honor this man; not because they agreed with him but because they understood he was willing to talk and offer fellowship.

This should be our lesson as his body is returned to the earth. This happy warrior’s memory will be honored if we take his lead.

Since then, we have made an art of the protest. We carried Silence = Death signs during the AIDS crisis. We ate fire with the Lesbian Avengers. We stormed the country because we were furious about the passage of Prop 8. And we kissed our partners in Salt Lake City and around the country to protest the Mormon handling of gay PDA.

Today, the Freakonomics blog at the NY Times has a circle of experts pontificating on whether protests work.

Their answer?

It depends.

Chester Crocker, professor at Georgetown’s Walsh School of Foreign Service says that protests matter, but they might wind up having a negative affect. They can undermine governments, apply pressure on policymakers, and get media attention.

Crocker says that some of the most effective protests happen in democracies that already recognize civil rights and political liberties and when they’re “led by skillful political activists and organizers who understand how to manipulate public opinion and targeted at concrete rather than abstract ideological goals.”

On the other hand, street power, he says, can get out of hand and subvert the democratic process.

Political Science professor David S. Meyer adds:

“A protest is a signal about who you are, what you want, and what else you might do. . . . Demonstrators can stiffen the spine of would-be allies in government, suggesting there might be advantages in pressing for new positions on climate change, abortion, or gay marriage. No savvy politician will admit to changing direction in response to demonstrations in the street, but of course, it happens all the time.

When activists make progress, it’s always less than what they want.  . . . People don’t generally take to the streets looking for smaller reforms, but often it’s only by asking for more that they get anything.”

What none of the experts say is what we implicitly know: protests help make a movement out of outrage; they get people involved in the political process; they show people that their voice, their anger, can make a difference. They are outlets for creativity. They educate. They help make a community out of a group of people who may have nothing but their race, gender or sexual orientation in common.

Protests help change policy and change minds, yes; but they also teach the protesters how to organize, how to lobby, how to get media attention. In short, they help create a class of people to lift the whole group up.

So whether or not protests seem to work right away; whether or not the protest itself seems misguided; we need to keep protesting until all our rights are won.

“You must not desist from protesting because you don’t see an immediate result,” said Howard Zinn, professor emeritus at Boston University. “What immediately looks like a failure may turn out to be a success.”