Table of Contents
Dates
With Alice
top
July Co-Chairs' Report
Flexing Our Political Muscle Pridefully
by Laura Spanjian and Scott Wiener
  Alice B. Toklas has a long tradition of being at the center of the San Francisco political scene. Perhaps the most visible display of this tradition is our annual Pride Breakfast. For years, the San Francisco political class and the LGBT community have come together at the breakfast to celebrate our accomplishments over the past year, to get inspired for the battles and victories to come, and to kick off LGBT Pride in a powerful and uplifting way.
This year was no exception. The Alice Pride Breakfast was a terrific success. We had very strong attendance, we raised a significant amount of money for our fall political activities (most notably getting Jose Cisneros and Dennis Herrera reelected and helping to defeat the Republican special election initiatives in November), and we had a strong showing from the leadership of the Democratic Party. Guests this year included Senator Carole Migden, Assemblymembers Mark Leno, Leland Yee, and John Laird, Supervisors Bevan Dufty and Fiona Ma, Treasurer Jose Cisneros, City Attorney Dennis Herrera, District Attorney Kamala Harris, former San Mateo County Supervisor Mike Nevin, and Democratic County Central Committee members Leslie Katz, Scott Wiener, David Campos, Robert Haaland, Michael Goldstein, and Jane Morrison. We were also thrilled to be supported by strong attendance of And Castro 4 All, Lesbians and Gays of African Descent for Democratic Action (LGADDA), and the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club.
The unity was terrific. And, unity we will need. The Democratic Party will need to come together like never before to make sure that California remains not just a Democratic state, but that it remains a place that celebrates and embraces LGBT people, working class people, a woman’s right to self-determination, and so forth. We need to prevail in the November special election, defeat the June 2006 anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment, and elect a Democratic Governor in November 2006. We will not accomplish these goals unless we come together and fight as a team. If the Pride Breakfast was any indication, we as a Party are quite capable of achieving that goal.
top
Pride Breakfast and Parade Photos
Our Co-Chairs Scott Wiener and Laura Spanjian host another successful Alice Pride Breakfast
 | Alice Board members and Commissioners Theresa Sparks (Police) and Jim Illig (Health)
| Assemblyman Mark Leno
 | Senator Carole Migden
| District Attorney Kamala Harris and Alice Board member Rodney Clara
 | Assemblyman John Laird and former Alice Co-Chair Rich Kowalewski
| City Attorney Dennis Herrera
 | Treasurer Jose Cisneros
| Acting Board of Equalization Member Betty Yee
 | Public Defender Jeff Adachi
| Supervisor Bevan Dufty
 | Supervisor Fiona Ma
| Judge Gail Dekreon
 | SFDCCC Chair Leslie Katz
| Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Leland Yee
 | Former San Mateo County Supervisor Mike Nevin
| Alice Board Members Miguel Bustos and Rafael Mandelman
 | Former Harvey Milk Club Presidents Debra Walker and Michael Goldstein
| | Alice joins Mark Leno marching in the Parade |  |  |
top
Reese's World: Perspectives from the Editor
Ain't No Movement Like A Progressive Movement
Cuz A Progressive Movement Don't Stop
by Reese Aaron Isbell
 “The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.” - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Sometimes you wonder if you’re making a difference. The life of an activist fighting for equality and justice and a better way of life for everyone can be, ironically, quite lonely. Especially when there’s so much against you. And even more so, when your own disown you. I’ve been thinking about these concepts lately as our movement has been stepping forward, and falling back, in the normal ways any cause does.
Take for instance the movement with marriage equality. Did the electoral losses of 2004 stop us from going forward? Did the rulings against the San Francisco marriage licenses for same-sex couples keep us from fighting on? These were certainly all setbacks, but we didn’t let them keep us down. Our movement marched forward and stridently put marriage equality on the state legislative plate.
And we came oh-so-close to getting Assemblyman Leno’s full-fledged marriage equality bill out of the Assembly. (What an amazing feat to gain 37 legislative votes in any legislative body in the country IN FAVOR of full fledged marriage equality for us all!) But wait, that’s not the end of the story. Following our near victory in the Assembly, Assemblyman Leno and the full California LGBT Legislative Caucus are marching ahead with the legislation in the Senate. They decided the movement on this legislation was not over. Our fight for equality doesn’t stop just because of a small setback.
Look also to the movement’s response to Badlands. For over a year, a valiant effort has been made to get out the word about the appalling practices of racial and sex discrimination within our own community’s popular danceclub Badlands. A few months ago, after a thorough Human Rights Commission investigation and a clear finding a culpability, a Boycott began with weekly protests and vigils. The message began to be heard and people began to engage in dialogue.
However, a difficult setback has come from within our own community. As the Boycott has grown, many in our own LGBT community fight against it. They don’t believe it. They don’t care. They enter the club anyway. They scoff at the protests. They hurl epithets at the protesters, or worse.
And yet our progressive movement is still sending the message. And the protests, dialogue, and calls are not stopped. It will take time and perseverance for the full community to see the problem. And eventually they will—because the movement will not stop. Over the last year many who initially were not convinced of a problem were turned around. It takes time for us humans sometimes to ‘get it.’
Just as it took time and perseverance for 37 politicians to come around to support marriage equality, just as it took time and perseverance for ‘civil unions’ to become mainstream, and just as it took time and perseverance for racism and discrimination to be seen as a negative social condition, society will eventually inch forward. But our society only does so because we do not, and must not, stop pushing our progressive agenda.
There are many setbacks these days. Our national political climate is terribly disturbing. We have much to fight. But I have faith that the progressive movement will not allow these setbacks and obstacles to break us down. I have born witness to the fact that, even in the darkest of moments, our movement has continued with a loving belief in the light on the horizon.
Yes, there are times when we may feel lonely, when we may feel like we’re not making a difference, when we wonder if we’re being heard. We then must simply remember and hold on to the truths that we know—as long as there is a movement then we are progressing forward; and as long as we keep on marching then there is a movement.
Reese Aaron Isbell, M.P.P.
Editor
top
Assemblyman Mark Leno
It’s STILL the revenue, Governor
 Dear Alice Friends,
The battle for marriage equality continues and we will persevere. We were able to get my signature legislation, AB19, to the Assembly Floor—the furthest in the country full marriage equality rights have been brought for consideration. We had 37 votes on our side and still have the capability of making it to that needed 41. We will get there and are currently working on ways to make it happen in the Senate at this time. I will have more to report to you on this subject as we move along, but I wish to thank you for your help, actions, and kind words as we finally take this mountain. In the meantime, please stand ready for the next phase in our long-sought fight for equality. And I thank Alice wholeheartedly for your steadfast efforts by my side throughout this long battle for equality and justice. Your thoughts and actions shouldering these efforts with me continually lift and inspire me.
On another front, this past month, in time to meet the Constitutional deadline of passing our state budget, Democrats proposed a modified version of Governor Schwarzenegger’s May revision of his January budget. In a significant offer of compromise, Assembly Democrats accepted 98% of the governor’s proposal. The changes made refused some cuts to health and human services such as reducing the wages for In Home Support Service workers to the minimum wage of $6.25 per hour. Additionally, our budget did not accept nearly one billion dollars in uncertain revenue projections and did not pass to local school districts the $500 million contribution to our teachers’ pension plan. After lengthy debate, the budget bill was defeated on a party line vote. Because California is one of only three states requiring a 2/3 vote to pass our budget, the minority party controls the final outcome. One third of the legislature can veto the desire of two thirds of its members.
Assembly Democrats then proposed a vote on the restoration of the Reagan-Wilson upper tax brackets for the state personal income tax. Created by Governor Reagan in the 1970s and restored by Governor Wilson in 1991, these added tax revenues would benefit the state approximately $2.5 billion annually. The additional cost to a single tax payer earning $150,000 would be $94. Again, the measure was defeated by a party line vote.
Republican’s refusal to put increased revenue options on the table undermine our ability to serve the needs of Californians who are depending on us to fix our roads, educate our kids and care for the elderly and sick. If the Governor were truly serious about paying down the state’s budget deficit, he could reinstate tax resources the state had in place in the 1990s, and the budget deficit would evaporate. Instead, the Governor is trying to cover up his lack of revenue by more borrowing.
Fortunately, the cuts proposed in the May Revise aren’t as deep as those proposed in January. However, it is important to know why. The cuts aren’t as severe because they are offset by a flow of increased revenue from last year. The Governor will tout that he has “saved” social services. The truth is that the largest increase in revenues is a result of tax amnesty legislation brought to the table by the Democrats last year—and largely opposed by Republicans—which brought in roughly $5 billion in extra revenue.
If the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) had not been suspended by the Legislature in 1998 and rescinded by Governor Schwarzenegger on his first day in office, the state would have benefited by approximately $4 billion each year thereafter, totaling nearly $30 billion to date. Every year that we don’t have the VLF restored now means $5 billion in lost revenue that could be used to help close the budget gap. The cut in the VLF saved the average car owner about $200 annually, an amount she/he paid every year since 1948.
To assist San Francisco deal with the loss of state and federal funds, I have authored Assembly Bill 799, the San Francisco VLF Option. AB 799 will bring local control directly into the hands of voters by allowing San Franciscans the option to re-instate a local vehicle license fee via the ballot. The revenues would provide up to $70 million for San Francisco’s health, transit, public safety and social service needs.
Another possible solution for the Governor’s budget dilemma is to secure more federal dollars. Unfortunately, there is virtually no new federal money in the governor's budget. Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, has identified tens of billions of federal dollars owed to California. In February, she and the California Democratic congressional delegation tried to get the governor to live up to his “Collectinator” rhetoric by working with him and Republicans in a bipartisan manner in Washington, DC. However, as we have seen, the “Collectinator” does not know how to deliver on his promise to collect for our state. If Governor Schwarzenegger were to collect just 10 percent of federal funds due Californians, we would have $5 billion of new revenue. Where is the federal money, Governor?
The Governor has now called for an $80 million special election opposed by nearly two thirds of Californians recently polled, to benefit his corporate, special interest agenda. Instead of working with the Legislature in good faith to address the complex issues facing the state, he has opted to spend his time dining with out-of-state corporate interests and raising campaign dollars to fight teachers, firefighters and nurses in an ill conceived special election. The $80 million price tag could provide a UC education to more than 9,000 eligible students, pay the salaries of more than 1,300 classroom teachers, provide healthcare for 65,000 uninsured, poor children or in-home support services for over 9,000 frail, elderly or disabled Californians.
Governor Schwarzenegger just doesn’t get it. The special election is a waste of resources. Our fiscal health is in jeopardy without strong, consistent revenue streams. And his word is no longer trusted. It’s time the governor started working for the people rather than for his corporate special interests.
Yours,
Mark Leno,
Assemblyman, 13th District
P.S. The Summer Edition of "The Leno Report" is now available. Additionally, should you have questions or thoughts, please feel free to contact me at any time through my District Office at 415-557-3013 or keep updated on the web via: http://www.markleno.com
top
New Life for Religious Freedom and Marriage Protection
Q&A with Assemblyman Leno
This article appeared on the website of the National Sexuality Resource Center
-------------------------------------
In early June, the California state Assembly defeated Mark Leno’s bill for marriage equality. Leno, though, hasn’t given up. He believes California will one day lead the way in establishing gay and lesbian couples’ fundamental right to marry. American Sexuality: AB19, your bill to make California’s marriage laws gender neutral, failed to pass in the Assembly, but the issue isn’t dead. Please explain what is happening in the Legislature.  Mark Leno: Unlike Congress and most local governments, which have the ability to introduce new legislation anytime during the year, the California Legislature has deadlines throughout the year. No new legislation can be introduced at this time, given that all Assembly bills must have passed off the Assembly floor two weeks ago and all Senate bills must have passed off the Senate floor two weeks ago. The only way to move a new bill forward is through a process called “gut and amend.” It’s not a very appetizing title, I know, but it is a process of amending out the language of one bill and amending in the language of a different bill. So in the case of our Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, the only change is that it has a new number and that new number is AB849. It’s already on the Senate side. It will be heard in the Rules Committee in the Senate, and the Rules Committee will need to assign it by committee vote to the Judiciary Committee. We’re expecting the Rules Committee to assign it to the Judiciary Committee for the last Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, July 5th, which is the policy committee on the Senate side. We’ll then move it through the policy committee on the Senate side. It will then go to the Appropriations Committee, and then finally go to the Senate floor for a vote probably sometime in August. Should everything move successfully, it will come back to the Assembly on concurrence, meaning the Assembly would have to concur on the amendment taken on the Senate side to AB849, the amendment being our marriage bill. There is some criticism of the gut and amend process, when it’s used in the 11th hour of any session, late into August, even sometimes the last night or two of a session. It is criticized when the public process is cut short. In the case of our bill, nothing could be further from the truth. There will be nothing cut short; there will be no process abbreviated. It’s merely an opportunity for us to continue moving this issue forward given its critical importance. AS: What happened in June with the Assembly vote? Why wasn’t the bill successful and how will you work to make AB849 successful? ML: It’s a little bit of the glass half full, half empty. No state legislative body in the history of this country has ever held a vote on this subject of marriage equality without (a court) mandate, prior to our vote on AB19. So it was historic. We came very, very close. Of course close is not good enough to end the inequity that same-sex couples and their families suffer daily. But there were 37 votes. We needed 41. Actually, 38 are already on record; one just happened to be out of the building inconveniently. So really, it starts on the Assembly side, as it comes back to us, at 38. And we (did have) a 39th and 40th prepared to vote, but they only wanted to cast that vote knowing there would be a 41st, meaning that it would pass, which is the nature of controversial bills around here. We believe it’s definitely doable and we now have additional weeks to continue to solidify the support and to make our case. It’s a matter of continuing to have discussions with members. I’m not expecting anyone who voted no on the bill—and again, unfortunately, we’re just…excusing is not quite the word but… recognizing that 32 out of 32 Republicans on the Assembly side and 15 out of 15 Republicans on the Senate side will not vote for this. It’s just a given; it’s an unfortunate fact of life. This issue of civil rights is not a partisan issue, and years from now I am certain that my Republican colleagues will be embarrassed that no one even expected them to cast a vote for this. Just to give historical documentation…Any number of them now say they don’t support marriage but of course they support equal protection under the law for same-sex couples—they support domestic partnerships now that Arnold Schwarzenegger does and now that George Bush does. But the fact is there wasn’t a single Republican vote back in 1999 to create the domestic partner registry. They’re just always years behind. I don’t know why that is. It’s unfortunate. And that’s not an aspersion on my Republican colleagues. They’re in partnership with their own constituency; they let the constituency lead them; they don’t take the opportunity to educate their constituency. It’s a dynamic that goes back and forth and no progress is made. We just have to drag them along. We’re just focusing on those Democrats on the Assembly side who abstained from voting back in June. We need three votes; our universe is about six or seven. The math is on our side. Of course we have to make our way through the Senate first and there are no certainties in the legislative process, but again, we are very confident. I’m even more confident on the Senate side. It’s a body of only 40 members instead of 80, and they are more seasoned legislators. They represent twice as many people, so progressive legislation—whether it’s civil rights, consumer rights, workers rights, environmental protections—always has an easier time in the Senate. AS: What do you think Governor Schwarzenegger will do if AB849 reaches his desk? ML: I’ve always described it as a 50-50 fighting chance. And I say that for a couple of reasons. He has said repeatedly and publicly that should the people or the courts change the current law, meaning the limited definition of marriage, he’s got no problem with it. So the policy issue is one with which he has comfort. And I believe him to be a libertarian when it comes to civil rights issues. He doesn’t believe the government should be interfering with our private lives, in this case the most private and intimate decision a person makes. Presently our government is telling you if you are a man, yes you can get married but only if it is with a woman. The government doesn’t care if you know that woman an hour or not. If it’s a woman, you can marry her. If you’re a man and your choice of partners is another man and you’ve been with that person for 50 years, it’s not good enough for the government. That’s what we’re trying to correct here. It just makes no sense. So I think that we have a good chance of his looking at this in a very serious manner. Additionally, he has since then said (again) in a Chris Matthews interview, should the Legislature or the people or the courts change the law, he’s got no problem with it. That’s, of course, exactly what we’re doing as a Legislature. He was also challenged by Chris Matthews who said if the California Supreme Court were to uphold San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer (who declared that the law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman discriminated on the basis of sex), ‘Will you, Governor, support an initiative to amend the California constitution?’ And his response was ‘absolutely not.’ That’s encouraging as well. AS: If AB849 were to become law, what would it mean for the nation? ML: It would be a very significant historical occurrence. No longer could our adversaries claim that just (so-called) ‘activist judges’ were responsible for the progress of this civil rights issue. Duly elected officials would have done so. It will, I believe, change the tenor of the debate across the country. Of course, even with the signing into law of AB849, we know that our opponents are already attempting to gather signatures to place the issue either as a referendum, which would repeal the act of the Legislature, or as a constitutional amendment should the bill not become law, to prevent the Legislature and the California Supreme Court from ever having a say in this again. They’re going to do everything they can to stop this. Even though our civil rights should never be on the ballot, we realize there is the legal option for it, so we’ll have to face the voters, likely in 2006. It’s going to be hard work, it’s going to be very expensive, it’s going to be a real battle but I think it will be their Waterloo, because once a state—and we would be the first state but we’ll also be California—turns back the hateful efforts of such an initiative drive, it will over time move across the country. I’m certain that in those states where constitutional amendments have already been passed, that in time they will have to be reviewed and overturned. Some will be overturned by courts as unconstitutional as already has happened in Nebraska; for others, voters will have to take it up again but in a more enlightened fashion, and will realize the mistakes of their way. AS: The marriage equality issue has taken up a lot of time for advocates of the LGBT community. Do you think there are other important issues being sidelined because of this? Are there things that the gay-rights movement is not addressing? ML: I sometimes hear that concern, if not complaint, but I think it’s…not quite accurate. Because…whether we’re talking about other injustices that the LGBT community experiences regularly—if that injustice is economic or health related, insurance related, housing related, employment related, whatever it may be—once we establish that the fundamental right to marry—and I’m now quoting; those were the words of 1948 California Supreme Court when it ended the ban on interracial marriage saying marriage is more than a civil contract to be regulated by state law; it is a fundamental right of all citizens—once we establish that gay and lesbian couples are among the family of all citizens, everything else changes because that will define us finally as first-class citizens. Once we are able to marry there is no longer any rational or legal defense to deny us any other full legal right and protection. So, I think everything else is interrelated. And I say that as a single man. This is about our humanity.
Copyright © 2004 National Sexuality Resource Center, San Francisco State University, All rights reserved.
top
Speaker Pro Tem Leland Yee
Pride in Pride
 On Sunday, June 26 I had the pleasure of taking part in the annual San Francisco Pride Parade and the many festivities both before and after the parade itself.
Prior to the parade I attended Alice’s annual Pride Breakfast with many community leaders and activists. There were excellent speeches and palpable goodwill as the annual event has become a major San Francisco celebration.
The Pride Parade is San Francisco’s most visible event and attracts visitors from all over the world. It is a celebration of both our community’s beliefs and values but also an important symbolic message to the general public.
During the parade, I had the privilege of riding on the float sponsored by Equality California, an organization working to ensure that members of the LGBT community will enjoy the full franchise of American citizenship. The float, a replica of the State Capitol, highlighted the legislative efforts in Sacramento to extend those rights to all LGBT Californians and their families.
This includes a wide array of bills to provide domestic partner pension benefits, protect LGBT students from discrimination, amend the State Code of Fair Campaign Practices to protect LGBT political candidates from discriminatory attacks, a resolution to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the U.S. armed forces, and of course, the Marriage Equality Act authored by Mark Leno.
 The float also carried Assemblymember Ira Ruskin (D-Redwood City) as well as Senator Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont), and former Assemblymember Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro). The invited legislators were those with 100 percent voting records on Equality California sponsored and supported legislation.
It is my privilege to have personally authored Assembly Bill 866 to amend the State Code of Fair Campaign Practices, a voluntary pledge signed by most political candidates. The legislation will prohibit the use of any negative appeal based on prejudice against LGBT people by campaign committees or candidates who sign this pledge. The legislation will provide voters with insight into the philosophical perspectives of the candidates who do not sign the pledge, and those who violate it will be compelled to answer for such a violation. The legislation will certainly not eliminate discriminatory attacks against LGBT candidates, but it will provide a tool to expose those who engage in such tactics. Assembly Bill 866 will be heard by the entire State Senate for approval. If approved, it will then be placed on the Governor’s desk for his signature before the end of the summer.
There remains much work to do to help secure equal rights for all LGBT Americans, but in California, we’re on our way. Soon, we may get a second chance to pass Assemblymember Leno’s Marriage Equality Act. I encourage anyone with an interest in this and any other piece of legislation to get active and help mobilize support through organizations such as Alice and Equality California. If the yearly success of the San Francisco Pride Parade is any indication of what can be accomplished when communities unite, than there is no doubt that we will prevail in our efforts. This is the time for unabashed and unapologetic pride. Thanks to the leadership and members of the Alice B. Toklas Club for your continuing good work.
top
SF Chronicle Letter to the Editor
Fight for gay marriage
Editor -- Regarding "Same-sex marriage is 'dead for the year' " (June 4): The California Assembly came remarkably close to passing a historic bill that would have granted same-sex couples the right to a civil marriage. To give up now would be a waste of an incredible opportunity.
We strongly encourage our leaders in Sacramento to continue the fight this year. They should not back down in the face of a minor setback on the road to full civil rights.
The momentum for this bill has been building because, every day, citizens are fighting for their families. With a governor's race next year there will be little political will to move this issue forward. And waiting until 2007 is unacceptable.
With Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, at the helm of the powerful Appropriations Committee, AB19 can win in the Senate as Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, continues to engage wavering Assembly members, bringing it back for a vote in September.
Last week, a Chronicle editorial on the issue was headlined, "It's time." That statement is still true now. Join us in demanding the best of our Legislature.
LAURA SPANJIAN
SCOTT WIENER
Co-chairs, Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club
GREG SHAW
President, Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club
View letter on SFGate.com
top
SF Examiner Letter to the Editor
Same-sex marriage
The California State Assembly came remarkably close to passing a historic bill that would have granted same-sex couples the right to a civil marriage ["Gay marriage bill fails first vote in state Assembly," June 2]. To give up now would be a waste of an incredible opportunity. We strongly encourage our leaders in Sacramento to continue this fight this year. Our leaders should not back down in the face of a minor setback on the road to full civil rights.
The momentum for this bill has been building as everyday citizens fight for their families. With state Sen. Carole Migden at the helm of the powerful Appropriations Committee, AB 19 can win in the Senate as Assemblymember Mark Leno continues to engage wavering Assemblymembers, bringing it back to the Assembly for a vote in the fall.
Laura Spanjian
Scott Wiener
Co-Chairs, Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club
Greg Shaw
President, Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club
View letter at SFExaminer.com
top
Alice
Membership Form
Alice B Toklas LGBT Democratic Club
1800 Market Street PMB#18
San Francisco, CA 94102
Tel: 415-707-2010
www.alicebtoklas.org
Alice Reports Editor: Reese Aaron Isbell, M.P.P.
General Membership Meeting 2nd Monday of each month
Month of July:
Monday, July 11, 2005
6:30 PM - 8:00 PM
LGBT Community Center
1800 Market Street @ Octavia
You can now join online www.alicebtoklas.org/abt/joinonline.asp,
or fill out the application below
Membership Application
Yes, I want to join the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club!
__$35 Regular
__$100 Supporter
__$250 Sponsor
__$500 Champion
__$20 Special Needs
__Other
__I am renewing my membership __I
will be a new member
__I am a registered Democrat
Name ______________________________________________________________
Address _____________________________________________________________
City ____________________________________State: ______Zip: _____________
Phone: Day __________________________Eve: _____________________________
Email: _________________________________________
Please send checks payable to “Alice B. Toklas
LGBT Democratic Club” and mail to:
Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club
1800 Market Street, PMB#18
San Francisco, CA 94102
top
|
