DOCSLIB.ORG

Reconciling Race, Religion, Media and Democracy in the Quest for Marriage Equality Anthony E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reconciling Race, Religion, Media and Democracy in the Quest for Marriage Equality Anthony E University of Miami Law School University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository Articles Faculty and Deans 2010 Taking Initiatives: Reconciling Race, Religion, Media and Democracy in the Quest for Marriage Equality Anthony E. Varona University of Miami School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Law and Society Commons Recommended Citation Anthony E. Varona, Taking Initiatives: Reconciling Race, Religion, Media and Democracy in the Quest for Marriage Equality, 19 Colum. J. Gender & L. 805 (2010). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Deans at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 19.3 Columbia Journal of Gender and Law TAKING INITIATIVES: RECONCILING RACE, RELIGION, MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY IN THE QUEST FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY ANTHONY E. VARONA 1 Election Days 2008 and 2009 proved to be largely disappointing ones for gay 2 rights advocates, and specifically supporters of civil same-sex marriage rights in the United States. Although Election Day 2008 brought the historic civil rights milestone of the election of the first African American president, it also brought with it the passage of statewide ballot initiatives targeting the gay and lesbian minority in four states. Voters stripped gays and lesbians of the civil right to marry in California, after all three branches of state government had affirmed the right and 18,000 Californian same-sex couples had exercised it.3 Voters also prohibited gays and lesbians from adopting or serving as foster parents in Arkansas, 1 Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Faculty and Academic Affairs, American University Washington College of Law (WCL); member of the national board of directors, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD); former general counsel and legal director and national board of directors member, Human Rights Campaign (HRC). This article benefited significantly from discussions following its presentation at the COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER AND LAW 2009 Symposium, the Yale Law School 2010 Rebellious Lawyering Conference, and at the Universit6 de Paris X - Nanterre/American University WCL Faculty Scholarship Colloquium in Paris, as well as from the very thoughtful and helpful reviews of Jarrett T. Barrios, Daniel Borrillo, Angela J. Davis, Caroline Fredrickson, John R. Gill, Dean Hansell, Darren Hutchinson, Shannon Minter, Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Nancy Polikoff and Jamin Raskin. Dean Claudio Grossman, as always. provided generous research support and encouragement. The author thanks Laura Stafford, Tess Cohen, Ezra Corral, Christina Golden, Sarah Kupferman, Sean Nelson, Ariel Toft and Kimberly Walters for their excellent editing, and Carina Clark, Kathryn Coniglio, Nicholas Federico, Tami Martin, Samuel Pearson-Moore and Jessica Ritsick for their superb research assistance. 2 1will often use the term "gay" in this article as a synecdoche referring to gay men and lesbians in relation to same-sex marriage, and in certain other contexts to the broader lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community and civil rights movement. I See infra notes 11-32 and related text. 19.3 Columbia Journal of Gender and Law prohibited the civil recognition of same-sex marriage in Arizona and banned both civil same-sex marriage and any "substantially equivalent" relationship in 4 Florida. The Election Day 2009 results were more mixed overall, but no different with respect to same-sex marriage. Maine voters, who had been expected to make the state the first to uphold civil marriage equality through a ballot initiative, ended up voting in favor of a ban. 5 Maine's defeat of same-sex marriage represented the thirty-first loss at the ballot box for same-sex marriage. 6 By contrast, voters in Washington State approved what was popularly referred to as an "everything but marriage" statute, granting same-sex couples many of the civil 7 benefits of marriage while withholding the right to marry. Many in the gay civil rights movement reacted to the defeats of marriage equality at the ballot box with understandable alarm and frustration. Others responded with anger and misdirected blame. This Article aims to transcend the superficial analysis of what went wrong and why in the various ballot initiative battles, and turn towards an examination of the deeper lessons proponents of LGBT rights and marriage equality specifically should take from these defeats. My goal is not primarily to engage the theoretical and doctrinal arguments in favor of civil same-sex marriage rights, nor to reconsider whether the gay rights movement should have prioritized the pursuit of marriage equality in the first place. 8 Instead, proceeding from the premise that the struggle for marriage equality is 4 See infra notes 33-43 and related text. 5 See infra notes 44-47 and related text. 6 See Abby Goodnough, A Setback in Maine for Gay Afarriage, but Medical Marijuana Law Expands. N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 5. 2009. available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/us/ politics/05maine.html. 7 See infra notes 48-49 and related text. 8 My colleague Nancy Polikoff has written powerfully and convincingly about the significant costs of the same-sex marriage movement to the legal recognition of family diversity in the LGBT and general communities. See NANCY D. POLIKOFF, BEYOND (STRAIGHT AND GAY) MARRIAGE: VALUING ALL FAMILIES UNDER THE LAW 98-109 (2008); see also John D'Emilio, The Marriage Fight is Setting Us Back. GAY & LESBIAN REV., Nov Dec 2006, available at http:// www.glreview.com/issues/13.6/13.6-demilio.php (arguing that the marriage equality movement has done more harm than good, both by "creat[ing] a vast body of new antigay law" and by counteracting the progress of feminist and gay rights movements in de-institutionalizing and de- centering marriage for everyone) (emphasis in the original). 19.3 Columbia Journal of Gender and Law constitutionally, politically and socially compelling, 9 this Article is a meditation on the tactical lessons embedded in the movement's recent electoral defeats, written so that those lessons might inform future plebiscitary campaigns that have at stake the basic rights of LGBT Americans. With those ends in mind, Section I below provides an overview of what occurred in the various statewide ballot initiative battles in 2008 and 2009 and then describes the preliminary analyses of the reasons for the gay community's defeats. Section II presents five interrelated lessons that the movement should glean from these ballot initiative losses, which, if used to inform pro-gay campaign strategies going forward, should result in better outcomes at the polls. First, I discuss how and why the LGBT rights movement must remedy its failures by incorporating diversity-especially racial, ethnic and class diversity-in its institutional leadership. Second, I propose that the LGBT rights movement engage religious arguments and communities much more substantively and authentically, instead of ceding religious arguments and circumventing faith communities in favor of what may appear to be a more hospitable, putatively secular ground. Third, I examine the need for more LGBT people of color (POC)I0 to share our identities and family lives with other members of our respective POC communities. Fourth, I discuss the need for better and more proactive movement strategies to contend with the new atomized digital media environment, which poses difficult challenges in countering political misinformation, responding to anti-gay defamation and promoting public education. In the fifth part of this Section, I attempt to show that although the gay community's travails in the recent ballot initiative battles illustrate both the dangers of and constitutional infirmity inherent in direct democracy, more strategic and proactive engagement by the LGBT rights movement in direct democratic lawmaking may actually accelerate progress towards marriage equality, both by building favorable support for 9 For excellent arguments in favor of marriage equality for gay and lesbian Americans, see generally WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE, JR.. THE CASE FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: FROM SEXUAL LIBERTY TO CIVILIZED COMMITMENT (1996) [hereinafter "ESKRIDGE"]; JONATHAN RAUCH, GAY MARRIAGE: WHY IT IS GOOD FOR GAYS, GOOD FOR STRAIGHTS, AND GOOD FOR AMERICA (2004); EVAN WOLFSON, WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS: AMERICA, EQUALITY, AND GAY PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO MARRY (2004). 10 1 refer to all LGBT ethnic and racial minority members including Latinos/as-as "people of color" for ease of reference, acknowledging that the Latino/a community is comprised of individuals from all races. See OVERVIEW OF RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN, CENSUS 2000 BRIEF, U.S. DEP'T OF COMMERCE, (2001). at 1, available at http: //www.census.gov/prod/200 1pubs/ c2kbr0l -1 .pdf. 19.3 Columbia Journal of Gender and Law plebiscitary campaigns and by catalyzing support for legislative and judicial advances. Finally, Section III concludes by discussing the importance of patience and perspective in the movement for LGBT equality. I. WHAT HAPPENED AND WHY A. The 2008 and 2009 Election Day Results 1. California Proposition 8 (2008) In California, voters by a slim margin (52% in favor to 48% against) passed Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that amended the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage in the state. "1 Eighteen thousand same-sex couples had already married in California in the six months before Election Day 2008.12 The outcome became all the more bruising to many gay and lesbian Californians when it was reported that Proposition 2, another statewide ballot initiative proposing to require more humane conditions for the caging of livestock, passed 1 3 by nearly a two-to-one margin. California's path to the recognition and ultimate banning of same-sex marriage was an especially circuitous one.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Read the March for Life's Background Paper on the History of Planned
    Planned Parenthood Under Fire The nation’s largest abortion provider faces its worst crisis ever By Jeanne Mancini Summary: Whatever your view of abortion, it’s hard not to be appalled by the recent undercover videos of Planned Parenthood personnel casually discussing how they can profi t from the body parts it “harvests.” The powerful, politically connected nonprofi t enjoys massive government subsidies, as well as invaluable aid from the mainstream media who help it pretend to be what it is not: a broad-spectrum provider of healthcare. Now it faces efforts to end taxpayer subsidies for its lucrative business. n July 14, 2015, a small nonprofi t organization, the Center for Medical OProgress (CMP), released a video that marked the beginning of a tidal wave of Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards public opposition to the nation’s largest abor- tion provider, Planned Parenthood Federation livers, and brains are being obtained? Is of America. The video was part of a much Planned Parenthood unlawfully altering October 2015 bigger, broader three-year undercover “sting” abortion procedures to obtain intact baby parts or whole babies? Is Planned Parenthood project detailing a horrifi c reality: Planned CONTENTS Parenthood harvests and sells baby hearts, performing illegal partial-birth abortions to lungs, livers, and brains. At press time, 10 facilitate obtaining those organs? such videos had been released by CMP with Planned Parenthood Under Fire more expected in the weeks ahead. The CMP videos also focus public attention on Planned Parenthood as a government- Page 1 The footage raises a number of critical legal subsidized agency and provide an insightful questions.
    [Show full text]
  • September 20, 2019 Program Design Branch, Program
    September 20, 2019 Program Design Branch, Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service United States Department of Agriculture 3101 Park Center Dr., Alexandria, VA 22302 Re: Notice of Proposed Rule Making -- Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) RIN 0584-AE62 Dear Program Design Branch: The undersigned lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) and allied organizations urge the USDA to withdraw its proposed rule, Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). If implemented, the proposed rule would harm millions of low-income Americans, with particularly negative implications for the LGBTQ community. Since 1996, over forty jurisdictions have implemented a process known as “broad-based categorical eligibility” (BBCE), for households receiving some in-kind services funded through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program. While federal requirements restrict SNAP assistance to households with net incomes under 100% of the federal poverty level (FPL), gross incomes under 130% of the FPL, and in many cases liquid assets below $2,250, the BBCE option gives states flexibility to adjust these thresholds.i Most states have opted to eliminate the asset test and increase the gross income limit (up to 200% of the FPL) for SNAP. In this manner, states can: 1) extend SNAP eligibility to families with gross incomes working their way up the economic ladder but still struggling with high costs for basics, and 2) incentivize families to save by loosening restrictions on assets. Congress has consistently upheld BBCE since its inception, most recently during the 2018 Farm Bill.ii The proposed rule would greatly undercut the scope of BBCE, effectively sidestepping Congress’ bipartisan efforts to maintain the option.
    [Show full text]
  • Organizations Endorsing the Equality Act
    647 ORGANIZATIONS ENDORSING THE EQUALITY ACT National Organizations 9to5, National Association of Working Women Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC A Better Balance Asian American Federation A. Philip Randolph Institute Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA) ACRIA Association of Flight Attendants – CWA ADAP Advocacy Association Association of Title IX Administrators - ATIXA Advocates for Youth Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists AFGE Athlete Ally AFL-CIO Auburn Seminary African American Ministers In Action Autistic Self Advocacy Network The AIDS Institute Avodah AIDS United BALM Ministries Alan and Leslie Chambers Foundation Bayard Rustin Liberation Initiative American Academy of HIV Medicine Bend the Arc Jewish Action American Academy of Pediatrics Black and Pink American Association for Access, EQuity and Diversity BPFNA ~ Bautistas por la PaZ American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Brethren Mennonite Council for LGBTQ Interests American Association of University Women (AAUW) Caring Across Generations American Atheists Catholics for Choice American Bar Association Center for American Progress American Civil Liberties Union Center for Black Equity American Conference of Cantors Center for Disability Rights American Counseling Association Center for Inclusivity American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Center for Inquiry Employees (AFSCME) Center for LGBTQ and Gender Studies American Federation of Teachers CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers American Heart Association Central Conference
    [Show full text]
  • The Honorable Gavin Newsom Governor, State of California State Capitol, First Floor Sacramento, CA 95814
    The Honorable Gavin Newsom Governor, State of California State Capitol, First Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Governor Newsom: Thank you for your incredible leadership and seeing our state through the COVID-19 crisis. The bold and decisive actions that you have taken have saved lives and established California as an example of how to meet this moment for the rest of the nation. We wish you, your family and your staff health and safety, especially during these trying times. We write to you as leaders of LGBTQ+ and allied nonprofit organizations in urgent need of financial support in order to survive this crisis. The economic fallout from COVID-19 has upended our budgets by forcing us to cancel fundraising events and preventing us from completing reimbursement-based grant deliverables that require face-to-face interaction and outreach. Meanwhile, many of our generous sponsors and donors have been impacted by the crisis themselves and are no longer in a position to support our work financially. Our work on behalf of the LGBTQ+ community — a community disproportionately at risk of the worst medical, financial, employment, and social impacts of COVID-19 — is imperiled by this crisis and the lack of a targeted comprehensive funding response. LGBTQ+ people already experience greater disparities in health and well-being compared to the general public. These disparities include higher rates of HIV and cancer that can lead to compromised immune systems, higher rates of tobacco use and smoking, barriers to healthcare access and — for the more than three million LGBTQ+ elders living in the United States — widespread social isolation and a hesitancy to reach out to health and other care providers.
    [Show full text]
  • OPINION and DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH; GAIL J
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KRISTIN M. PERRY; SANDRA B. STIER; PAUL T. KATAMI; JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Governor of California; KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants, 1569 1570 PERRY v. BROWN HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, Intervenor-Defendant, and DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH; GAIL J. No. 10-16696 KNIGHT; MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ; D.C. No. MARK A. JANSSON; 3:09-cv-02292- PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM-YES ON 8, VRW A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants. KRISTIN M. PERRY; SANDRA B. STIER; PAUL T. KATAMI; JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Governor of California; KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics; PERRY v. BROWN 1571 LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; DEAN C.
    [Show full text]
  • SB 179 (Atkins, Wiener) Cosponsor Fact
    S B 179 – Gender Recognition Act of 2017 Authors: Senator Toni G. Atkins, 39th District & Senator Scott Wiener, 11th District Cosponsors: Equality California, Transgender Law Center In Brief The Solution SB 179 enables more individuals to ensure that SB 179 would make California the first state in their state-issued identity documents accurately the nation to legally recognize nonbinary people reflect their gender by: by creating a third, nonbinary gender marker on California birth certificates, drivers’ licenses, Replacing the requirement to obtain a identity cards, and gender change court orders • physician’s verification with self-attestation; in order to enable intersex, transgender, and Ensuring that applicants seeking a gender nonbinary people to obtain state-issued • change court order need not appear in court identification documents that accurately reflect unless a timely objection has been filed; their gender. SB 179 would also streamline the Creating a process for individuals under the process individuals can use to change their • age of 18 seeking to change their gender gender marker and/or name on state-issued marker; and identification documents. Creating a third gender marker for nonbinary • individuals seeking to change their gender The Issues marker on birth certificates and all other IDs. Individuals seeking to change their gender Background marker and/or name on state-issued identity documents face unnecessary obstacles under current law. The main obstacle is the When gender-related appearance does not requirement that a person must obtain medical match identification documents, intersex, certification that an applicant has received transgender, and nonbinary individuals are appropriate medical treatment during their faced with significant hardships, ranging from gender transition.
    [Show full text]
  • Until the Work Is Done
    UNTIL THE WORK IS DONE Roadmap to Equality Strategic Plan 2019-2024 ROADMAP TO EQUALITY Strategic Plan 2019-2024 Equality California brings the voices of LGBTQ people and allies to institutions of power in California and across the United States, striving to create a world that is healthy, just and fully equal for all LGBTQ people. We advance civil rights and social justice by inspiring, advocating and mobilizing through an inclusive movement that works tirelessly on behalf of those we serve. And we’ll keep doing so, until the work is done. Over the next five years, we’re investing in full-scale growth to turn the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ civil rights organization into an engine for change primarily focused on California, but with the capacity to engage in our national mission objectives. OUR CORE VALUES Collaboration Deep collaboration and intersectionality to ensure no one gets left behind Commitment Unrelenting commitment to the mission Effectiveness Pragmatic, efficient and effective in achieving LGBTQ goals Fearlessness Indestructible fearlessness in advancing equality Integrity Unquestionable integrity for transparency in the work Inclusiveness Broad inclusiveness to ensure all voices are heard Leadership Development Meaningful leadership development for staff, individuals and organizations to sustain and elevate representation and effectiveness of the LGBTQ community Vision Visionary forward thinking to advance LGBTQ priorities ROADMAP TO EQUALITY: Stategic Plan 2019-2024 - 1.22.19 HERE’S HOW WE GET THERE ∂ Advance Cutting-Edge Legislation Educate, Mobilize & Engage Our Community ∂ Continue to advance LGBTQ civil rights and social justice ∂ Develop a robust, comprehensive communications legislation in California, including legislation to protect strategy to mobilize and engage the community at the the most vulnerable among us.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT TAYLOR, JAMI KATHLEEN. the Adoption of Gender Identity Inclusive Legislation in the American States. (Under the Direct
    ABSTRACT TAYLOR, JAMI KATHLEEN. The Adoption of Gender Identity Inclusive Legislation in the American States. (Under the direction of Andrew J. Taylor.) This research addresses an issue little studied in the public administration and political science literature, public policy affecting the transgender community. Policy domains addressed in the first chapter include vital records laws, health care, marriage, education, hate crimes and employment discrimination. As of 2007, twelve states statutorily protect transgender people from employment discrimination while ten include transgender persons under hate crimes laws. An exploratory cross sectional approach using logistic regression found that public attitudes largely predict which states adopt hate crimes and/or employment discrimination laws. Also relevant are state court decisions and the percentage of Democrats within the legislature. Based on the logistic regression’s classification results, four states were selected for case study analysis: North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Massachusetts. The case studies found that legislators are often reluctant to support transgender issues due to the community’s small size and lack of resources. Additionally, transgender identity’s association with gay rights is both a blessing and curse. In conservative districts, particularly those with large Evangelical communities, there is strong resistance to LGBT rights. However, in more tolerant areas, the association with gay rights advocacy groups can foster transgender inclusion in statutes. Legislators perceive more leeway to support LGBT rights. However, gay activists sometimes remove transgender inclusion for political expediency. As such, the policy core of many LGBT interest groups appears to be gay rights while transgender concerns are secondary items. In the policy domains studied, transgender rights are an extension of gay rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Democratic Presidential Candidates Participate in Forum Sponsored by Human Rights Campaign
    NEWSMAKER TRANSCRIPTS Special Events Aug. 9, 2007 Democratic Presidential Candidates Participate in Forum Sponsored by Human Rights Campaign LIST OF SPEAKERS CARLSON: Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, LGBT Americans were once invisible both in our communities and on the political landscape. Today, after decades of progress, moments big and small, LGBT Americans are able and valued. They are also a force at the ballot box. So tonight another monumental step forward. For the first time in history, the leading Democratic presidential candidates were invited to speak directly to a live LGBT television audience. I'm Margaret Carlson on special assignment for LOGO, and I'm joined here on stage by panelist Jonathan Capehart, editorial writer of the Washington Post, advocate and artist Melissa Etheridge, and Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. Together, we'll be asking the candidates to answer the questions important to your lives, your families and your hopes for the future. Live from Los Angeles, LOGO and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation present the Visible Vote '08, a presidential forum. For the next two hours, the Democratic candidates running for president will be here to talk directly to you live and commercial- free only on LOGO. You'll find a wealth of information about the candidates and their positions on the issues at HRC.org and at the visiblevote08.com where this show is also being streamed live. Finally, before we begin, a word about the order of appearance at tonight's event. The candidates, who will appear one after another, picked their time spots in the order of their confirmation to attend the forum.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gift of Anger: Use Passion to Build Not Destroy
    If you enjoy this excerpt… consider becoming a member of the reader community on our website! Click here for sign-up form. Members automatically get 10% off print, 30% off digital books. The Gift of Anger The Gift of Anger Use Passion to Build Not Destroy • Joe Solmonese • The Gift of Anger Copyright © 2016 by Joe Solmonese All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distrib- uted, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior writ- ten permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the publisher, addressed “Attention: Permissions Coordinator,” at the address below. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. 1333 Broadway, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612-1921 Tel: (510) 817-2277, Fax: (510) 817-2278 www.bkconnection.com Ordering information for print editions Quantity sales. Special discounts are available on quantity purchases by cor- porations, associations, and others. For details, contact the “Special Sales Department” at the Berrett-Koehler address above. Individual sales. Berrett-Koehler publications are available through most bookstores. They can also be ordered directly from Berrett-Koehler: Tel: (800) 929-2929; Fax: (802) 864-7626; www.bkconnection.com Orders for college textbook/course adoption use. Please contact Berrett- Koehler: Tel: (800) 929-2929; Fax: (802) 864-7626. Orders by U.S. trade bookstores and wholesalers. Please contact Ingram Publisher Services, Tel: (800) 509-4887; Fax: (800) 838-1149; E-mail: customer .service@ingram publisher services .com; or visit www .ingram publisher services .com/ Ordering for details about electronic ordering.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Department of the Trea^Un Do Not Enter Social Security Numbers on This Form As It May Be Made Public
    l efile GRAPHIC print - DO NOT PROCESS As Filed Data - DLN:93491264004107 OMB No 1545-0052 Form 990-PF Return of Private Foundation or Section 4947(a)(1) Trust Treated as Private Foundation 2016 Department of the Trea^un Do not enter social security numbers on this form as it may be made public. Internal Rev enue Ser ice ► ► Information about Form 990-PF and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990pf. For calendar year 2016, or tax year beginning 01-01-2016 , and ending 12-31-2016 Name of foundation DAVID BOHNETT FOUNDATION 95-4735846 Number and street (or P 0 box number if mail is not delivered to street address) Room/suite B Telephone number (see instructions) 245 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE (310) 276-0001 City or town, state or province, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 C If exemption application is pending, check here q G Check all that apply q Initial return q Initial return of a former public charity D 1. Foreign organizations, check here q ► q Final return q Amended return 2. Foreign organizations meeting the 85% test, check here and attach computation ► El El Address change El Name change E If private foundation status was terminated H Check typ e of org anization q Section 501(c)(3) exem p t p rivate foundation under section 507(b)(1)(A), check here ► q Section 4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust q Other taxable private foundation I Fair market value of all assets at end J Accounting method q Cash 9 Accrual F If the foundation is in a 60-month termination q of year (from Part II, col (c), under section
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Human Rights Campaign Records, 1975-2005. Collection Number: 7712
    Guide to the Human Rights Campaign Records, 1975-2005. Collection Number: 7712 Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections Cornell University Library Contact Information: Compiled Date EAD Date Division of Rare and by: completed: encoding: modified: Manuscript Collections Brenda February 2007 Peter Martinez Jude Corina, 2B Carl A. Kroch Library Marston, Rima and Evan Fay June 2015 Cornell University Turner Earle, February Ithaca, NY 14853 2007 (607) 255-3530 Sarah Keen, Fax: (607) 255-9524 January 2008 [email protected] Sarah Keen, June http://rmc.library.cornell.edu 2009 Christine Bonilha, October 2010- April 2011 Bailey Dineen, February 2014 © 2007 Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY Title: Human Rights Campaign records, 1975-2005. Collection Number: 7712 Creator: Human Rights Campaign (U.S.). Quantity: 109.4 cubic feet Forms of Material: Correspondence, Financial Records, Photographs, Printed Materials, Publications Repository: Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library Abstract: Project files, correspondence, financial and administrative records, subject files, press clippings, photographs, and miscellany that, taken together, provide a broad overview of the American movement for lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual rights starting in 1980. HRC(F)'s lobbying, voter mobilization efforts, and grassroots organizing throughout the United States are well documented, as are its education and outreach efforts and the work of its various units that have
    [Show full text]