Would you like your "Milk" with a side of oppression? ... and other Prop 8 news

I don't think Harvey would approve: the CEO of one of the film chains that will be showing Milk this fall was a major donor to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign.

Alan Stock, CEO of the Cinemark chain of theaters, donated $9,999 to strip California's lesbian and gay citizens of our right to marry. So it's a bit hard to swallow that Cinemark will also be showing Gus Van Sant's epic biography of Harvey Milk, due for release Thanksgiving weekend in some cities, and December 5 nationwide.

Cinemark owns the “Century”, “CinéArts”, and “Tinseltown” theaters nationwide. You can plug in your town and state on this website to find out which theaters near you are part of the chain, and make sure they don't get your gay pennies. And then go join the Facebook group for the organizers of the Cinemark boycott. 

More details on the boycott and other Prop 8 news, after the jump...

"If 1,000 of us commit to see MILK at a competitor's theater instead of Cinemark, at an average cost of $10 per ticket, that's $10,000 of lost revenue," say the organizers. "Cinemark profiting off of Harvey Milk's legacy is an insult to our community, and we cannot support it with our dollars."

Pam's House Blend reports that Cinemark is unrepentant, as evidenced by this little note the corporate office sent in response to a complaint:

We received your correspondence regarding your concerns about the Proposition 8 vote in California. Please know that Cinemark made no financial contribution to either side on this issue. The company does not take a formal position on political issues that do not directly affect our business. It would be inappropriate to influence our employees' position on personal issues outside the work environment, especially on political, social or religious activities. Cinemark is dedicated to providing high quality entertainment for all of our customers.

As an equal opportunity employer, we do not discriminate based on race, creed, religion or sexual preference. We appreciate the importance of this matter to you. We hope that you equally appreciate that any individual act or contribution is just that, individual acts of personal expression and do not reflect company positions or policy.

Kindest regards,

James Meredith
Vice President, Marketing & Communications
Cinemark USA, Inc.
3900 Dallas Parkway, Ste 500
Plano, TX 75093
972.665.1060 (office)
jmeredith@cinemark.com

"Sexual preference"? How very last century of Mr. Meredith, who also apparently does not grasp that the CEO of a corporation is not just any old employee. 

In other Prop 8 news, California Attorney General Jerry Brown (who is also our former governor and former mayor of Oakland) issued a press release saying he had asked the California State Supreme Court Monday to rule on the constitutionality of Prop 8 and be pretty darn quick about it:

In a set of briefs filed with the Court today, Attorney General Brown wrote that: "review by this Court is necessary to ensure uniformity of decision, finality and certainty for the citizens of California. The constitutionality of the change created by Proposition 8 impacts whether same-sex marriages may issue in California and whether same-sex marriages from other states will be recognized here. There is significant public interest in prompt resolution of the legality of Proposition 8. The Court can provide certainty and finality in this matter."

Typically, matters are brought before lower courts before the Supreme Court hears the case. However, petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to accept the review directly to bring an early resolution to the matter.

Attorney General Brown opposes a stay on Proposition 8, arguing that it would increase uncertainty related to marriages performed in California. The Attorney General's brief states that "the public interest would be best served not by issuing a temporary stay, but by an expedited resolution of the important issues raised by the petitions."

Attorney General Brown continues to believe that same-sex marriages performed between June 17 and November 4, 2008 remain valid and will be upheld by the Court.

There has been a lot of speculation here in California that Brown would feel he had no choice but to ask for the court to uphold Prop 8, and while this isn't exactly the same as saying, "Dear Judges, please overturn this piece of crap immediately," it's probably about as close to that as he was likely to get.

Somewhat more full-throated in their opposition to Prop 8 are five civil rights groups, including the NAACP, who on Friday filed a petition asking the court "to stop the enactment of Proposition 8 because it would mandate discrimination against a minority group."

In the petition, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Equal Justice Society, California NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. argue that in order to protect the fundamental rights of all Californians, a higher standard is required to overturn the right to marry. Minority communities cannot be stripped of their fundamental rights by a simple majority vote.

"We would be making a grave mistake to view Proposition 8 as just affecting the LGBT community," said Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society. "If the Supreme Court allows Proposition 8 to take effect, it would represent a threat to the rights of people of color and all minorities."

[....]

"Proposition 8 contradicts the most basic protection guaranteed by the California Constitution, which is the right to equal protection of the laws," said John Trasviña, President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. "We can not allow the Constitution to sanction discrimination against one group of people."

"Direct democracy cannot override the California Constitution, which requires more than a majority vote to deprive a minority group of their fundamental rights," said John A. Payton, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

"We cannot become a society that picks and chooses who is entitled to equal rights," said Alice A. Huffman, president of the California State NAACP. "We should include all people from all walks of life in the entitlement to all freedoms now enjoyed by the majority of our population As a civil rights advocate, we will continue the fight of eliminating roadblocks to freedom."

And as Rod McCullom at Rod 2.0 reminds us, NAACP and MALDEF were part of the original lawsuit against Prop 22 that resulted in the original court decision recognizing marriage equality as a fundamental right guaranteed to lesbians and gay men under the California constitution. Remember that the next time you're wondering who our friends and enemies are.