From the LAT’s online front page – what can you say? No amount of Westboro protests or bogus legal filings by Liberty Counsel (and the rest of the fundies suddenly turning to “judicial activism”) could stop the march of the expansion of civil rights that began last night…

The Bilerico Project has a gallery of photos from around the state chronicling the celebration. Journalist Karen Ocamb’s coverage of Robyn Tyler and Diane Olsen’s wedding is here.

UPDATE: Bob Brigham at Swing State Project reposted a message to Democrats who waffle on full-out support of civil equality that was written by ally Eric Jaye, Gavin Newsom’s chief strategist (in 2005; ironically it is even more relevant now). What it comes down to is a lack of leadership, and dependence on polls, focus groups, and fear. That’s not how you lead. It’s below the fold.We’ve discussed the slow evolution of Democrats to public embrace the concept of full civil equality, and not just on marriage. It’s been particularly slow for Red State Dems to get on board, as they tip toe around the issue defensively rather than point out the moral and legal flaws of the arguments of those who would restrict civil rights (see Kay Hagan for mind-blowing issue-dodging). Eric Jaye:

With a few exceptions, most Democrats simply lack credibility when they say they oppose gay marriage. We have the honor of belonging to a party that has been on the forefront of the civil rights movement for more than 50 years. Most voters, in most states, expect us to stand for civil rights – even when these very same voters are taking a go-slow approach.

So who do we think we are fooling when we mumble finely nuanced positions on gay marriage? The truth is we are only fooling ourselves.

We have now survived an entire generation of poll-tested politicians and incremental politics. Finely crafted “agreement” messages, once an innovation, are now an invitation to ridicule. Not just late at night on television, but at almost any hour, we can all enjoy a good laugh at the expense of a politician who is merely reading from a poll-tested script.

So what’s the right answer when Democrats are asked, “Do you support gay marriage?” The right answer, in almost every case, is the truth. And in most cases, the truth is “Yes.”

First and foremost – by saying “Yes” we are standing for something, even when the majority of voters don’t yet support our position. And telling the truth makes us sound like real people, not like robo politicians. But more than this – by saying “Yes” we can seize political terrain that allows us to drive the debate, not duck it.

And we are finding that when we take the offensive on the issue of gay rights and gay marriage, we can make real progress. At the very least, we have a fighting chance when we stop ducking the issue of gay rights and start debating it with clear and concise language.

..Cautious Democrats should face the fact that no position on gay marriage is the weakest possible stance. Silence is read as support for gay marriage. And your silence is seen as political at best, cowardice at worst. As a party, we might not have chosen this fight. But it is here. Unilateral surrender is not a workable strategy.

And to my fellow consultants I would offer this hard-learned lesson. Anti-gay marriage amendments are being fought on the basis of gay marriage — not some “hidden flaw” or “costly consequence.” These measures are not analogous to some down-ballot initiative that we can define. Voters know what they are about — gay marriage.

H/t  Rex Wockner.

Pam Spaulding

Pam Spaulding