On Saturday, in the Huffington Post, power lesbian and longtime gay rights activist Torie Osborn did something few people in her A-list position have been willing to do: Publicly criticize the “No on 8” campaign.  

While Osborn doesn't name names, she still takes the “No on 8” campaign to task for not building effective coalitions with blacks and Latinos…which is something L.A. Weekly first revealed a few weeks ago.

If you read Osborn's piece, it makes you wonder why Rose Greene, a

member of the board of directors at the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian

Center, continues to demand that critics of the campaign cease and

desist, and instead focus on the future. Greene, who works

with L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center CEO and “No on 8” executive

committee member Lorri Jean, is now essentially telling Osborn that

she, too, should shut up.

Greene popped up on the “No on 8” apologists circuit last week, when she wrote a comment to a post I wrote titled No on 8 Leadership on the Hot Seat.” At the time, Greene failed to disclose her working relationship with the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, so I wrote my own comment to fill in the public.

Greene wrote another comment on the blog of Michael Petrelis, who's been sharply critical of Lorri Jean and other “No on 8” leaders. This time, Greene wrote about her affiliation with the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center and actually described any criticisms of the “No on 8” campaign as “horizontal violence.”

This intrigue is not some petty thing. It shows, at the very least, that certain A-list gays and lesbians appear to be in deep denial about the role of the “No on 8” campaign in its own defeat, which is also a defeat for every gay and lesbian in California and across the United States. (That denial may explain why younger folks seem determined to take a seat at the power table of a new gay rights movement, which L.A. Weekly examines in a new article titled “Young Gays Take Reins from Elders on Prop. 8.”)

Greene's active role in diverting attention away from getting to the bottom of the Proposition 8 loss, which could prevent future debacles, may also show how “No on 8” leaders and their friends in the gay establishment want to shield themselves from criticism, and the political fall out that may come with it.

Once again, it makes a thinking person wonder: Are “No on 8” leaders undertaking some kind of cover up?  If so, why?  In the coming weeks, those questions may or may not be answered–it depends if more people like Osborn, young gays and lesbians, and others continue to call for accountability on the part of the “No on 8” campaign.

Contact Patrick Range McDonald at pmcdonald@laweekly.com.

LA Weekly