Monday, August 6, 2012

Chick-fil-a... and why cities should ban them.

People are upset that cities have completely banned Chick-fil-a's from opening up shop. Further saying that they are not welcome now or in the future. It has become clear to me after reviewing comments and postings over different blogs, articles, on my own personal facebook that people are confused as to why its okay for these cities to ban Chick-fil-a.

In these cities, Boston I believe was the first to ban the company, gay marriage is legal. These cities support all their citizens and embrace the LGBT community. Chick-fil-a contributes a portion of their profits to anti-gay organizations, this is all thanks to their wonderful CEO Dan Cathy :gag:. Now these cities that are banning Chick-fil-a would be facilitating more space and more territory for this company to make money to donate to anti-gay organizations. Money they could very well donate towards Education, Hunger, Training programs to get the American Joe working again... So by facilitating Chick-fil-a they would be aiding them in making money that would work against their own laws, act against their own citizens, and in at the end of the day they have contributed a second-handed donation to publicly named hate groups.

This is an article on by Abby Ellin that explains who donates what and to whom.

Whether he wanted to be, Dan Cathy, the Bible-quoting president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, has become a household name. So has his stance on same-sex marriage.

What people might not realize is the extent to which Chick-fil-A has funded organizations with radically anti-gay messages through its charitable arm, the WinShape Foundation, which was created by Chick-fil-A founder and chairman S. Truett Cathy in 1984. According to a July report from Equality Matters, a gay rights organization, the foundation donated nearly $2 million in 2010 to groups such as the Marriage & Family Foundation, the Family Research Council and Exodus International, which has helped "men and women surrender their sexual struggles to the Lordship of Jesus Christ" since 1976.

But Chick-fil-A isn't the only company with a conservative bent. Conservative activists are responsible for some of the products you use in your home. Koch Industries, for example, which manufactures products like Angel Soft toilet paper, Brawny Paper towels and Dixie cups plans to donate about $400 million to conservative groups such as the National Rifle Association, Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, the National Right to Life Committee, Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition, and the American Future Fund, Politico reported.

The founders of Koch Industries, brothers David and Charles Koch, have helped bankroll numerous Tea Party candidates through their advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity.

Meanwhile, you might be surprised to learn that Costco co-founder and chairman Jeffrey H. Brotman gave $77,550 in political contributions to Democrats and only $15,625 to Republicans. An additional $63,700 went to special interest groups, according to, which tracks donor spending.

Most people aren't aware of the extent to which their favorite companies play partisan politics, said Kate Coyne-McCoy, executive director of Coalition for Accountability in Political Spending (CAPS), a bipartisan organization dedicated to curbing the role of corporate spending in elections. What's more, public companies aren't obligated to disclose their political spending.

"Soon America will be inundated with TV ads that will be nasty and vitriolic," she said. "We won't know who's paying for what. It's like campaigns are auctions, not elections, and we won't know which politicians are being bought by whom."

So what other companies or CEOS have strong political or ideological beliefs?

While Chick-fil-A has been gaining notoriety among those opposed to same-sex marriage, Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos is the new poster boy for the pro-gay marriage set. On July 27, Bezos and his wife, MacKenzie, pledged $2.5 million to Washington United for Marriage (WUM), Washington state's coalition of organizations, congregations, unions and businesses working together to defend civil marriage for same-sex couples. To that end, Microsoft founder Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer each donated $100,000 to the cause.

Forever 21

Never mind that they sell itty-bitty skirts and teeny-tiny dresses that could get most of us kicked out of Sunday school. Forever 21 founder Do Won Chang, along with his wife, Jin Sook, is a devout Christian who performs missionary work around the globe and claims the Bible is his favorite book. Chang, who came to the United States from South Korea in 1981, also co-runs the Chang 21 Foundation, which donates to churches and faith-based organizations, according to The Los Angeles Times. And every Forever 21 shopping bag comes with a Bible verse (John 3:16) stamped on the bottom: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."


On Thursday, Fred Karger, an LGBT rights activist, announced a world-wide boycott against Amway, the conservative direct-sales monolith. Karger obtained the tax records of Amway president and owner Doug DeVos and discovered that DeVos had donated $500,000 to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) Education Fund, according to the Michigan Business Review. NOM was created five years ago to pass Proposition 8 in California, a constitutional amendment to prohibit same sex marriage. Karger told that DeVos' "appears to be the largest family donation to NOM in its history."

Dr. Bronner's Magic "All-One" products

The debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has been raging in grocery stores across the country. Now. it's headed to California, where voters will get to decide if many food products using GMOs are required to label them as such. The November ballot initiative is known as "The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act," or Proposition 37. If 37 is passed, not only will there be labeling requirements, but these foods will also be forbidden from labeling or advertising themselves as "natural." Those supporting the initiative include Dr. Bronner's, which has donated $290,000 to pro-37 groups; Nature's Path Food USA, ($250,709) and Amy's Kitchen ($25,000). The company says it does not use GMOs.


Those on the other end of the spectrum -- that is, those who argue that, if passed, Prop 37 would increase food prices, encourage frivolous lawsuits and do nothing to protect the public's well-being -- include Pepsi, which has contributed $90,220 to efforts to oppose the Prop 37; Nestle ($61,471); and Coca-Cola ($61,209), according to Voters Edge, a nonpartisan guide to ballot measures.

Gold's Gym International

Gold's is a subsidiary of TRT Holdings, a private Texas corporation that also owns Omni Hotels and Tana Exploration, an oil and gas exploration firm. Its owner, CEO and president, Robert Rowling, has donated more than $1 million to American Crossroads, which was started by GOP political strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, and the super PAC that supports Mitt Romney, Restore Our Future, according to

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

What do you mean suddenly...

I found this post on via Cafferty File it is a short and to the point blog post about Rick Santorum doing himself in all of a sudden, and Mitt Romney jumping on it in the blink of an eye. Every point is absolutely true but when I read it, the only thought going through my head was, what do you mean Suddenly? Santorum's has been ruining himself since birth. This campaign is just the climax of a hilarious story of egotism meeting fate.

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Rick Santorum: Public Enemy No. 1

I want to draw attention to this arrogant little shit of a candidate. As if enough hasn't been already. When I look at his face, I see the face of a child that was constantly picked on in school but came from enough money to think he was more important than everyone else and considered all around him "just jealous". I'm sure he was turned down by almost every girl, young lady, or woman he ever showed interest in until meeting his dumb shit of a wife, Karen. Now, I know you may be thinking, "that is not fair to bring his wife into this," but everyone knows the power a woman has in a relationship, and if you read the article by Soraya Chemaly "10 Reasons the Rest of the World Thinks the U.S. Is Nuts" via Huffington Post, you would see that any woman married to a man with these beliefs has no concept of womanhood, human rights, or self respect. That article in itself will show you why he is no choice for all women in this country as President of the United States, he should only be the president of arrogant chauvinism.

His entire platform, the complete campaign package is geared against women and the LGBT community. I am convinced as a gay man myself that he is completely against women entirely. This is my point right here, the 'L' in LGBT stands for Lesbian, so with the article posted above and all the attacks he has made against the LGBT he shows that ALL WOMEN Lesbian or Hetero have no value to him, just something he may control. Telling a woman what to do with her body is a definite exercised dictation. Who is this DWEEB to tell anyone what to do, he looks as if he hasn't even hit puberty yet and is obviously demonstrating a very strong case of little man syndrome.

Lets take a look at some of his work towards the LGBT Community. Hold on... Wait...

PAUSE... TIME OUT... so as I do my blogs I search for supporting articles that I can share with you... I typed in a search box what I was looking for, something specific I read via twitter recently and I came across this article... which touches on what I said earlier, you are reading this in real time.... no editing done with any of my posts. HIS OWN CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL PRIDES THEMSELVES ON DIVERSITY, THE ALUMNI OF THIS SCHOOL ARE ABSOLUTELY ANTI SANTORUM AND HAVE EVEN CREATED A

Carmel Catholic Alumni Against Rick Santorum” Facebook page

See the full article here, its quite amusing.
So he was the cast out student that thought he was better than the rest.

Okay, now lets get back to his anti-LGBT campaigning he has been taking on. He stands behind his Catholic upbringing, again please read the "full article" above and you will see that in a poll done by NY TIMES and CBS 44% of Catholics believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, 31% believe they should be allowed Civil Unions, and only 22% believe they should have no type of legal recognition at all. Literally 3/4 of the Catholic population in the United States do not believe what Rick Santorum preaches. He should be running for President he should be running for a position in the high church of Catholicism.

Doing this he's already shooting himself in the foot. Rick Santorum is a joke.

Here are a few things Rick Santorum has said about the LGBT community. Take a moment and read this article via The Eastern Echo. I try to encourage as much as possible for my readers to get involved via twitter and the other organizations that are posted in the "Get Involved" section on every page of the blog found in the side bars.

Now that you have the information, I just want to say WE AS A PEOPLE need to fight this kind of candidate at all costs. He will not stop at just Women's Rights and LGBT Rights. If you support one and not the other that is fine too, you really should open your eyes and mind more, but to each their own. Regardless to which you support or both... you need to fight this guy from making it to the main election in November. As most know who follow my blog I support Ron Paul the whole way, Romney and Gingrich are their own issues. Romney is the anti-gay Obama, and Gingrich when it comes to gay rights feels that gays will ruin the sanctity of marriage even though he divorced his first wife who was sick with cancer and dying at the time and then divorced his second because she wouldn't agree to an "open marriage" and has had the same problem with his current marriage and wanting it to be open. Yet, to him, two people of the same sex committing themselves solely to one another based on love and integrity is going to ruin what marriage is about. Ron Paul seems to be left out of all commentary via talk radio and a lot of the coverage following the presidential candidacy race, mainly because he can hold strong numbers, the youth of America supports him, he has libertarian views, he believes in federalism and privatizing everything. The general reports after all the debates in which he participates in state that Ron Paul is the only candidate with any substance in his views and responses... though its clear the moderators, who are partial to the three mentioned above, seem to leave him out and ask his opinion on specific topics. At the end of the day, I support Ron Paul because he believes in true Democracy, for the people by the people. Personally as democratic you think I would be I am not. I do believe that democrats can (not always) have a inclination to give money out to unnecessary causes and spend frivolously, again not always but can. BEING A TRUE REPUBLICAN is to be FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE and nothing more. Separate church and state, follow the concept of democracy while guiding our economy fiscally in the right direction. Bills and measures that are going to cost us money and do nothing for us at the same time are putting us further in the hole and we will no longer be our own country but the "territory" of another power. Ex: Obamacare, it takes up 1/5-1/6 of our economy and what does it do for us? I haven't seen anything from it.

Okay this rant was a little scatter-brained but at the end of the day I told you this was done in real time all the way down to the supporting articles, read them and you will see the organization of thought and point that I may have lacked. I'm marking this paragraph as end of the relative subject. If you continue reading there is a message to my current readers who are probably surprised by the new post....

Sorry I have not posted in quite a while, I have been taking time to work out a few things in my own personal situation that needed attending. Also, I have been rethinking the direction of this blog and what I'm trying to convey to everyone and what information I want to put on the table. I feel focusing on only local gay rights although that will be the primary topic found throughout my posts past, present and future... I decided I'm going to expand a little more. Any new information with Prop 8 and the appeals until same-sex marriage is legalized and recognized will be posted immediately and even though I have been silent I have been checking every day for substantial news, not just something that will leave you wondering, "Well, WHEN IS THIS ALL GOING TO HAPPEN?" Also, I will be focusing more on general HUMAN RIGHTS. Including women, minorities, lgbt, and so on. Because there is so much anguish behind this subject in the country to date it will be hard for me to keep you posted. I will be posting short posts directing you towards articles found on the web. A lot of information can be found by signing up for twitter and following the article sources you will find a follow button on almost every article page you read. Twitter is not just for seeing your friends every thoughts and lame ass pictures that have nothing to do with anything important. It is also a way to filter what news and information you would like to read on a daily basis. So I encourage each and everyone of you to sign up for twitter and follow me and those you find in articles. You can follow me by clicking the following link then clicking follow

Thank you guys for following and please know you will be seeing a different stream of information in form of short paragraphs leading you to outside articles, and trust I will be stating my opinion if that is the type of blog post you enjoy.

I'll never stop.
Jon Scott

Tuesday, February 7, 2012


Excuse the language, today is my BIRTHDAY.... and we won our COURT CASE! I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO POST BUT I WILL I PROMISE!!!! Let their be news, I'm literally still drunk from last night, and in tears right now because we won!

BTW I'm the blonde in all black, my husband is the green plaid shirt and I have my left arm around him!

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

How to Follow the 9th Circuit Oral Arguments by AFER

Another bit of information that may be much needed, this is more detailed as to what and where you will be able to hear for the Prop 8 hearing in the 9th Circuit on Thursday. I grabbed this tid bit from AFER's website.

How to Follow the 9th Circuit Oral Arguments on Dec. 8

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals released the following information about the December 8 oral arguments in Perry v. Brown. You can also follow AFER’s live updates here and by following @AFER on Twitter.

[Update, Dec. 2] The Ninth Circuit has granted a request by KQED for live and/or delayed audio broadcast.


Oral arguments will be heard by a panel of three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday, December 8, 2011, beginning at 2:30 p.m. (Pacific time) in Courtroom One on the third floor of the James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse, 95 7 St., San Francisco. The panel consists of Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt of Los Angeles and N. Randy Smith of Pocatello, Idaho, and Senior Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins of Phoenix. Two appeals will be argued:

Appeal No. 11-17255 involves an appeal of a ruling by Chief District Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on September 19, 2011, allowing the public release of videotapes made of the civil bench trial in Perry v. Hollingsworth. Oral arguments in this matter are scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m.

Appeal No. 11-16577 involves an appeal of a ruling by Chief District Judge Ware on June 14, 2011, denying a motion to vacate the judgment inPerry v. Hollingsworth on the ground that the presiding judge, then-Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, now retired, should be disqualified from presiding over the case because he was involved in a same-sex relationship at the time. Oral arguments in this matter are scheduled to begin at 3:30 p.m.

There will be no further argument in Appeal No. 10-16696. This appeal involves a challenge to a California law defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, thereby prohibiting same-sex marriages. The law was enacted by a ballot measure, Proposition 8, approved by a majority of California voters in 2008, and found to be constitutional by the California Supreme Court in 2009. The law was challenged in federal court leading to a civil bench trial in January 2010 before Judge Walker in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On August 4, 2010, Judge Walker issued a ruling in Perry v. Hollingsworth finding the law to be unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection and due process rights of same-sex couples seeking to marry. The decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments on December 6, 2010, on two matters: 1) Whether the proponents of the Proposition 8 ballot measure and certain local government officials had legal standing to appeal the lower court ruling; and 2) whether Judge Walker was correct in finding that the law was unconstitutional. On January 4, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order asking the California Supreme Court to determine whether Proposition 8 proponents had the legal right under the California law to defend Proposition 8 after the State of California chose not to do so. On November 17, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion finding that Proposition 8 proponents did have standing to defend the law. The Ninth Circuit panel has asked the parties to submit briefs pertaining to the California Supreme Court ruling. The panel has not yet ruled on the either the standing issue or the constitutionality of the law. (This case was previously captioned Perry v. Hollingsworth and Perry v. Schwarzenegger.)

Documents related to all three appeals are available online. To access, click here or use this URL:

Videotaping of the Proceedings

The panel has given consent for videotaping of the proceedings for later broadcast by C-SPAN and the NBC-7 television station in San Diego, and for still photo coverage by the Los Angeles

Times. In the event of multiple camera requests, C-SPAN and the Los Angeles Times will serve as pool providers for other media seeking to obtain an audio/video feed or still photographs. To participate in the pool, media must make application to the court using the camera request form attached here. Requests will be accepted until 5 p.m. Monday, December 5, 2011. The court will notify applicants of whether their request has been granted or denied. If granted, the court will provide contact information for C-SPAN and the Los Angeles Times to arrange a feed. The media is entirely responsible for working out pool arrangements.

In addition to C-SPAN, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will provide a live audio/video feed from Courtroom One to other parts of the James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse and to remote viewing locations elsewhere. More information on remote viewing is available below. Digital files containing video and audio recordings of the proceeding will be available from the Court of Appeals website – – no later than noon the following day.

Remote Viewing

A live video and audio feed from the proceedings at the San Francisco courthouse will be delivered via electronically secure means to the following federal courthouses:

Richard H. Chambers U.S. Courthouse
125 South Grand Ave.
Pasadena, California.
Courtroom Three, 1st Floor

U.S. Pioneer Courthouse
700 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, Oregon
Pioneer Courtroom

William K. Nakamura U.S. Courthouse
1010 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, Washington
En Banc Courtroom, 8th Floor

Remote viewing may also be available at other locations. More information will be provided as available.

Public access to the remote viewing locations in federal courthouses will be on a first come-first served basis. No photographs or recording/transmission of the audio and video displayed at the remote viewing locations will be allowed. Proper decorum is expected.

Photo ID Required

The public entrance to the courthouse is located at 7 and Mission streets. Visitors entering the courthouse must show a valid photo ID and pass through security screening.

Courtroom Seating

Due to significant public interest in the case, the court will reserve a limited number of seats in Courtroom One for members of the media. To request a seat, contact the court’s public information officer, David J. Madden, (415) 355-8930 / by 5 p.m. Monday, December 5, 2011. More information on media seating will be provided. Members of the media are strongly encouraged to be in their seats by 2:15 p.m.

Public seating in Courtroom One will be limited and available on a first come-first served basis. Persons wishing to observe oral arguments are encouraged to arrive early and may be required to wait in a line for access to the courtroom. The courtroom will be opened to public seating at 1:30 p.m. The proceeding also may be observed at overflow locations within the courthouse.

Electronic Devices

Anyone may bring electronic devices, such as a Blackberry, smart phone, laptop computer or a similar functioning device having wireless communications capability into the courthouse. Except for courtrooms, persons may use such devices in public areas of the courthouse to make telephone calls and to transmit and receive data communications, such as email or text messages, or to access the Internet. For reasons of privacy, safety, and security, use of these devices to take photographs or for audio or video recording or transmission is prohibited in the courthouse.

In courtrooms, persons may use such devices to take notes, transmit and receive data communications, and access the Internet. This includes media members who are transmitting written accounts of the proceeding to a wider audience using various means. Persons may not use these devices for telephone calls, photographs or audio or video recording or transmission. Telephone ring tones and other functional sounds produced by devices must be disabled while in the courtroom. Only quiet keyboards may be used in the courtrooms. The presiding judge of a judicial panel may prohibit or further restrict use of such devices by all persons prior to or during a proceeding when necessary to protect the rights of the parties or to assure the orderly conduct of the proceedings.

Internet Connection

Courtroom One does not provide Wi-Fi connectivity. Wi-Fi is available in the Attorney Lounge and the Courthouse Café, both located on the first floor of the courthouse. Past experience indicates that 3G connections are possible in Courtroom One.

Press Room / Post-Proceedings Press Conference

The court has granted permission for the parties to hold press conferences immediately after the proceedings in the Library Conference Room on the first floor of the courthouse. Video and still camera coverage will be allowed only in the Library Conference Room. Media are instructed not to use cameras elsewhere in the courthouse.

The Library Conference Room may be used by the media prior to the proceeding. At this point, there are no plans to use this location as a press room (e.g. no tables, electrical outlet access, etc.). A live audio/video feed from Courtroom One will be displayed in the Library Conference Room.

Two Motions to be heard Thurs. Dec. 8th, 2011 by 9th Circuit

Found this article at thought you might want to read it, so you know what's going on with the court hearings on Thursday, Dec. 8th. The 9th Circuit are not making their decision as of yet as to whether or not they are going to solidify the ruling of then District Judge Vaughn Walker. This is however one of the final steps towards marriage equality. Since there are remote viewing of a delayed broadcasting of the trial you can follow the trial via Twitter by following @AFER. I have followed @AFER for every hearing I wasn't able to view be it that I was working or what have you, and I can honestly say, they will update (almost literally) sentence for sentence, word for word, step by step of the trial.

If you would like to learn more about how to get involved with your rights and the rights of millions, please see the upper right corner of the blog where you will find a table labeled "Get Involved". Godspeed.

- Jon Scott

SAN FRANCISCO – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this week will hear two major motions in the Proposition 8 case, setting the stage for rulings by year’s end or in early in 2012.

A three-judge panel will hear oral arguments on:

-- Motion by the pro-marriage supporters to release the Prop 8 trial video

-- Motion by the anti-marriage proponents’ to throw out the case because the judge did not disclose that he is gay

The hearing, which starts at 2:30 pm PT Thursday, Dec. 8, is expected to last two hours.

On Aug. 4, 2010, federal district Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, but anti-marriage foes appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit. Since then, anti-gay groups have tied up in court Judge Walker’s historical decision ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional on several legal principles.

The high-powered legal team led by Ted Olson and David Boies, representing the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), successfully argued why Prop 8 was unconstitutional and discriminatory toward gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry.

“Our case for marriage equality is back on the fast track and we are poised for dramatic progress in the coming months,” said Adam Umhoefer, AFER’s senior project director.

“We have one final step before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the historic Federal District Court decision which found marriage discrimination unconstitutional,” he said. “I am confident that the Ninth Circuit will swiftly confirm the personal freedom of every American.”

AFER offered a preview of what will happen on Thursday.

Release the tapes

In the first hour, Olson will argue that the public has a First Amendment right to see video footage of the historic Prop 8 trial. The District Court has already ruled that the American people have a vested interest in transparent court proceedings, but the Prop 8 proponents appealed that decision. They are trying to keep the video under lock and key because they don’t want anyone to know that they failed in court, where reason and facts matter.

Also arguing that the tapes should be released is a media coalition comprised of The Associated Press, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, FOX News, NBC News, the Hearst Corp., Dow Jones & Co., and others.

Motion to vacate

In the second hour, Boies will address the proponents’ motion asking that our District Court victory be vacated because the judge who heard the case is gay and in a long-term relationship. The anti-marriage forces are trying everything they can to get the case thrown out because they know that reason and truth are on our side.

This tactic was universally condemned in the media and it took only a day for Chief Judge James Ware to rule against the homophobic motion. We are confident that the appeals court will affirm that being gay has no bearing on a judge’s impartiality, just as courts have historically done with cases involving race, gender and religion.

Hearing to be broadcast

The court has allowed a delayed broadcast of the hearing and has set up remote viewing locations in Pasadena, Calif.; Portland, Ore., and Seattle. You can also follow AFER's live updates from the courthouse on Twitter.

Monday, December 5, 2011

Sanctity of Marriage: Same-Sex Couples vs. Heterosexual Divorce Rates

So the main argument behind the anti-gay marriage is that LGBT's will ruin the sanctity of marriage... but since its all about the definition of the word, lets look at "sanctity" for a moment.


[sangk-ti-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural -ties.
holiness, saintliness, or godliness.
sacred or hallowed character: the inviolable sanctity of thetemple.
a sacred thing.

Back to what I was saying, lets look at the facts of marriage. Keep in mind that these facts are of present time and are during the same time that gay marriage is not legal.

  • About 50% of first time marriages end in divorce
  • 65% of second time marriages end in divorce
  • Kim Kardashian's marriage lasted 72 days
  • Larry King has been married 8 times
  • 3.6-5% of marriages end every year
  • Money problems are cited to be the #1 cause of divorce ("for richer or poorer" that's a vow to God) yet impossible to calculate because of the vague #1 reason, irreconcilable differences.
  • Nevada offers a quickie divorce
  • The crime laden District of Columbia has the lowest rate of divorce
  • 11% of African American's have been through divorce
  • 10% of White non-Hispanic have been through divorce
  • 8% Hispanic/Latino have been through divorce
  • Two out of three marriage's ending in divorce have minor children, that's right 66.67%
  • Illegal immigrants marry for Visa's while providing their "spouse" with a monthly allowance as little as $1,000
  • An adult may marry a minor (child) by the consent of a parent in some states.
If you notice there are no divorce rates for same-sex marriages listed above. This is because it hasn't been legal enough to establish same-sex marriage to same-sex divorce statistics. However, gay couples, having had to struggle to be married, exhibit a stronger sense of commitment to each other and to marriage.

What I'm saying here is this, keeping gays from marrying is not going to save the sanctity of marriage because their is no sanctity for marriage anymore. The LGBT community actually hold marriage in higher lights because we have had to fight for it. We haven't been able to marry, divorce, remarry, and trash its reputation with a divorce rate that is climbing above and beyond half our population here in the United States. Yet those able to take advantage of it, heterosexual couples, do. Not all but again more than half.

So if anti-gay marriage groups are trying to protect the sanctity of marriage why are they not stopping all heterosexuals from divorce? Or how about outlawing cheating on a spouse? No, the gays that are married now haven't been in the news for ruining marriage. But Larry King and the late Elizabeth Taylor (God rest her soul) were all over the news for their latest of multiple marriages and divorces.

All I'm saying is this Prop H8 is only out to do one thing and one thing only and trust it is not save the "sanctity" of marriage. It is to discriminate against homosexuals, to try and reduce their stature to that of a second class citizen. It isn't to protect families (remember 2/3 of divorces have children that are minors), it certainly isn't to reduce the rate of divorce either. Yet here we are battling to have the same rights as everyone else? I thought we were all to be granted the same rights and liberties as the next, is that not what our founding fathers wanted?