Saturday, June 25, 2011

Congrats NY, you are the 6th and Largest state supporting Marriage Equality!

Governor Cuomo has signed the bill passing marriage equality in New York. After the Assembly had voted in favor, it was up to the senate. Here at New York Times you can read the 4 page article on this historic event.

You hear that nation? 6 States. That's 6 down, 44 more to go. With California's legalization of marriage equality just around the corner... we will have only 43 left... (I know I'm an amazing mathematician).

So when California follows in the footsteps of New York, (maybe wearing different shoes) the influence that we have on the western states will be apparent. They will follow, one after another. We will slowly take down this structure of hate and replace it with love... for EVERYONE.

Everyone who wants to get involved in the road to marriage equality can do so by contacting your state officials and demanding it. You can also visit American Foundation for Equal Rights, The Human Rights Campaign, and NOH8 to name a few places you can go. Also you will find a list of all these links at the top right corner of the blog. These pages will offer for you to sign up, sign petitions, etc., when you first join. I strongly urge that you do, you will receive emails updating you any time a new break through occurs and will keep you informed on the road to equality. Also you can follow all three organizations on twitter for live updates from inside the court rooms!

Get involved and place your stamp on full equality in this nation of freedom.

Mitt Romney for President??? HAHAHA No Thank You!

Mitt Romney, I have two things to say to you: 1. You are a dick, and 2. You don't have a snowball's chance in hell. Just read this quote found on his website Its absolutely absurd and I will brief you on that in a moment but just read his "quote".

“When generations of immigrants looked up and saw the Statue of Liberty for the first time, they surely had many questions and doubts about the life before them, but one thing they knew without a doubt is that they were coming to a place where anything was possible—that in America, their children would have a better life. I believe in that America. I know you believe in that America. It is an America of freedom and opportunity. A nation where innovation and hard work propel the most powerful economy in the world. A land that is secured by

the greatest military the world has ever seen, and by friends

and allies across the globe.”

--Mitt Romney, Stratham, NH, June 2, 2011

Again, I will quote him. Notice the bold font... I placed that so you could see exactly what I was going to touch on. This is his stance on marriage equality, which will grant total EQUALITY and EQUAL RIGHTS for all.

Here's another

Oh but wait, there's more. Found this video posted on YouTube by The Young Turks. This is Mitt Romney on the Piers Morgan show, and I have to say this guy makes himself look like an asshole. How much you want to bet that privately Mitt pays dudes to teabag him? Anyway, here is the video, they said it all...

So basically what I wanted to say was, this dude is the DEFINITION of a STEREOTYPICAL POLITICIAN... he flip flops on everything. Tries to appease everyone, has to constantly explain his own answers. You know what they call a person that has to CONSTANTLY EXPLAIN EVERY ANSWER they give.... A LIAR. So Mitt Romney this is just the tip of the Iceberg, I'll let Fred Karger pull up the rest of the dirt. Drop out of the race you asshole. You will NEVER run this country.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Fred Karger On MSNBC's Rachel Maddow 's Show

Homosexuality and Mental Health

Historical background

Open bibliography in its own window

Modern attitudes toward homosexuality have religious, legal, and medical underpinnings. Before the High Middle Ages, homosexual acts appear to have been tolerated or ignored by the Christian church throughout Europe. Beginning in the latter twelfth century, however, hostility toward homosexuality began to take root, and eventually spread throughout European religious and secular institutions. Condemnation of homosexual acts (and other nonprocreative sexual behavior) as "unnatural," which received official expression in the writings of Thomas Aquinas and others, became widespread and has continued through the present day (Boswell, 1980). [Bibliographic references are on a different web page]

Religious teachings soon were incorporated into legal sanctions. Many of the early American colonies, for example, enacted stiff criminal penalties for sodomy, an umbrella term that encompassed a wide variety of sexual acts that were nonprocreative (including homosexual behavior), occurred outside of marriage (e.g., sex between a man and woman who were not married), or violated traditions (e.g., sex between husband and wife with the woman on top). The statutes often described such conduct only in Latin or with oblique phrases such as "wickedness not to be named"). In some places, such as the New Haven colony, male and female homosexual acts were punishable by death (e.g., Katz, 1976).

Read The Rest

Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects, (p 639).
See and learn about the Kinsey Scale here.

Sorry for the Delay, New York needs one vote!

New York's state Assembly still debating the approved measure for marriage equality. They are just one vote short to pass the measure, one vote short in a majority Republican chamber. The vote that would decide it all could be cast as early as Wednesday, June 22, 2011. If the vote favors marriage equality, New York will be the biggest state to have passed same-sex marriage so far.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has lived his whole life raised Roman-Catholic, private schools from grade school to college. Even he with such a strong religious background felt it was "a matter of principle, not politics," and said New York "has a proud tradition and a proud legacy as the progressive capital of the nation," and "its time for New York to lead the way once again."

Meanwhile Archbishop Timothy Dolan has been a strong voice on the opposing side of marriage equality. His belief is that same sex marriage will infringe on religious freedom. He uses his wide read blog to fight this battle, well Timmy I'm using mine. First of all, I'm not Roman Catholic, so you saying that because your church doesn't believe in marriage equality, it should not be legal. Well... mine does. My church is known for loving and acceptance, not judgement and guilt trips, and outrageous selfish religious claims based on the beliefs of one "type" of religion. With all do respect, you can suck it. That "statement" of religious infringement was completely hypocritical and if that is the reason it doesn't pass will be INFRINGING my religious freedom, and I shall hold you personally responsible as should everyone else who doesn't follow your church. Does anyone else smell a lawsuit?

Anyway, the fact of the matter is, more than half the states BIG NAMES and common residents are behind marriage equality. If the Assembly listens to the one religious douche, whom I'm considering as reliable for predicted information as that guy (Harold Egbert Camping) that predicted the rapture. So lets keep our fingers crossed, and hope that New York passes marriage equality. Then lets keep our faith in California doing the same. If two of the most influential states pass marriage equality more will follow and as soon as more follow, we'll out number those who refuse.

Marriage Equality for all I say.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

AFER = 2012 Full Federal Equality

By Nic Garcia
June 14, 2011 | 3:38 pm
(Updated: June 14, 2011 | 3:38 pm)

Gays and lesbians will have a new reason to celebrate Pride come 2012, the president of The American Foundation for Equal Right said in a conference call with reporters.

AFER Board President Chad Griffin

Discussing U.S. District Court Judge James Ware’s ruling validating the decision striking down Proposition 8, Chad Griffin said he believes full federal marriage equality is just a year away.

See the rest here and be sure to follow AFER on TWITTER

Judge James Ware full decision PDF

You can download Judge James Ware full decision made today Tuesday, June 16th, 2011 over the Prop 8 Hearing yesterday Monday, June 15th, 2011, here or you can visit for more information on how to get involved, related topics, and information on what's going on in the world of equal rights!


Attorney General Kamala D. Harris submits this brief as amicus curiae pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f)(8). Although the Attorney General, in her official capacity, was a defendant in the underlying case in the United States District Court, she did not appeal the judgment, so she is not a party to the underlying appeal or to these proceedings. But the question certified to this Court by the Ninth Circuit, if answered affirmatively, threatens to intrude on the exercise of discretionary powers that the California Constitution and the Government Code entrust to state officials exercising executive power. Therefore, the Attorney General, whom the Constitution appoints the chief law officer of the state (Cal. Const. art. V, § 13), submits that the correct answer to the certified question is “no.” Standing alone, the role of official proponents in the exercise of the initiative power does not confer on the proponents of a successful initiative a substantive right either to defend that measure or to appeal a judgment invalidating it.
The question certified reveals two basic misunderstandings about the initiative power. First, it confuses the authority and role of “proponents” under California law with the authority and role of “the electors.” The initiative is the power of the electors, as a whole, to propose and adopt or reject laws. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 8.) The initiative power does not belong
to the individual, or individuals, who propose a particular initiative. Second, the initiative power is a legislative power of government. As a legislative power, the power of initiative is fully executed on adoption of the measure. And, as a legislative power, the adoption of an initiative measure does not authorize its proponents to exercise any part of the executive power of government, either to enforce the measure, to defend the measure’s validity, or to appeal a decision enjoining its enforcement. The constitutional and statutory authority to act on behalf of the state remains vested in public officials acting in an executive capacity.
Proponents of an initiative measure surely remain interested in its validity once it becomes law. And state courts recognize that interest by liberally granting proponents permissive leave to intervene (and to participate as amicus curiae) in cases challenging the validity of a successful initiative measure. In other cases, the validity of a measure may affect the lives of initiative proponents (or other members of the public) in a personal way that would permit them to sue or to defend their own legal interests in court. But once an initiative measure has become the law of the state – just as with laws passed by the Legislature – only public officials exercising the executive power of government have the legal authority to represent the state’s interest and to decide whether to defend or to appeal an adverse judgment in the name of the state. California law affords an initiative’s proponents no right to defend the validity of a successful initiative measure based only on their role in launching an initiative process.

If you would like to read Kamala Harris' Amicus Brief in full download the pdf file here.


"It is not reasonable to assume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of the law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings," Judge James Ware.

Here is an article at LA TIMES for more information.

June 13 Prop 8 Hearing Press Conference

Monday, June 13, 2011

AFER's Release on US District Court Hearing on Prop 8 Case.

US District Court Hears “Offensive” Motion by Prop. 8 Anti-Marriage Forces

Judge Ware: You can’t simply assume that a judge who takes an oath to uphold the law and judge fairly is incapable of doing so.

**Ruling Expected Within 24 Hours**

San Francisco, CA – Forty-four years and a day after the United States Supreme Court declared marriage “one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival” (Loving v. Virginia), opponents of marriage equality today again argued that the rights of marriage should not extend to gay and lesbian couples.

Proponents of Prop. 8 argued that because retired US District Court Judge Vaughn Walker – who ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional in August 2010 – was (and still is) in a relationship with a man during trial, he could not have been impartial and therefore his ruling should be thrown out.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the sole sponsors of Perry v Brown, called the move to disqualify Judge Walker “frivolous,” “offensive” and “deeply unfortunate.”

“The Proponents of Prop. 8 today advocated for a sweeping and completely unsupported standard for disqualification that would preclude hundreds of qualified, fair-minded judges from deciding some of the most important issues facing our country,” said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., counsel for AFER. “Their standard is intended to, and would, prevent gay, lesbian or bisexual judges from impartially presiding over cases involving the rights of same-sex individuals and couples – an offensive suggestion that has been consistently rejected by the courts in similar cases involving race and sex discrimination.”

US District Court Chief Judge James Ware, who presided over today’s hearing, said that he would issue a decision within the next 24 hours.

Proponents argued that because Judge Walker was in a long-term relationship, then the issue of his intent to marry was applicable. Judge Ware said that there were no facts showing that Judge Walker wanted to get married, other than being in a long-term relationship. After lengthy questioning by Judge Ware, Proponents’ attorney Charles Cooper admitted that if Judge Walker didn’t want to get married, then there would be no bias.

Judge Ware said, “You can’t simply assume that a judge who takes an oath to uphold the law and judge fairly is incapable of doing so.”

Experts, judges and editorial boards have called Proponents’ motion to vacate judgment “preposterous,” a “non-issue,” “desperate,” “unthinkable,” and “the worst legal argument of the year.” Richard Painter, Chief White House Ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, went so far as to call the motion leading to today’s hearing “frivolous” and “unfortunate.”

A second issue discussed at today’s hearing was in regards to the video recordings of the August 2010 trial. Judge Ware said he would rule on the issue of the release of the videotapes at a later date, but denied Proponent’s request to have Plaintiffs’ return their copy of the trial videotape.

Today, AFER released the names of more than 20,000 individuals who signed a petition advocating for the tapes’ release, noting that Proponents’ fierce determination to shield access to the trial videotapes directly conflicts with this nation’s constitutional commitment to a public and open judicial process.

AFER attorney Boutrous argued that releasing the trial videotapes would demonstrate that Proponents received a very fair trial from Judge Walker.

Responding to today’s hearing, Chad Griffin, AFER Board President noted, “Today’s hearing demonstrated yet again that the Proponents of Prop. 8 are extremists who will stop at nothing to keep committed American couples from marrying. They led a campaign that was homophobic and filled with animus. Just as those who opposed inter-racial marriage forty-four years ago, those who oppose the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans will too find themselves on the wrong side of history.“

Over the past two years, a series of nationwide polls have recorded a strong shift in public opinion, with recent polls demonstrating that a majority of Americans now favor the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian couples. A Washington Post-ABC News poll in March 2011 revealed that 53% of Americans favor marriage for gay and lesbian couples, while Gallup’s recent annual Values and Beliefs poll showed that more Americans support marriage equality than oppose it.

(article source AFER)

Prop 8: Judge Ware hears case on Vaughn Walker

I'm going to set you up with a couple of inserts from different articles related to what's going on with the case. Or you can follow AFER on Twitter to see the live updates posted during the trial.
Judge says there's no evidence that gay judge who heard Prop 8 case wanted to marry

U.S. District Chief Judge James Ware said during a court hearing that there was no evidence that retired Judge Vaughn R. Walker ever wished to marry his partner, a physician.

Sponsors of Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that resurrected a ban on same-sex marriage, argue that Walker’s ruling against the marriage ban should be wiped from the books because his long-term relationship created an interest in the outcome of the case.

(Read the rest here at the LA TIMES)

Judge James Ware proves combative at Proposition 8 Hearing

Ware, who was named chief judge after Judge Vaughn Walker retired earlier this year, quickly put the heat on Charles Cooper, the attorney for Prop. 8 supporters. Ware asked Cooper about recusal rules, and the attorney argued that Judge Walker should have declared that he was in a long-term, same-sex relationship and recused himself from the case.

But Ware didn’t seem to find much credibility in that argument, then asking Cooper how he could know if Judge Walker wanted to overturn Prop. 8 so that he could get married. “You can be in a long-term relationship with it being for the purposes of marriage,” Ware told Cooper.

Cooper replied: “There are platonic friendships that are long-term in nature that do not normally lead to marriage.” Observers in the courtroom burst into laughter.

Ware retorted: “"What fact would you cite to the court that Judge Walker had an interest in changing his relationship [into a marriage]? … to say that he maintained a long-term relationship doesn’t put him in the shoes of what the plaintiffs were doing."

The judge also didn’t seem to buy into the argument that a gay judge had any more bias than a straight judge. He asked Cooper if a judge who had been sexually assaulted would be required to disclose her victim status in a case involving rape.

Theodore Boutrous Jr., attorney for the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), which is leading the fight against Prop. 8, told Judge Ware that the motion was frivolous.

Boutrous said the motion targets Judge Walker’s sexual orientation and stereotypes by saying the Walker’s romantic relationship is indistinguishable from that of other gay people. He also said it was widely known that Walker was gay, but was never made an issue by Prop. 8 supporters during the initial trial.

(Read the rest @ the San Diego Gay & Lesbian News)

Quick ruling expected on gay jurist in Proposition 8 case

U.S. District Chief Judge James Ware, who is deciding a request by backers of Proposition 8 to throw out last August’s ruling against the ballot measure, said he would try to issue a ruling in the next 24 hours.

“This is the first case where a same-sex relationship is the subject for disqualifying a judge, so it is important that we treat it seriously and get it right,” Ware said.

Ware did not disclose how he would rule, but many of his comments during arguments suggested he would rule that retired Judge Vaughn R. Walker was not required to step aside when he was assigned to hear the Proposition 8 challenge.

(Read the rest again @ LA TIMES)

Prop 8: Double-edged diversity
Should the federal judge who struck down Proposition 8 have his ruling nullified because he's in a relationship with a man? The easy answer is no. This is just a variation on the argument that Judge Vaughn R. Walker should have recused himself from the case because he's gay. It's no more valid than the first argument.

But the conservatives challenging Walker's role in the case are, ironically, drawing on a theory of diversity more often heard from liberals. The argument goes something like this: Having a judge who is African American or a woman or a "wise Latina" changes the way justice is administered. Life experience, in this view, is a valuable credential.

(Read the rest here @ LA TIMES)

California Court hears challenge over gay Judge

Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware heard the case on Monday, taking over since Walker has retired.

Ware, an African-American judge nominated to the bench by George H.W. Bush, sharply questioned Charles Cooper, the attorney defending California's marriage ban.

"If a reasonable person thought a black judge should recuse himself from a civil rights case, that would be sufficient to recuse the judge?" Ware asked.

"No, your honor," Cooper responded.

(Read the rest @ Reuters)

Prop 8 Backers Back In Court Today for More Legal Theater Over Judge Vaughn Walker
Supporters of Prop 8, who are still fighting a losing battle in the California courts over an unconstitutional law that neither the governor nor the attorney general care to support, are back in federal court today in San Francisco to air their complaints about Judge Vaughn Walker, the man who first ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. Their complaints are that Judge Walker's ruling should be invalidated based on the fact that he had a bias in the case, being himself a gay man who potentially wanted to be legally married; and they have a separate complaint about Walker's use of videos of the trial in public speeches, claiming the video was supposed to be sealed after the trial.

(Read the rest @ SFIST.COM)

Lawyer Target CA Gag Marriage Ruling by Gay Judge
Lawyers for backers of the voter-approved ban asked Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware to vacate a decision issued by his predecessor last year that declared Proposition 8 an unconstitutional violation of gay Californians' civil rights.

They maintained that former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from the case or disclosed his relationship because he and his partner stood to personally benefit from the verdict.

"It now appears that Judge Walker, at the time the complaint was filed and throughout this litigation, occupied precisely those same shoes as the plaintiffs," attorney Charles Cooper said.

Ware sharply questioned Cooper on why he assumed Walker had any intention of getting married just because he was in a decade-old relationship.

(Read the rest @ FORBES)

Same-sex marriage hearing focusing on gay judge

Walker publicly revealed after he stepped down in February that he is in a 10-year relationship with a same-sex partner. Rumors that he was gay had circulated before and after he presided over the Proposition 8 trial in early 2010.

Ted Olson, one of the lawyers for the two same-sex couples who successfully sued to overturn the measure, said he was unaware of any other cases in which a ruling was challenged because of the issuing judge's sexual orientation. He called the move to disqualify Walker frivolous and demeaning and said that expecting judges to reveal parts of their personal lives when hearing gay rights cases would set a dangerous precedent.

"What would a judge do who was Mormon knowing the Mormon Church took such an active role" in campaigning for Proposition 8, Olson asked. "What would a judge who had a nephew or niece or son or daughter who was gay or lesbian do? We have an unlimited number of permutations of what a judge might be asked to disclose."

Many legal scholars have said they do not expect Ware to overturn Walker's decision. They point out that while having a judge's impartiality questioned because he is gay is new territory, efforts to get women judges thrown off gender discrimination cases or Hispanic judges removed from immigration cases have failed.

Nonetheless, in a fundraising appeal to Proposition 8 supporters Friday, Ron Prentice, chairman of the religious coalition that qualified the gay marriage ban for the November 2008 ballot, said, "We are much more hopeful for success with a judge presiding over the case who has greater respect for legal precedent and the rule of law."

(Read the rest @ CBS News)

Okay so, now its time for my input. I have to admit when following AFER on Twitter I was getting really really excited for all of this. At the same time I'm a realist before I'm an optimist. Judge Ware has not made his decision yet, but I have to say the outcome is looking pretty good. If he rules in favor of the proponents for Prop 8, that will be that for marriage equality in this case. However, if he rules in favor of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, it will be a pivotal moment for us in the case of Perry vs. Brown.

Judge Ware did say that he would try to have his decision within 24 hours, but he also said about his trying to do so, "you know how that goes." I'm going to keep an eye on what's going on over the next day or two (or the rest of my life, considering all I do is keep an eye on it).

Also I just wanted to say that I haven't posting as much as usual and wanted to apologize. In preparation for the case that was heard this morning before the Court... it seemed that bringing some good news next, rather than bitching about what needs to be done might have been a breath of fresh air. So thank you for following and keeping an eye out for my posts.

Saturday, June 4, 2011

HRC/Kenneth Cole Marriage Equality Support Collabo

Here is an article by Charlie Joughin" over at the HRC.

HRC Unveils Collaboration with Kenneth Cole in Support of Marriage Equality

With marriage equality at the forefront of minds in New York and across the country, HRC has unveiled our latest collaboration with highly esteemed designer and longtime activist Kenneth Cole in support of marriage equality. “I’ve always believed in the power of matching pairs. I believe in marriage equality,” said Kenneth Cole.

Despite tremendous gains and historic highs of public support for marriage equality, 29 states have constitutional amendments prohibiting marriage for same-sex couples and the federal Defense of Marriage Act singles out lawfully married same-sex couples for unequal treatment under federal law.

By supporting fair-minded leaders, mobilizing HRC’s members in support of marriage and relationship recognition initiatives across the country and raising awareness of the discriminatory nature of anti-LGBT amendments and laws, the Human Rights Campaign is working to achieve marriage equality. As part of Kenneth Cole’s unwavering dedication and support for marriage equality, the trendsetting designer participated in and created a video for the New Yorker for Marriage campaign. In addition, Kenneth Cole will be featuring marriage equality displays in 97 stores nationwide during the month of June.

Featuring “Take Your Lover Up the Aisle” – Support Marriage Equality written in Kenneth Cole’s signature conversational text on the front and “Kenneth Cole Supports HRC” on the back, the 100% cotton t-shirt and tank top are made in the USA. Only 500 are available in unisex sizes SM-XXL.

The t-shirt and tank top will be sold exclusively at HRC Stores in Provincetown, MA; San Francisco, CA; Washington, D.C.; and and through Retailing for $35, 100% of net proceeds will go toward HRC’s fight for LGBT equality.

Part of HRC’s designer collaboration series, Kenneth Cole joins a long list of designers including Marc Jacobs, Michael Kors, Calvin Klein, Perry Ellis, Christian Siriano, Alex & Chloe, Heatherette, Nike and American Apparel who are all committed to pushing equality and fashion forward.

Wanda Sykes: Harder being gay than black

This is a portion of the interview from Piers Morgan Tonight on CNN... Tune in on Thursday at 9pm EST

"To a certain point, yes. I believe that. I'm not talking about the history of African-Americans. I'm talking about at this point right now." - Wanda Sykes on being asked if she meant it when she said its harder to be gay than black.

Wednesday, June 1, 2011


I just got done reading this article by Tommy Christopher of You can click the link to read the article itself, I'll also be adding a video from the article to this post.

I like the style of Tommy Christopher, he gets straight to the point gives up the necessary information needed and is clearly organized in his writing. Something I spend all my time doing on this blog, organizing a lot of what is being said all over the airwaves and internet. So watch this video and do yourself a favor head over to and read the article.

As the article mention and the video shows, President Obama's stand on marriage equality was that he has their beliefs and that they are evolving as he reviews this issue. Yet, here Jay Carney says the President's view stand hasn't changed and when asked about the Obama's evolving beliefs, he didn't even back peddled and just made the statement. "The President has said in the past what his position was on that [gay marriage]," followed by "I have no update on that."

Obama, we love you and support you and helped get you into office, now do the right thing and help us enjoy the same rights as everyone else... come on Mr. First Black President.