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 ABCnews.go.com 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 Newsmeat.org, 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?

Amazon.com

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."

Amway

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 rawstory.com 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.

PepsiCo

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 opensecrets.org.

Hate is like a Bullet, I am Superman.

President Obama Addresses the 15th Annual HRC National Dinner

Another GOP Signs Anti Gay Marriage Bill... WTF?!

THIS SHIT IS GETTING EXTREMELY OLD AND DISGUSTING!

Rick Perry GOP Candidate for 2012 Presidential nomination has signed a pledge banning gay marriage. This is contrary to what he told Colorado in reference to New York, "That's New York, and that's their business, that's fine with me." He already has claimed he would leave gay marriage up to the states, but when confronted by the National Organization for Marriage to sign the pledge, to gain votes he signed it. Already turning into a politician, says one thing than signs another. Obviously NONE OF HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES are true. Rick you might as well just shit on our economy, foreign policy, health care, etc. You disgust me to a maximum degree. Yet as you can see by the picture (truly an appropriate one) he can handle a phallic symbol like a champion. Sorry Perry, but I could have been nice about the graphics, but you left me no choice. Take a bite of it you dick, don't deep throat.

GOP candidates to also to sign Anti-Gay pledges include the likes of Minnesota Congress Woman Michele Bachmann, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. While former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. and my personal favorite Ron Paul has not and is not signing any pledges.

I recently posted a video from a debate in which Ron Paul said "to create and amendment against gay marriage is absolutely unnecessary, and if you believe in federalism you will leave it up to the states." He's absolutely right, these anti-gay "pro-family" groups complain they don't want our gay marriages shoved down their throat, much unlike Perry hoping that corn dog was actually Michele Bachmann's husband's penis. Well we don't want to shove our marriages down your throat, but our state might not agree with your state. If our state says let them be married, then we should be allowed to be married. Otherwise, you might as well just kiss the jobs of all Governors and Attorney Generals appointed to each state. They are here to serve as our voices, you are taking away the constitutional responsibilities delegated to them by vote of the people.

I learned about this anti-gay pledge from a tweet I saw leading me to the article at http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/08/perry-signs-anti-gay-marriage-pledge/sGqX6Ir6FL4HZwyOQSzvKN/index.html">Boston.com. This is what the pledge includes...

The pledge commits a candidate to support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, appoint judicial nominees and an attorney general who would reject a constitutional right to gay marriage, establish a commission to investigate harassment of anti-gay marriage donors or organizers, and let the people of Washington, D.C., vote on gay marriage.

Don't let these hateful candidates run our country, next they will be revoking the rights of Non-Whites and Women. Soon if you are not Evangelical Christian you will be breaking the law. This will also appoint Judges that are Partial and will not serve up Justice, instead they will serve up the Personal Vendetta's of these fundamentalists.

Also found in this article Brian Brown, president of NOM, said by signing this pledge, "Perry makes crystal clear that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, Gay Marriage is going to be a bigger issue in 2012 than it was in 2008, because the difference between the GOP nominee and President Obama is going to be large and clear."

So to you Rick Perry I have one thing to say, go fuck yourself (with that corn dog).

GOVERNMENT not RELIGIONMENT

Have you heard Christian fundamentalists believe that the First Amendment is reserved for them only?

Did you hear 2012 Presidential Candidate Rick Perry organized a Prayer Rally for fundamentalist Christians that exceeded 30,000 attendees? Far more than any event staged by the announced Republican presidential contenders?

Rick Perry has followed in the footsteps of those like Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, and Tim Pawlenty, and Mitch Daniels. Just another one of the Republican presidential candidates for the 2012 election to make RELIGION their number one drive and force behind their campaign to gain favor and votes.

These four have all promised and made it a top priority to ban gay marriage nationally. Even in the states that have voted it legal. Some even signed a vow stating that gay is a choice and the legal rights of gays will be revoked or further hindered.

So you four, further putting off full equality of civil liberty and human rights is your biggest goal, aside from all Tea Party candidates jumping on board and holding USA hostage so that OBAMA will agree to your terms on our debt ceiling issue we have been facing? Foreign Policy, Repairing the Economy, Social Security, Health, etc... are not your top priorities. "Protecting Families" however is a top priority, pardon my language but "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU PROTECTING THEM FROM, HUH?" With this war parents (heterosexual parents) are losing their children in a war that is not our own, families are ending up on the streets and starving because this economy has tanked so much, social security is becoming obsolete to the point these already starving families now have to take on their extended family (the grandparents) financially, and the health is ridiculous considering more than 50% of this country is obese and overweight. Your idea of protecting families will pull perfectly healthy ones apart.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has recently ended up in bankruptcy court. DOMA was enacted back in 1993 by President Bill Clinton. It has been 18 years that DOMA has been around and according to both President Bill Clinton and the architect of DOMA former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, DOMA has done no good. In fact many of the ANTI SAME-SEX MARRIAGE supporters claim they "don't want their taxes paying for the perversions of others." Okay, so they would rather "their taxes" go to an Act that does nothing, 18 years of their taxes, and eventually go into bankruptcy? Obviously these people that support ANTI SAME-SEX MARRIAGE are not very smart with their finances, and these are the people that the Republican Presidential Candidates are trying to appeal to. So with our country being in debt to a point of almost having to claim bankruptcy itself we are going to choose someone who supports an act that has been wasting tax payers dollars for 18 years. In fact, an act that has been taking taxes from the hard working American LGBT community and funneling it into DOMA which withholds our own rights???

Recently during the Repeal of DOMA to be replaced by RFMA (respect for marriage act) which was shot down by no other than these same Republicans that have been wasting our money on it.... anyway sidetracked sorry. Recently during the repeal of DOMA former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr wrote an editorial in Los Angeles Times calling to repeal DOMA.

I've wrestled with this issue for the last several years and come to the conclusion that DOMA is not working out as planned. In testifying before Congress against a federal marriage amendment, and more recently while making my case to skeptical Libertarians as to why I was worthy of their support as their party's presidential nominee, I have concluded that DOMA is neither meeting the principles of federalism it was supposed to, nor is its impact limited to federal law.

In effect, DOMA's language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws -- including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits -- has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.

Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves.

In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, "Decisions about marriage should be left to the states." He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions.

Moving on....

If you are going to vote for any Republican, which contrary to what this article has lead you to believe so far... I would like to. Actually, a fiscally conservative socially progressive Republican would be a breath of fresh air. Anyhow, you are going to vote for any Republican this 2012 the nom's should be either Jon Huntsman Jr. or Ron Paul.

Jon Huntsman Jr. first off has more experience with Foreign Policy than any other Republican presidential candidate, not to mention with us being financially owned by China, him working for the White House as the Ambassador to China isn't a bad attribute for his campaign to exude or his presidency if he is to gain it. China trusts him and they'll trust us. Same-sex marriage is the least of his concerns, and he endorses Civil Unions for same-sex couples, which is a start. He actually leans more towards the typical Republican voter on that subject than say someone like Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, and Rick Perry. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s has three big hurdles to overcome to get the Presidential nomination. His work with the Obama administration being one of them, the fact that he's Mormon being another, and his acceptance of gay rights (though limited acceptance).

A BETTER CHOICE, would have to be RON PAUL, I've been wanting RON PAUL in office FOREVER!!!! You guys have no idea, his views are real, he's to the point, he's a realist not a selfish asshole. Here is a clips on his beliefs of gay marriage, if you would like to know more about RON PAUL visit his website www.RonPaul2012.com

All I am saying that if a presidential candidate wants to run this country maybe they should try by not totally distorting what the country prides itself on like liberty and justice. Nothing about discrimination is justice, nothing about Tyranny is justice. We are progressive we set the bar.
You want to save our asses in debt, here is an idea... pull all troops out of any "war" we are having. Bring our troops home. The cost of them being over seas is killing our national wallet. We have yet to have any type of major attack and have had maybe one small attempt at that on our own shores. Let us fight from our shores. I understand it is our duties to help others that can not help themselves, but what happens when we can't help ourselves who is going to save us? No one, we will not be saved... we will be owned. This will not and can not happen. Bring our troops home and watch it fix our problems....
Look its like this a friend comes to you and says, "I'm in a lot of trouble I need you to loan me $20,000," you look to your friend and say, "I'm sorry buddy, I can't help you. I don't have $20,000, if I did have it I would definitely help you, but seeing that I don't it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for me to help you."These other countries we are fighting wars in are our friends asking us for something we don't have, some of them aren't even asking for us, and half the time those we are helping do not want us there nor do they want our help. Lets pull our troops out and bring them home. We'll save money, get back to our financial success in NO TIME and the world will be a better place.
Anyway guys, thank you all for reading this, I love you all.
I VOTE RON PAUL 2012!

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 www.MittRomney.com. 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.

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.

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

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

June 13, 2011

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)

I SIGNED IT, YOU SHOULD TOO!

CLICK THE PIC AND SIGN FOR EQUALITY

YOUTUBERS SUBSCRIBE to @OURSCENETV

Our scene TV is out there getting the message going in the right direction, here's one of their clips from their YOUTUBE CHANNEL...

Uganda's Anti-Homosexual Bill Tossed to the Back of the Line

Uganda's anti-homosexual bill has been put on hold. The Bills objective is to seek the death penalty for certain acts of homosexuality. This anti gay law was introduced/proposed by an evangelical Member of Parliament (go figure). When the debate, that took place Friday the 13th of 2011, failed to provide a successful argument the bill was thrown to the back of the line.

This bill proposed a law that would have called for certain homosexual acts to be punishable by death. Even though homosexual acts are already illegal in Uganda, the bill was designed to broaden the criminalization of homosexuality. The bill proposal would mean the death sentence for:

• teenagers engaging in gay sex
• people with HIV/AIDS
• having homosexual relations/encounters with any disabled persons
• what the bill refers to as a "serial offender"
• Ugandan's that engage in same-sex sexual relations outside of Uganda, asserting they may be extradited back to Uganda for punishment.

This law would also target those promoting homosexuality, meaning penalties for any non-governmental organizations supporting LGBT rights. Which could also target any groups supporting human rights. This caused human rights groups and foreign governments to speak up even louder against the bill. The law would also give a life sentence to any two consenting adults if found guilty of same-sex sexual relations.

David Bahiti (seen above), the chief proponent for the bill has remained obstinate to ensure the bill passes. Bahiti said, "When I moved this bill I had two objectives." "One, to make the issue of homosexuality and the dangers to our society part of the national debate, and second to have the legal framework to protect our children from recruitment and promotion." All just hours after the bill was put on hold. His statement was geared towards the idea that, in Uganda, homosexuals are trying to brainwash children into becoming gay.

So Bahiti... are you saying homosexuals are building some kind of gay army? What about how society in every country brainwashes children that are naturally born gay into believing that, though it wasn't their choice, their entire existence is not only morally wrong, but should be a crime punishable by a life/death sentence? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that "scare tactics" or putting "fear" into someone was the most basic tactic used for ensuring brainwashing.

To see more on this subject check these source links below to get more information. My goal is translating all this information to break it down into an easier understood context for everyone to read.

www.u.tv
GlobalPost.com
Wikipedia

Image Sources: BBC and Huffington Post

Battle for Marriage Equality from Coast to Coast

Naturally, this battle has to be as fashionable as the gays it represents, it has become a total jetsetter, now in both California and New York. Theodore B. Olson, co-counsel for the American Foundation of Equal rights (AFER) one of two leading the fight for Perry vs. Brown, has teamed up on this nationwide discrimination with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and the gloves are about to come off.

I'm going to pause for a second and say thank you to our dear friend Theodore, for fighting this battle for us. He has taken it upon himself to be everywhere he is needed to put an end to all this discrimination.

Okay, so what's currently going on is that Olson has jumped on bored with NY Attorney General Schneiderman in the effort to pass a marriage equality bill before this year's legislative session comes to an end. It has been proven in other states that Civil Unions just aren't working. They are not enough. New Jersey after granting Civil Union learned that hospitals and employers failed to recognize them, the terms "single" and "married" always seemed to appear on documents, forms, and applications. However, "domestic partner" was never on there to begin with forcing persons in civil unions to put "single" to avoid fraud, because legally they are not married.

Connecticut, New Hampshire, and later Vermon saw that Civil Unions were not working and replaced them by granting marriage to all. Come on... really? California we are laid back and New York you hold fashion week. Shouldn't we be the ones to say okay, eh, fuck it let's just give EVERYONE the SAME RIGHTS.

Obama has even said that if same sex couples wanted to challenge the federal standing on same sex marriages he would not defend it. A million black men marched for their rights, so why don't we? Why don't we go to D.C.? I mean, yes, its understood that these state to state battles will give us leverage, but let's lock them in and keep it moving.

Anyway, you should read the article printed in the NY Daily News titled, "Civil Union Bait and Switch: Compromise is Far From True Marriage Equality." Here is a little diddle from the article:
"A Civil Union reflects a second-class status that fails to protect same-sex couples who choose to be married. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue; this is a matter of protecting the Constitution's protection under law for all Americans."

To read the rest check out what they had to say here @ NY Daily News

From the West Coast to the East Coast same-sex marriage is #WINNING lol.

If this seams a little choppy or off please bare with me I have posted and coded everything from my HTC G2 Android.

Thanks Jon Scott

It Gets Better Project by Google

Everyone out there I'm sure its old news to you considering the campaign launching forever ago. I posted to my Facebook to try and get friends more aware of what's going on and one smart ass friend of mine replied back "Oh you're just finding out about this?". He can suck my big toe. No, I didn't just find out about it, but I noticed it spreading into mainstream media. Including a commercial aired during the second to last American Idol episode 3 days ago (May 11th, 2011). So I figured hey, get more people involved or at least guide them to somewhere they can see what's happening and get involved if they choose.


You can check out the site by Googling "it gets better project" or
CLICKING THIS LINK

You can also view their
YOUTUBE PAGE...
here's their video posted now... enjoy.

For more information on how you can get involved with the It Gets Better Project. Be sure to visit their site, I'm looking forward to your video.. I will be submitting mine soon!

Prop 8.. oh you mean Prop H8

Not sure how many of you are following prop 8 right now. You may not be in California, you might be else where. I used this blog for other things, but decided to take down the postings, one because they were old which completely contradicts the name of the blog itself, and two because the only thing I won't stop, can't stop doing is keeping up on what's going on with Prop 8. Reading articles pertaining to both sides of the story and I have to say some piss me off both ways. Right now I'm going to catch you up to speed.

Back in mid-late 2010 Kris Perry and Sandy Stier challenged prop 8 in District court before Judge Vaughn Walker. His ruling was this:

" Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. "

He did however allow a stay for Prop 8 to be appealed, in which of course it was. This sent the case "Perry vs. Schwarzenegger" (as it was classified as then) to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (or Appellate Court)... You keeping up? Good, moving along.

The opening arguments were shown broadcasted live in a two hour part which you may find here if you would like to see it here:

Before this case even got to the 9th Circuit Court, proponents (who have already lost the first battle) asked Judge Stephen Reinhardt to recuse himself, which he refused, based on the fact that his wife is the Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California for the last 38 years. When denying to recuse himself he said his objections were due to “outmoded conception of the relationship between spouses.” As well as making note that he has been a 9th Circuit Judge since 1980. He also said, “My wife and I share many fundamental interests by virtue of our marriage, but her views regarding issues of public significance are her own, and cannot be imputed to me, no matter how prominently she expresses them.” He then went on to speak about the differences in opinions that are commonly held in marriages especially, the fact that his wife's opinion does not dictate his own.
(One battle down.)

Now after these opening arguments have taken place the battle takes off. As you will see in the video posted above (you might want to move to the second hour where the arguments really begin) that the proponents of Prop 8 have really no argument. One moment it seems like they are arguing to protect marriage from divorce, and in another instance they are arguing that marriage is for procreation only, which backfires when it is brought to their attention that there are heterosexual marriages out there that are physically unable to produce children.

When a "law" or "measure" is challenged, its automatically referred to as case vs. Governor. Meaning the one to defend the case should have been either Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (at the time) or his Attorney General, Jerry Brown. Both, at the time, Gov. Schwarzenegger and A.G. Brown refused to defend Prop 8. This left a vital question in the appeal. Are the supporters of Prop 8, those who put the measure on the ballot back in 2008, even allowed to appeal Judge Vaughn Walkers ruling? We'll get to that a little later. Continuing on...

Since the beginning of the case, as you may know, we held elections and have a new Governor and Attorney General. Gov. Jerry Brown (haha, promotion), and Attorney General Kamala Harris. So because we switched out Governors the case name becomes Perry vs. Brown. However, I personally think, it would be more fun if it were... ready for this? Perry vs. Jerry... but that's besides the point and a lame joke.

Behind the scenes after the initial arguments before the 9th Circuit Judges. Proponents of prop 8 stretched as far as they could to find anything in their favor, each time losing a little more and making themselves look like an even bigger bunch of assholes. When they are asked how anyone would ACTUALLY BE HARMED, their response, "I Don't Know."

District Judge Vaughn Walker retired after that case. Later to come out as an openly gay man in a relationship with his partner of 11 years, a doctor I believe. Thus, causing the proponents of Prop 8 (Protect Marriage Act for those not following yet) to call his ruling bias because he himself is gay and overturning Prop 8 would allow him to finally marry his partner. Too bad it was legal back before 2008's Prop 8 initiative made it illegal. He could have done it then.

This would be the same as not allowing a black judge to rule over a human rights case, or a woman judge over a women's rights case. Besides if a hetero judge in a hetero "legal" marriage ruled in favor of Prop 8 instead of Judge Vaughn Walker, wouldn't that be just as bias? Moving forward...

So 9th Circuit came to the conclusion they weren't even sure if Proponents not being the Gov., or A.G., were even allowed to appeal. So they send that part of the case over to the California Supreme Court, which hearing will be coming up later this year (2011). A.G. Kamala Harris, the first to make a proactive move in helping the opponents of Prop 8 (Perry and Stier), submitted an amicus brief recently stating in it:

“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,”

“would rob the electors of power by taking the executive power from elected officials and placing it instead in the hands of a few highly motivated but politically unaccountable individuals.”

In this she was saying, that the proponents for Prop 8 have no right to appeal. That she and the Governor have refused to defend the Prop and by allowing the proponents to defend it would compromise the constitutional responsibilities delegated to the Governer and herself. You can visit her site here and see what she has to say. It may take a little digging, but I am directing you to her general site alone, because if you live in California its vital to know what's going on all together, not just specific subjects.

A Bill was recently submitted to a Senate panel May 3, 2011 that would give initiative proponents legal standing to defend voter approved ballot measures against legal challenges, (the main concern of the 9th Circuit and the reason for them forwarding to the Supreme Court Also, the reason A.G. Kamala Harris submitted her amicus brief, over the Prop 8 issue, or Perry vs. Brown case) but the bill was rejected by a 3-2 vote.
(Another loss for proponents of Prop 8)

Finally the proponents come down to the point that District Judge Vaughn Walkers ruling should be vacated due to his ruling being bias, which it was not. They also attacked Judge Vaughn Walker for a tape showing of the original District court hearing in which Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Prop 8 as unconstitutional. This tape argument I want to break down for you a little bit just to show you a little more of the 'asshole' tendencies of Prop 8 proponents...

Prop 8 proponents asked that the court hearings in which Prop 8 was ruled against would not be publicly broadcasted. Judge Vaughn Walker agreed to not broadcasting it live, but also state that he would allow it to be taped. Judge Vaughn Walker after retiring was giving a lecture at which time he showed a five or six minute clip of the case. When Prop 8 proponents found out they argued that he should surrender any and all copies because of his decision not to broadcast it and that he shouldn't have shown ANYONE the tapes. Now here's the thing, it was ruled a while back that any all court recordings were to be viewable by the public at any time to keep faith in the Judicial System as well as following and not infringing the 1st Amendment Constitutional Rights.
(Yet another...)

As I said before, the proponents for Prop 8 have been reaching and reaching for any and all angles they can. In the process have made them look more desperate and pathetic. A group of people with a specific interest pertaining to that group and group alone should not have the power to strip or hinder the rights of another group. If the Supreme Court rules they are not allowed to appeal the Prop 8 ruling as unconstitutional, the appeal will be dismissed and the LGBT community will be free to marry as they please. *Fingers Crossed*

As for protecting Marriage lets look at some actual facts of Marriage today as it is now...

• Nearly 70% of all married men and 60% of all married women have had affairs. That's two out of every three marriages.
• Every 10-13 seconds a couple divorces.
• More than 90% of divorces involve infidelity

So what are they protecting? The right to enter a union and break that union at free will? Visit NationMaster to see the divorce rates from country to country. Remember how many billion people are in the world, if you do the math you might shit yourself.

If you want to follow prop 8 and its trials please subscribe to my blog. I will also be touching on other subjects as well, not all political but stuff I find might be at anyone's interest.

Thanks - Jon Scott