We DID IT! WE FUCKING DID IT!

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!

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

Found this article at SDGLN.com 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.

This Movement, is Moving Forward.

As we sit and wait for the Supreme Court to rule on the standing of the Prop 8 proponents, the fight goes on. The plaintiffs in Perry v. Brown have filed a brief defending and encouraging the rights of the people to view the tapes from the original Prop 8 trial.

The video was released by Judge James Ware, Judge Vaughn Walker's successor, when the sealing of the recordings were in question by the proponents of Prop 8 and of course the proponents of Prop 8 appealed Judge Ware's ruling. I'm seeing a pattern here, the proponents of Prop 8 appeal anything that doesn't go there way, which has been every ruling so far. Can't wait to see the look on their faces when they run out of stuff to appeal and lose. Let's not forget the question still remains... Do the proponents of Prop 8 have the right to appeal Judge Vaughn Walker's original ruling of Prop 8 being unconstitutional, and in direct violation of due process and equal protection? The answer to this will be revealed on or by Dec. 6th, 2011.

Plaintiffs explained in their brief, "Proponents have provided no justification--compelling or otherwise--for continued concealment of the trial recording, which truly and accurately depicts the events that took place in the district court in full public view. The First Amendment and settled common law principles guarantee the public the right to watch the trial video in this case and to evaluate the evidence, arguments, and outcomes for itself."

"The brief is urging the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm the district courts decision granting plaintiffs' motion to unseal the digital recording of the trial." - Windy City Media Group

So more of a waiting game, more of a pushing match. When will these proponents give up, I'm guessing never. Mainly because we all know that hate is taught and hate also festers inside someone until they explode of it... Proponents of Prop 8 are just at the point of their hate seeping out of them, I'm waiting for them to erupt. It will be comical.

Marriage Equality Washington State

Help Make Marriage Equality a Reality in Washington State

This post comes from Lacey All, one of HRC’s Foundation and National Board Directors from Seattle, WA:

Yesterday, the Human Rights Campaign joined local coalition members in announcing Washington United for Marriage, a vast coalition of local organizations, congregations, unions and businesses working together to secure civil marriage for loving, committed gay and lesbian couples in 2012.

HRC is a proud founding member of Washington United, and we look forward to securing marriage in Washington in the coming months.

Our organizers are on the ground across the state, holding a series of community meetings on marriage equality to help Washingtonians make the case that marriage equality is the right thing to do. From Spokane to Gig Harbor, Vancouver to Bellingham, Washingtonians are making their voices heard.

Find a community meeting in your area now! By Visiting HRC and getting involved!

One Step Closer to Bye-Bye DOMA

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) won a 10-8 party-line vote for passage through the Senate Judiciary Committee taking her Respect for Marriage Act bill to repeal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) one step closer to victory in what she refers to as the "big march". The bill is now to face opposing Republicans who have said that DOMA "is not about discrimation against anyone."

WAIT A MINUTE TIME OUT: you mean defining a word and using that to withhold the rights from a group of tax paying American's for no other reason than feeling heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality based on YOUR religious beliefs as a fundamentalist Christian, all while denying that other denominations of Christianity such as Presbyterian, don't believe in discriminating against LGBT community isn't discrimination? PLEASE THEN TELL ME HOW YOU FUNDAMENTALIST AND BIGOTS DEFINE DISCRIMINATION? LETS NOT FORGET THAT WE THE PEOPLE also ENACTED SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

Back to the repeal...

Early this year President Obama and the Justice Department declared DOMA as unconstitutional and they will not defend. Obama later going to an HRC dinner where he encouraged all American's to fight DOMA and Discrimination against LGBT and all others. See

President Obama Addresses the 15th Annual HRC National Dinner

for that video.

In case you are not on the up-and-up. DOMA or Defense of Marriage Act is a law created in 1996 that defines Marriage as between one man and one woman (because that's what the bible says, yet the bible also says that to remarry, ones spouse or ex spouse must die and then you may remarry... their next available sibling only. Oh and lets not forget Separation of Church and State). This definition excludes LGBT people from the rights to marry as well as other federal benefits that include Immigration, Social Security, Tax, and 1100+ rights/federal preferences associated with marriage.

Reading an article by Carolyn Lochhead, Chronical Washington Bureau @www.SFGate.com, Feinstein was quoted saying...

"Some bills go fast, some go slow," Feinstein said of her repeal measure. "What's important to me is the march." Feinstein said she expects the Supreme Court to weigh in as well. Her bill, the Respect for Marriage Act, offers a parallel legislative effort.

"Whether it comes up this year, next year, the year after, the year after that, we are ready," Feinstein said.

Also...

Today HRC released a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee members from a bipartisan group of governors and mayors in marriage equality states calling for repeal of the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The letter was sent the day before the committee is expected to markup the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA) – the bill to repeal DOMA and end federal marriage discrimination.

Signatories to the letter include: Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York; Gov. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island; Gov. Dannel Malloy of Connecticut; Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland; Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts; Gov.Peter Shumlin of Vermont; Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, NY; Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. of New Haven, CT; Mayor Bill Finch of Bridgeport, CT; Mayor Vincent C. Grayof Washington, DC; Mayor Edwin Lee of San Francisco, CA; Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston, MA; Mayor Jerry Sanders of San Diego, CA; Mayor Pedro E. Segarra of Hartford, CT; and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, CA. California Gov. Jerry Brown – whose state recognizes a limited amount of same-sex couples married before the passage of Prop 8 – submitted a separate letter to the committee in support of the RMA.

As the Governors and Mayors write in the letter, “[t]he federal government should not be in the business of picking which marriages it likes and which it does not, but that is exactly what DOMA does. We urge you to pass the Respect for Marriage Act and ensure that all families are afforded equal protections and equal dignity.”

As part of the Americans for Marriage Equality campaign, the Human Rights Campaign has been executing a multi-pronged strategy to win a successful committee vote on the RMA including lobbying members and working with our allies to prepare for attacks against the bill. In addition to the letter, HRC today delivered 135,000 petition signatures to Senate offices showing the groundswell of public support for repeal of DOMA. 51 percent of voters oppose DOMA while only 34 percent favor it, according to a March 2011 poll by HRC and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.

So what do I think?

I think that when DOMA was enacted (1996), it was done in ignorance. Gay wasn't an openly talked about subject then, the way it is now. Since so many have been educated away from the stereotypes that intolerance poisons our society with, the acceptance of Gay marriage has grown to Majority of The People, that's right the majority of AMERICANS are in favor of Gay marriage. (See previous blog postings for that information).

I also find it interesting when the idea of repealing DOMA was brought forth. Both President Clinton (who enacted the bill) and its Author both said that it has done nothing and will continue to do nothing for this country (I'm paraphrasing that, basically they are in favor of the repeal).

I also think that a group of LGBT American's should sue the government for not abiding by separation of Church and State, using DOMA as proof. Because if they want to bring the dictionary into what marriage is defined as, its not just between a man and a woman. So where did they get their definition. Also for those whose religion is not what this law was found on, how is the non-separation of church and state not effecting their Constitutional Right (1st Amendment) to freedom of religion. What if a religion believes gay marriage is okay? You're going to step on their toes as well.

Look, this country is ran by those close-minded, intolerant son's of bitches who would rather avoid bruising their ego than allowing LGBT community the same rights as everyone else. Wait, our country isn't doing so well financially is it? Isn't it run by these "all knowing" fundamentalist Republican's (not all Republican's the fundamentalist ones). I also find it hilarious that Fundamentalists believe that they should be the only American's entitled to the 1st Amendment rights ensured by our Constitution.

Hate is like a Bullet, I am Superman.

Should U.S. Supreme Court Allow Prop H8 Proponents Standing?

September 6th, 2011 at 10:00am the U.S. Supreme Court heard the arguments from both sides of the Prop 8 trial in effect right now. If you watched it, you saw that the opponents for Prop 8 had a stronger case, so the question is should the U.S. Supreme Court grant the proponents standing?

You may be reading this and thinking, "of course they should not allow them standing, then Californian's can resume marriage equality." There are a few factors you do need to keep in mind though. If you watched the arguments in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that eventually shifted the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, temporarily, to clarify the law on whether or not proponents for any measure are allowed to defend the measure in court once enacted into law if State Officials decline to do so. Here's the deal, if U.S. Supreme Court says no (which they will have an answer by Dec. 3, 2011) then the 9th Circuit is allowed to ask more questions of the U.S. Supreme Court to get more detail on the situation and in the end will most likely result in marriage equality within California.

Now, time and time again the proponents for Prop 8 have not been able to make a legitimate argument to defend the proposition ruled unconstitutional by Judge Vaughn Walker. They have pulled out every stop they could possibly pull in this debate of values, but once again they have failed and continue to fail. Here's the deal though, call me crazy, but it would actually be a GOOD THING if the U.S. Supreme Court grants them standing. You're probably thinking to yourself, "Jon Scott what are you saying, you need to stop." First off I won't stop because the title of the blog says it all, Second proponents gaining standing would be a good thing (slightly risky) because of this reason here... but first a little education on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

There are 11 Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals covers these following districts:

• Alaska
• Arizona
• Central District of California
  
• Eastern District of California
  
• Western District of California
  
• Southern District of California
  
• Hawaii
• Idaho
• Montana
• Nevada
• Oregon
• Eastern District of Washington
• Western District of Washington
  

It also has jurisdiction over Guam and Northern Mariana Islands. That's 9 States and 15 Districts.

This means that the 9th circuit is the largest of them all with 19.72% (as of 2009) of the National Population under its jurisdiction. Here is a map of the districts and their jurisdictions.


So, if the U.S. Supreme Court grants the Prop 8 proponents standing, the 9th Circuit will hear this case. If you watched the opening statements in the 9th Circuit on the webcast you saw that proponents had a hard time making their case and were called out on their contradictions. With standing granted, if granted, and the 9th Circuit rules Prop 8 as unconstitutional, ALL territories/districts within the 9th Circuit will have to follow suit. Meaning marriage equality would exist in every district under the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction.

Gay marriage is legal in six states as of right now Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and D.C. (I know D.C. is not a state). With these 6 plus the 9 other states and 2 territories we are looking at a total of 17, yeah 34% of this country, with full marriage equality. This will help us push forward and fight to end DOMA once and for all. This will give equal rights to everyone, and would be the start to take on FEDERAL MARRIAGE EQUALITY... the 9th Circuit case is important for more than just Californian's.

So if the U.S. Supreme Court grants the Prop 8 Proponents standing, its actually a good thing.

Keep the fight going, FEDERAL MARRIAGE EQUALITY FOR 2012

President Obama Addresses the 15th Annual HRC National Dinner

FREE THE TAPES!

I want to show you a reenactment of the Prop8 original trial showing the interview of Kristin Matthews Perry. Marisa Tomei and Josh Lucas did a great job on this reenactment. From inside the court today, if you followed AFER online, you saw the live updates from moment to moment inside that courtroom today. This was for the release of the original Prop8 Trial Video tapes being released. Judge James Ware presided over this case today as he did over the trial for Proponents of Prop8 requesting to vacate the decision made my Judge Vaughn Walker because he was gay and in a long term relationship. (Keep in mind unsatisfied with Judge James Ware's decision to not vacate Walker's decision, Proponents of Prop8 then seeked to Vacate Judge James Ware's decision. Once again proving they will stop at nothing to spread hate through our Golden State).


Now before I continue I want to say thank you very much to AFER (American Foundation for Equal Rights), Courage Campaign, the Legal Team (opposing and fighting prop 8), and most of all Kristin Perry and Sandy Steir for fighting not only for themselves but for all of the LGBT community. If it weren't for you two amazing women, we wouldn't be as close as we are to ending PropH8.
The request by Proponents of Prop H8 to seal the video tapes from the original Prop 8 trial Perry vs. Schwarzenegger (now Perry vs. Brown) was to protect the identities of their key "witnesses" in the original trial, fearing that they would be harassed for their support. These two men are Kenneth P. Miller an academic who is used to public speaking, and David Blankenhorn the founder and President of the Institute for American Values (a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting traditional family values).
Obviously this request is that of a lame attempt not to look stupid to the public, if the public were to be granted the right to see the trial that found Prop 8 as unconstitutional. These two guys are strong Proponents for Prop 8, and Blankenhorn I have to say is a complete ass for naming his organization "American Values" first of all, I am an American, and my values and his values are different. I believe every family should be a home. I believe a family's foundation should be strictly based on love and care. I believe every child deserves a strong set of parents no matter what their sex is, as long as the parents provide them with everything that they need from food in their bellies, to close on their back, to a roof over their head. To me that is what Family is.
Before the Prop 8 trial was originally heard the U.S. Supreme Court accepted these arguments and prohibited the LIVE BROADCASTING of the trial. They would not allow it to be broadcast on TV or online. Only to ensure that the witnesses mentioned before would not feel so intimidated that they would not appear before the courts in the future. Judge Vaughn Walker however did record digital copies of the case which was not technically prohibited by the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Vaughn Walkers reason for recording this case was that of a good one, to ensure the faith of the public in the Judicial system. I agree, as a gay man, fighting for marriage, I feel that the case that directly relates to my rights or future rights I should have full access to, so my "rights" aren't left in the dark.
This following quote is from LA Times also posted on the AFER website.

Still, the U.S. District Court should now allow the videos to be broadcast. There has never been any real evidence of potential danger to the witnesses. With the trial over, any procedural issues about last-minute changes are moot. California’s ban on same-sex marriage is a matter of extraordinary public interest, and the discussion that took place during the trial would strengthen public understanding. People would see Blankenhorn, though an opponent of same-sex marriage, testify that the United States would be more American on the day such marriages became legal. They would see Miller, hired by supporters of Proposition 8, say that prejudice played a role in its passage. And whatever viewers chose as the take-home message from the trial, they would be more deeply informed about the debate.

The importance of these videos being released is for all of us to know and be reassured that our Judicial system is providing exactly what it is meant to, Justice! We all have a right to know what is going on behind the scenes in the court room. Thank the Lord for twitter as I was able to follow step by step the trial that took place at 9am today. If you would like to be able to see these behind the scene tweets for this and future cases related to Prop 8 trial, be sure to follow @ AFER on twitter.
Also stay tuned, if you do have the California Channel through your cable provider, you will be able to watch the U.S. Supreme Court hearing on whether or not the Proponents for Prop 8 have any standing in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Or if your service provider does not offer that channel you will be able to watch the live webcast via TheCaliforniaChannel.com .
If you are not gay, ask yourself. If these extremist can go as far as attempting at taking rights away from Gays, who is next? Non-Christians? Teachers? Healthcare Providers? Women? Children? Elderly? No one is safe if we don't fight these people off.

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!

PROP 8 UPDATE! oh and some other news...

Mark your calendars, ladies and gentleman, history is in the making. Tuesday, September 06th, 2011 @ 10:00am The US Supreme Court in San Francisco will be hearing the proposed question on the prop 8 case. The question is (if you haven't been following) Do the proponents for Prop 8, or as I like to call it Prop H8, have the right to defend it when State Officials have declined to do so? Well, lets discuss exactly what that means...


When a specific party funds and creates an initiative to be placed on a ballot there are some steps they have to go through. They must write up the proposition, gain signatures (basically petition) to have the proposition recognized otherwise anyone would just put random ass laws on the bill. They also have to go through some officials themselves, once they have passed the bill on after completing all requirements including funding, the bill is then out of their hands. It moves on to the state officials, its placed on the ballot and left up to the people.

Here is a problem with the campaign they set forth before the vote to ban gay marriage in California, they lied. Not only did they use images of children without the consent of the parents (who were outraged), but they made the Proposition so confusing many people voted Yes on Prop 8 thinking it was "protecting marriage" as in keeping all marriage alive. I recently spoke with a co-worker of mine who voted yes and she said she thought she was voting for gay marriage and now that she realizes what she did she's kind of pissed and feels extremely horrible for being a contributing vote to the discrimination that is now and has been law. Misleading was inevitable considering you have these so-called Christian "Extremists" heading these campaigns.


Back to the main topic.

After, now retired, Judge Vaughn Walker declared/ruled Prop 8 as unconstitutional, ProtectMarriage.com appealed the ruling sending it straight to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. They plead their case and the 9th Circuit came to the conclusion that further clarification of initiative representation law was needed so they passed the case Perry vs. Brown (then Perry vs. Schwarzenegger) on to the US Supreme Court. In the time waiting between then and what is soon to be now (less than one month, yay) the proponents for Prop 8 appealed Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling claiming that Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself or at least announced that he was gay and in an 11 year relationship. The case went to Judge James Ware, Walker's successor, who ruled against the appeal. As a result proponents for Prop 8 appealed his ruling... they also requested that Walker surrenders the video recording of the case Walker presided over ruling Prop 8 as unconstitutional. They did not want these videos seen because it will clearly show how weak their case was that Vaughn Walker ruled on without bias. You can sign an open letter to Judge James Ware here @ AFER to have the video tapes from the case released to the public.

ProtectMarriage.com jumped on the appeal process at first chance, long before then Governor Schwarzenegger or Attorney General now Governor Brown declined to appeal Vaughn Walker's ruling. Later after Gov. Brown was elected into office along with now Attorney General Kamala Harris, they too both declined to appeal Walker's ruling. Being that the Gov and Attorney General of the state are both elected officials, sworn into be the voice of the people, they are to represent the people if they choose to do so against a law that is challenged, when they decline no one else should be allowed to appeal. This needed further clarification to the 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit, ergo forwarding the case to US Supreme Court.

Prop Haters (as we will refer to Prop 8's proponents from this point on) even went before a 5 party panel in the state to have a bill voted in allowing sponsors of ballot measures to be allowed to represent the initiative once enacted upon appeal. This to me says they too know they are not allowed to and are trying to be sure they are allowed to before it got to the US Supreme Court. They were out-voted 3-2.

So these are all the desperate stops that Prop Haters have pulled:
- Appealed before the State officials even had a chance to, possibly without the right to appeal
- Requested that Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling be thrown out because he is gay
- Requested the video tapes from the November case to be never available to the public
- Requested and lost a vote to allowing anyone proposing a bill to defend it other than state officials and lost
- Appealed Judge James Ware's ruling on not tossing Walker's ruling out

Do you see a pattern here? They are doing everything they can to fight this... I mean you got to give them a little credit, they got a spark. Problem for them is, we are a blazing inferno (a flaming joke could be made, but I don't agree with that kind of humor so if you comment keep it off the comments).


With this case now going into US Supreme Court, Atty Gen. Kamala Harris submitted an Amicus Brief on the case stating in more or less words that the question is do they have a right to appeal/defend this case in the event that the State Officials failed to do so and her answer to the question is "No, they don't. " Allowing them to would, "undermine the constitutional responsibilities delegated to the Governor and Attorney General."

So this is what it all boils down to, if the US Supreme Court rules that proponents of Proposition 8 have no standing then same-sex marriage could very much become legal. First the case will be sent back to the 9th Circuit after The US Supreme Courts ruling has been made, and the 9th Circuit may question the Supreme Court more if they choose to do so. This could have been a process that took up until 2014 to be worked out. It seems now this will all be figured out in a timely manner. We should also be appreciative that US Supreme Court has made sure to hear the case first before any other. Lets hold confidence in our US Supreme Court to make the right decision.

"I don't believe that marriage is between man and woman, but between life and love." - Frank Ocean (you should all by his new album, its amazing).

(SIDE NOTE I MAY HAVE SAID THE ORIGINAL CASE WALKER PRESIDED OVER WAS BACK IN NOVEMBER I READ BACK THROUGH AND COULD NOT FIND THAT I MAY HAVE ALREADY DELETED IT BUT THAT CASE TOOK PLACE IN AUGUST OF 2010)

(you may find another similar article with a little bit more information on this subject here at www.Care2.com

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.

ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMALA HARRIS AMICUS BRIEF

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
1
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.

THANK YOU JUDGE JAMES WARE!!!

(Image Source)

"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

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 shop.hrc.org and through www.KennethCole.com/TshirtStore. 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.

Come on Obama... SAY SOMETHING ALREADY!

I just got done reading this article by Tommy Christopher of www.mediaite.com. 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 www.mediaite.com 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.

Next Stop June 13th, 2011

The prop h8 trial debate over whether Vaughn Walker should have recused himself for being gay will be going before Judge James Ware (who has a lot of controversy behind his name if you google him, and I'm only guessing the Prop H8ers ProtectMarriage.com will bring all of that out if they don't get the answer they want). Proponents of Prop H8 are waiting to hear whether or not the ruling by Vaughn Walker will be thrown out. This happens June 13th. FINALLY! OMG I've been waiting for another trial date, more information, something new I could share with you guys about California, for my home state readers. Don't get me wrong I'm all about national, but I really needed to share something that came close to home, just before I got into everything else that's going on.

So it looks like that Prop H8ers aren't really going to get what they ask for. Many specialist on ethics in the court room have been spoken to on the subject and said that in no way shape or form did he have to announce his sexual orientation any more than a heterosexual judge would have to announce there's. Honestly, for them to expect anyone to have to announce their sexual orientation before anything is just as discriminatory as prop h8 and its like the proponents for the h8 measure already expect even JUDGES to abide by their way of life. Arrogance vs argument, it never turns out good for the arrogant.

Besides isn't this whole case in itself, in violation of separation between church and state? I don't know, but on the upside for a little bit of laughter, there will be a 5 show Comedy tour, lead by Dan St. Paul, a heterosexual comedian that will be fighting for gay rights via laughter. This includes a stop in Santa Cruz, CA on June 25th. All proceeds will be donated to the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER). For more information please visit the website/article>/a> for more information.

You can also read more about the debate over Judge Walker's sexuality by visiting

Gay White Bloggers = Racist... ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

I've been scanning the news waves looking for something of interest to post. The only thing I'm finding is all the pro prop8 bloggers and reporters out there, that are accusing the marriage equality defenders of being racist white gays. Because of Judge Vaughn Walker's successor Judge James Ware being black. This really grinds my gears. These blog sites are claiming what us "gay white bloggers" and "gay whites" WILL DO... not what we have done, but what we will do. They are claiming we're going to be using the term "f***ing n****r" in retaliation if the case is thrown out as the proponents have requested. First and foremost, IT HASN'T BEEN DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO FIGHT THE CASE YET! Second of all, I'm not racist by any means. My step dad and step siblings are black, and yes I am a gay white blogger.

Not to mention the "over-the-top" gay white guys out there are mostly trying to encompass what they think is the black girl attitude. Not to mention they do it all wrong, or their "black girl" attitude is stuck in the early 90's.

Back to the first paragraph, so these prop h8 sons of bitches are out there talking shit on us (yet again) based on what they think we "may do." Its already been made very evident from our side, that no one in their right mind living in, representing, or setting the rules for California would ever call "protect marriage" constitutional. Anyone in their right mind knows its discrimination.

I see it like this, I understand there was an overwhelming support for prop 8 in the straight black community amongst the men. Although, I personally find it pretty RACIST of these pro h8 bloggers and reporters to determine that Judge Ware will throw the case out just because he's black. NOT ALL BLACK MEN VOTED FOR PROP 8. Not to mention Judge Ware is a JUDGE, Judges are here for what purpose, to bring... JUSTICE. Now I'm not sure if these Pro H8 people realize it, but Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., another black man, fought for Justice against Intolerance. I wouldn't put it past Judge Ware to do the same, or ANYONE of ANY ETHNICITY for that matter.

---------------------------------------------------

I'm also seeing a lot of, "Well, we got a Civil Union... that's good enough I guess," going on all over the news and blogs in other states. Well, CIVIL UNIONS AREN'T ENOUGH! Why in the hell would you settle for anything less than EQUAL. This is a FREE COUNTRY, we should be FREE to LOVE anyone we want, ANY WAY we want. Do not settle for anything less than what others have when fighting for your rights. Settling for Civil Unions is like saying, "Hey, you know what... okay, you're right, I don't deserve the rights that you have." This is a bunch of bullshit.

All of you Pro H8s out there that think you're doing us a "favor" or "compromising" with us need to get your head out of your asses. There is no "compromise" for equal rights. Hence the term EQUAL. You must really think your pretty high and mighty, NO ONE MAN IS BETTER THAN THE NEXT. You judgmental a-holes. In your little HOLY WAR your trying to operate, go back to the good book. Please see...

John 8:7

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

Leviticus 19:35

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.

Leviticus 19:18

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Leviticus 19:17

Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

Proverbs 10:12

"Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins."

Really Pro H8ers... Look, I was raised with Christian Morals, in a Christian Church. I know first hand that one, I AM NOT A MISTAKE, GOD MADE ME THE WAY I AM. I also did not CHOOSE to be gay. I CHOSE to tell the truth and not live in a lie. I've read the bible, through and through. I'm active in my church and I know that GOD IS LOVE and LOVE IS REAL. I have no hatred in my heart, and you do. Yet you call me the sinner? Why don't you stop skipping over the verses in the bible that act against you and YOUR beliefs.