Rick Santorum: Public Enemy No. 1

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

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

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

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

“Carmel Catholic Alumni Against Rick Santorum” Facebook page

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

I'll never stop.
Jon Scott

Hate is like a Bullet, I am Superman.

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

Judge James Ware full decision PDF

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

ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMALA 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.

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