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.

Proponents of Prop 8, Yet Another Desperate Attempt

Okay, so the proponents of Prop 8 are now asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8... why? Because Judge James Ware said "NO" when they asked him to. Unsatisfied, they have run to yet another judicial power to complain that "its not fair that they are not getting their way."

This is what's going on Proponents. You are not in the right, everyone in the judicial system has seen that. You weren't able to present a strong case in your opening statements/arguments to the 9th Circuit, then you failed yet again to make your point and prove your case to the U.S. Supreme Court so you are kicking and screaming and throwing a "toss out tantrum" to get try and get your way. Its not going to happen. You have no case, you can not prove anything. Unless, YOU can prove that gay marriage is going to harm ANYONE (and I'm not talking about their egos or prejudice) the case being overturned is not going to be thrown out. Don't you think 9th Circuit would have already ruled in your favor if they felt that the overturning of Prop 8 was not impartial?

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.

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!

June 13 Prop 8 Hearing Press Conference

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)

Prop 8: Judge Ware hears case on Vaughn Walker

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

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

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

(Read the rest here at the LA TIMES)

Judge James Ware proves combative at Proposition 8 Hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick ruling expected on gay jurist in Proposition 8 case

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

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

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

(Read the rest again @ LA TIMES)

Prop 8: Double-edged diversity

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

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

(Read the rest here @ LA TIMES)

California Court hears challenge over gay Judge

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

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

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

"No, your honor," Cooper responded.

(Read the rest @ Reuters)

Prop 8 Backers Back In Court Today for More Legal Theater Over Judge Vaughn Walker

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

(Read the rest @ SFIST.COM)

Lawyer Target CA Gag Marriage Ruling by Gay Judge

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

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

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

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

(Read the rest @ FORBES)

Same-sex marriage hearing focusing on gay judge

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

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

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

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

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

(Read the rest @ CBS News)

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

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

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

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.