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!

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.

Wanda Sykes, Our New Face... I AGREE! (Oh and Jay Leno, THANK YOU)

(Video/Article Source)

"Sally Kerns she should move up in goverment. Because if she thinks homosexuality is a bigger threat than terrorism, maybe she'll remove our troops from Iraq and have them invade West Hollywood." - WANDA SYKES on ELLEN <--- LMAO, love her for the comedic relief, videos of her are helping me calm down from my rant in the post below.

Get Her Julie!

Mad respect, the beauty of this is, Julie actually quotes the scripture the way it was meant to be quoted. These extremists only use what is helpful to them, example... when reading Leviticus Shirley Phelps quoted verse 17 only, knowing what was about verse 18. Julie went on her rampage against Shirley and dropped more than a couple other verses that Shirley completely ignored. I myself am a Christian, and we are taught God is Love, and Love is real. God does not hate, and no one is a mistake. Take a look...

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

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