Mitt Romney for President??? HAHAHA No Thank You!

Mitt Romney, I have two things to say to you: 1. You are a dick, and 2. You don't have a snowball's chance in hell. Just read this quote found on his website www.MittRomney.com. Its absolutely absurd and I will brief you on that in a moment but just read his "quote".

“When generations of immigrants looked up and saw the Statue of Liberty for the first time, they surely had many questions and doubts about the life before them, but one thing they knew without a doubt is that they were coming to a place where anything was possible—that in America, their children would have a better life. I believe in that America. I know you believe in that America. It is an America of freedom and opportunity. A nation where innovation and hard work propel the most powerful economy in the world. A land that is secured by

the greatest military the world has ever seen, and by friends

and allies across the globe.”

--Mitt Romney, Stratham, NH, June 2, 2011

Again, I will quote him. Notice the bold font... I placed that so you could see exactly what I was going to touch on. This is his stance on marriage equality, which will grant total EQUALITY and EQUAL RIGHTS for all.

Here's another

Oh but wait, there's more. Found this video posted on YouTube by The Young Turks. This is Mitt Romney on the Piers Morgan show, and I have to say this guy makes himself look like an asshole. How much you want to bet that privately Mitt pays dudes to teabag him? Anyway, here is the video, they said it all...

So basically what I wanted to say was, this dude is the DEFINITION of a STEREOTYPICAL POLITICIAN... he flip flops on everything. Tries to appease everyone, has to constantly explain his own answers. You know what they call a person that has to CONSTANTLY EXPLAIN EVERY ANSWER they give.... A LIAR. So Mitt Romney this is just the tip of the Iceberg, I'll let Fred Karger pull up the rest of the dirt. Drop out of the race you asshole. You will NEVER run this country.

Fred Karger On MSNBC's Rachel Maddow 's Show

Homosexuality and Mental Health

Historical background Open bibliography in its own window		Modern attitudes toward homosexuality have religious, legal, and medical underpinnings. Before the High Middle Ages, homosexual acts appear to have been tolerated or ignored by the Christian church throughout Europe. Beginning in the latter twelfth century, however, hostility toward homosexuality began to take root, and eventually spread throughout European religious and secular institutions. Condemnation of homosexual acts (and other nonprocreative sexual behavior) as "unnatural," which received official expression in the writings of Thomas Aquinas and others, became widespread and has continued through the present day (Boswell, 1980). [Bibliographic references are on a different web page] Religious teachings soon were incorporated into legal sanctions. Many of the early American colonies, for example, enacted stiff criminal penalties for sodomy, an umbrella term that encompassed a wide variety of sexual acts that were nonprocreative (including homosexual behavior), occurred outside of marriage (e.g., sex between a man and woman who were not married), or violated traditions (e.g., sex between husband and wife with the woman on top). The statutes often described such conduct only in Latin or with oblique phrases such as "wickedness not to be named"). In some places, such as the New Haven colony, male and female homosexual acts were punishable by death (e.g., Katz, 1976).

Read The Rest








KINSEY SCALE
Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects, (p 639).
See and learn about the Kinsey Scale here.

Sorry for the Delay, New York needs one vote!

New York's state Assembly still debating the approved measure for marriage equality. They are just one vote short to pass the measure, one vote short in a majority Republican chamber. The vote that would decide it all could be cast as early as Wednesday, June 22, 2011. If the vote favors marriage equality, New York will be the biggest state to have passed same-sex marriage so far.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has lived his whole life raised Roman-Catholic, private schools from grade school to college. Even he with such a strong religious background felt it was "a matter of principle, not politics," and said New York "has a proud tradition and a proud legacy as the progressive capital of the nation," and "its time for New York to lead the way once again."

Meanwhile Archbishop Timothy Dolan has been a strong voice on the opposing side of marriage equality. His belief is that same sex marriage will infringe on religious freedom. He uses his wide read blog to fight this battle, well Timmy I'm using mine. First of all, I'm not Roman Catholic, so you saying that because your church doesn't believe in marriage equality, it should not be legal. Well... mine does. My church is known for loving and acceptance, not judgement and guilt trips, and outrageous selfish religious claims based on the beliefs of one "type" of religion. With all do respect, you can suck it. That "statement" of religious infringement was completely hypocritical and if that is the reason it doesn't pass will be INFRINGING my religious freedom, and I shall hold you personally responsible as should everyone else who doesn't follow your church. Does anyone else smell a lawsuit?

Anyway, the fact of the matter is, more than half the states BIG NAMES and common residents are behind marriage equality. If the Assembly listens to the one religious douche, whom I'm considering as reliable for predicted information as that guy (Harold Egbert Camping) that predicted the rapture. So lets keep our fingers crossed, and hope that New York passes marriage equality. Then lets keep our faith in California doing the same. If two of the most influential states pass marriage equality more will follow and as soon as more follow, we'll out number those who refuse.

Marriage Equality for all I say.

AFER = 2012 Full Federal Equality

AFER President: 2012 will be year of full federal equality

By Nic Garcia
June 14, 2011 | 3:38 pm
(Updated: June 14, 2011 | 3:38 pm)

Gays and lesbians will have a new reason to celebrate Pride come 2012, the president of The American Foundation for Equal Right said in a conference call with reporters.

AFER Board President Chad Griffin

Discussing U.S. District Court Judge James Ware’s ruling validating the decision striking down Proposition 8, Chad Griffin said he believes full federal marriage equality is just a year away.

See the rest here and be sure to follow AFER on TWITTER

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.