Posts Tagged ‘prop 8’

And I wonder why?! lol

(Salt Lake City) The Mormon church for the first time has announced its support of gay rights legislation, an endorsement that helped gain unanimous approval for Salt Lake city laws banning discrimination against gays in housing and employment.

The Utah-based church’s support ahead of Tuesday night’s vote came despite its steadfast opposition to gay marriage, reflected in the high-profile role it played last year in California’s Proposition 8 ballot measure that barred such unions.

“The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage,” Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said.

Passage made Salt Lake City the first Utah community to prohibit bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Under the two new ordinances, it is illegal to fire someone from their job or evict someone from their residence because they are lesbian, bisexual, gay or transgender.

Utah lawmakers tend to quickly fall in line when the influential church makes a rare foray into legislative politics. So Tuesday’s action could have broad reaching effects in this highly conservative state where more than 80 percent of lawmakers and the governor are church members.

“What happened here tonight I do believe is a historic event,” said Brandie Balken, director of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah. “I think it establishes that we can stand together on common ground that we don’t have to agree on everything, but there are lot of things that we can work on and be allies.”

But the church has pointed out an inherent dispute it has with the gay lifestyle. Mormonism considers traditional marriages central to God’s plan. Gays are welcome in church, but must remain celibate to retain church callings and full membership.

It’s strong support for Proposition 8 in California last year drew a sharp reaction from gay rights supporters nationwide, with many protesting outside temples that singled out Mormons as the key culprits in restricting the rights of gay couples.

Since then, however, Utah’s gay community has sought to engage church leaders in quiet conversations to help foster better understanding, said Valerie Larabee, executive director of the Utah Pride Center.

“I thought this conversation would never come to be while I was here in Salt Lake City,” said Larabee, adding that the discussions have “shifted her perspective of what’s possible” and could foreshadow a different relationship between the two sides.

But addressing the council on Tuesday, Otterson said the endorsement is not a shift in the church’s position on gay rights and stressed it “remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.”

Church support for the ordinances is due in part to the way the legislation was drafted to protect those rights. Exceptions in the legislation allow churches to maintain, without penalty, religious principles and religion-based codes of conduct or rules.

“In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations,” Otterson said Tuesday .

Previous Utah legislation that sought statewide protections for the gay community did not contain those exceptions.

And although this was the church’s first public endorsement of specific legislation, it is not the first time the church has voiced support for some gay rights. In August 2008 the church issued a statement saying it supports gay rights related to hospitalization, medical care, employment, housing or probate as long as they “do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”

Last year, church leaders were silent on a package of gay rights bills known as the Common Ground Initiative, dooming them from the start.

Read Full Post »

Good morning my dears!!!

And good morning Sandy Lee, I have to say yesterday Sandy, you became quite the star on here, but I can assure you it was not for good reasons, because lets face it, you do come across as a some bitter bitch who’s not seen any action in the while.

But enough about that whore, lets get on with business shall we?

About 5 mins ago I was checking out the sheep (NOM members), I do this because I am extremely worried about their mental well-being, I think they are completely fucking crazy.

Now heres a bit of background, we all know that NOM members think we get those 1200 federal rights when we enter into a gay marriage or civil unions,  but us educated people know that’s not possible because of that nasty law called DOMA, David Friedland suggests if gay people want those damn petty federal laws we should just marry someone of the opposite sex.

Wait, that MAKES SENSE! It’s THAT simple!

However, David…actually I don’t like that name much, lets call you Bambi…

Bambi, there are 2 issues I have with this, and I’m going to make an assumption that other people will too,

1) You want gay people to marry someone of the opposite sex just to get those 1200 + federal rights, not only is that just plain wrong and nasty, that is also…FRAUD!!!

Thats right y’all, not only does Bambi not want us getting married, he also wants us in jail!

2) Marrying someone you do NOT love, have no intention of spending the rest of your life with, never mind sleeping with, would be a fake marriage, which would do nothing to PROTECT the SANCTITY of Marriage which you are so passionate about.

So my fellow readers, here we have another example of how stupid NOM members really are, do I think I’ll find more throughout the course of the day…

You can bet your sodomizing ass I will!

Read Full Post »

Maggie Gallagher and the National Organization Of Marriage must be PISSED!

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge challenged the backers of California’s voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday to explain how allowing gay couples to wed threatens conventional unions, a demand that prompted their lawyer to acknowledge he did not know.

The unusual exchange between U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker and Charles Cooper, a lawyer for the group that sponsored Proposition 8, came during a hearing on a lawsuit challenging the measure as discriminatory under the U.S. Constitution.

Cooper had asked Walker to throw out the suit or make it more difficult for those civil rights claims to prevail.

The judge not only refused but signaled that when the case goes to trial in January, he expects Cooper and his legal team to present evidence showing that male-female marriages would be undermined if same-sex marriages were legal.

The question is relevant to the assertion by gay marriage opponents that Proposition 8 is constitutionally valid because it furthers the state’s goal of fostering “naturally procreative relationships,” Walker explained.

“What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?” Walker asked.

“My answer is, I don’t know. I don’t know,” Cooper answered.

Moments later, after assuring the judge his response did not mean Proposition 8 was doomed to be struck down, Cooper tried to clarify his position. The relevant question was not whether there is proof that same-sex unions jeopardize marriages between men and women, but whether “the state is entitled, when dealing with radical proposals to make changes to bedrock institutions such as this … to take a wait and see attitude,” he said.

“There are things we can’t know, that’s my point,” Cooper said. “The people of California are entitled to step back and let the experiment unfold in Massachusetts and other places, to see whether our concerns about the health of marital unions have either been confirmed or perhaps they have been completely assuaged.”

Walker pressed on, asking again for specific “adverse consequences” that could follow expanding marriage to include same-sex couples. Cooper cited a study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, showing that straight couples were increasingly opting to become domestic partners instead of getting married.

“Has that been harmful to children in the Netherlands? What is the adverse effect?” Walker asked.

Cooper said he did not have the facts at hand.

“But it is not self-evident that there is no chance of any harm, and the people of California are entitled not to take the risk,” he said.

“Since when do Constitutional rights rest on the proof of no harm?” Walker parried, adding the First Amendment right to free speech protects activities that many find offensive, “but we tolerate those in a free society.”

Walker made clear that he wants to examine other issues that are part of the political rhetoric surrounding same-sex marriage but rarely surface in courtrooms. Among the questions he plans to entertain at the trial are whether sexual orientation is a fixed or immutable characteristic, whether gays are a politically powerful group, and if same-sex marriage bans such as Proposition 8 were motivated by anti-gay bias.

The lawsuit over which Walker is presiding was brought by two unmarried same-sex couples. They have since been joined by lawyers for the city of San Francisco.

Attorney General Jerry Brown, who was named as a defendant, has taken the rare step of agreeing with the plaintiffs instead of arguing to uphold the voter-approved law.

In allowing the case to move forward, Walker said significant questions remain about whether the California measure, which was approved by 52 percent of voters in November, unlawfully violates the rights of gays and lesbians to equality and due process guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. The measure overturned a state Supreme Court ruling earlier in the year that legalized same-sex marriages.

An estimated 18,000 gay couples wed before the law took effect. In May, the Supreme Court declined to invalidate Proposition 8 but upheld the existing same-sex marriages.

Chad Griffin, a Los Angeles political consultant who spearheaded the lawsuit, said after Wednesday’s hearing that he was thrilled by Walker’s ruling, “which brings us one step closer to the beginning of a federal trial where we will be able to prove the unconstitutionality of Prop. 8.”

Cooper said he, too, would be ready to address the issues Walker outlined, though he declined to comment on the grilling by the judge.

“We all heard it, and we haven’t had the benefit of reviewing it,” he said.

Andy Pugno, general counsel to the coalition of religious and social conservative groups behind Proposition 8, said that after losing the election, supporters of same-sex marriage were trying to persuade the judge to substitute their views for those expressed by voters.

“What really is happening is the voters who passed Proposition 8 are essentially on trial in this case, and they continue to be accused of being irrational and bigoted for restoring the traditional definition of marriage,” he said.

Read Full Post »

All I can say is WOW.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the country’s most powerful Mormon politician, criticized his own church during a meeting with gay-rights activists, reportedly scolding Mormon leaders for supporting the ban on same-sex marriage in California.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported that Reid brought up the topic last week during a meeting in his office with organizers of the National Equality March, held over the weekend in Washington, D.C.

One participant told the newspaper that Reid said the decision by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to support the successful Proposition 8 ballot measure in California last year was a “waste of church resources and good will.” Another said Reid made clear that he “felt it was harmful for the church to focus on such a divisive issue.”

Though the church fought to support Proposition 8, with money and volunteers, just as it has fought other moves to legalize same-sex marriage, it is rare for the Nevada Democrat to comment on his own church’s political activity. Reid supported the gay rights march over the weekend.


Read Full Post »

Time published an article titled “What Happens If You’re on the Gay ‘Enemies List.’” It’s relatively accurate.

The last paragraph, however, includes the clichéd response from the Yes on 8 campaign about the boycott-the-bigots movement. And it’s a cliché that is ridiculous, and I’m completely fed up with it being printed in news reports without it being immediately discounted. Here it is:

Meanwhile, lists of donors to Proposition 8, once trumpeted on the Yes on 8 Web site, have been taken down to protect individuals from harassment. “It’s really awful,” says Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Yes on Proposition 8. “No matter what you think of Proposition 8, we ought to respect people’s right to participate in the political process. It strikes me as quite ironic that a group of people who demand tolerance and who claim to be for civil rights are so willing to be intolerant and trample on other people’s civil rights.”

Schubert is a liar and a bigot, and obviously, he’s a hypocrite. Let’s take this apart.

“It’s really awful.”

What is awful? That your supporters have to face ramifications for their political acts? That they spent money on a campaign that demonized and lied about gays and lesbians and now gays and lesbians are angry with them? That majority rule does not mean that the majority can force a minority to shut up? (That the majority rules doesn’t even exist, since we live in a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy?) What did you expect to happen when you stripped a minority group of their rights? That we would crawl back into our closets? Frank Schubert, you’re an idiot.

“No matter what you think of Proposition 8, we ought to respect people’s right to participate in the political process.”

We are respecting their rights. They have every right to give money to a hate group. And we have every right to publicize this fact, to ask people not to patronize their businesses, and to protest their actions in legal and peaceful ways. It is rich that Schubert would bringing up “respect” for “rights,” after his organization stripped the rights of people he clearly has no respect for. Frank Schubert, you’re an idiot.

“It strikes me as quite ironic that a group of people who demand tolerance and who claim to be for civil rights are so willing to be intolerant and trample on other people’s civil rights.”

Intolerant? Tolerance does not mean lying down in the street and being run over by trucks. Tolerance is live and let live. It is respect for the beliefs and private actions of others. I am tolerant of Mormons practicing in their church. I am tolerant of my relatives who believe that the Bible does not support my marriage to another man. But the moment that the group I am tolerant of tries to strip me of my rights, spreads lies about me on TV, the radio, and the Internet, and enters the public sphere and tries to make me a second-class citizen, tolerance is irrelevant…

Because I will not simply lay down in the street and have you walk all over me time and time again, I will stand the fuck up and literally tear apart.

Read Full Post »

Everyone right now is talking about gay rights, even our smexy Anderson cooper.

Read Full Post »

I would like to remind everyone, Mike Duvall is pro-family, and wants to protect the sanctity of marriage, meaning one man and one woman…errrrr, well, that WAS the case.

This anti-gay Republican just committed career suicide! And the gay community is VERY happy about it.

Duvall comes from a long, long, LONG line of Republican social conservatives who enjoy using morality to argue for denying people their rights while refusing to practice that morality themselves. Duvall was an outspoken supporter of Proposition 8, which apparently meant that heterosexual adultery was less damaging to marriage than a committed same-sex couple being able to get legal recognition of and practical benefits from their marriage by the state. Then again, it’s OK if you’re a Republican. As long as he’s voting against taxes and the gay agenda, I am sure that his OC supporters and right-wing paymasters will be happy to overlook ethical lapses and an inability to keep his sexual practices to himself.

Now I know that some republicans will support him, will try and justify his hypocritical behavior, they will probably say the usual “He’s only human” and lets not forget “every one makes mistakes”?

In July–two days after Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Republican leader Sam Blakeslee put Duvall on the Rules Committee that oversees member ethics–the second-term, conservative, Republican assemblyman sat in a public hearing and vividly described lewd details about his trysts with a female lobbyist whose clients had business before another committee on which
 Duvall sits.

Duvall, speaking to a relatively mum Republican colleague seated to his left, apparently had no idea his dais microphone became live beginning about a minute before the start of a cable-televised committee hearing. He was captured in the middle of recounting portions of an affair.

“She wears little eye-patch underwear,” said Duvall, who is married with two children. “So, the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And
 so, we had made love Wednesday–a lot! And so she’ll, she’s all, ‘I am going 
up and down the stairs, and you’re dripping out of me!’ So messy!”

That line may quickly become part of colorful Sacramento political lore. In the meantime, it leads me to a question: Can someone please buy the assemblyman a box of condoms?

Duvall–who was twice a president of the Yorba Linda Chamber of Commerce, served two terms as mayor of Yorba Linda before entering the assembly in
 2006, and is the owner of an insurance agency–continues his tale: “So, I am getting into spanking her. Yeah, I like it. I like spanking her. She goes, ‘I know you like spanking me.’ I said, ‘Yeah! Because you’re such a bad girl!'”

He then laughed.

The assemblyman representing Anaheim, Fullerton, Placentia, Orange, Brea, La
 Habra and Yorba Linda then offered clues to the identity of his sex partner.

“And so her birthday was Monday,” he said at the Wednesday, July 8 committee hearing. “I was 54 on June 14, so for a month, she was 19 years younger than 
me. I said, ‘Now, you’re getting old. I am going to have to trade you in.’ And she goes, ‘[I’m] 36.’ She is 18 years younger than me. And so I keep
 teasing her, and she goes, ‘I know you French men. You divide your age by 
two and add seven, and if you’re older than that, you dump us.'”

According to voter-registration records reviewed by the Weekly, veteran Sacramento-based lobbyist Heidi DeJong Barsuglia turned 36 years old on Monday, July 6.

Legislative sources say they have witnessed Duvall, who is vice chairman of 
the Assembly’s powerful Committee on

Say Hi to Heidi!

Say Hi to Heidi!

Utilities & Commerce, socializing after-hours with Barsuglia. Sources–who asked for anonymity because of 
Duvall’s power in the capital–say Susan Duvall usually stays in Orange
 County during the week, when her husband flies to Sacramento. They also say 
they have seen Duvall with Barsuglia in restaurants, “arm-in-arm” at political fund-raising events and even shopping together for groceries just blocks from the capitol building.  (jesus christ, has he no shame?)

“Their relationship is the worst-kept secret in Sacramento,” a capitol staffer recently told me. “He’s old and fat. She’s hot, blonde and about 20
 years younger. He could have never gotten a woman like that before he got
 this job.'”

In April–two months after Duvall became vice chairman of the Utilities & 
Commerce committee–privately owned California utility giant Sempra Energy hired Barsuglia as one of its top lobbyists, according to Secretary of State
 Barsuglia, who has a law degree and once worked as a speechwriter for
 Governor Pete Wilson, had previously worked at the California Retailers 
Association (CRA). During 25 months of work at CRA, she reported that she incurred no reportable lobbying expenses. She joined Sempra after the 
departure of another lobbyist: David Hayes, who was named deputy director of the Interior Department by President Barack Obama.
 The San Diego-based utility conglomerate isn’t shy about lobbying
 lawmakers for favorable treatment. This session, they gave Duvall $1,500 in campaign contributions. In May, the assemblyman officially adopted the company’s negative view on Assembly Bill 64, which proposes increasing the percentage of electricity the utilities must procure from environmentally
 sensitive sources.

Repeatedly asked to explain his recorded sexual boasting, a red-faced Duvall fled me and another reporter, Dave Lopez of KCBS in Los Angeles, three times this afternoon in capitol hallways. He also ignored three handwritten interview requests that were delivered to him on the floor of the assembly. Said one assembly employee who witnessed the scene, “It definitely looks like he is afraid of you guys.”

Barsuglia did not responded to a request for an interview made at Sempra’s offices located across the street from the capitol building.

Sempra’s 2008-2009 “Code of Business Conduct” states, “We’ve built [the company’s] rich tradition because of the emphasis we place on ethical business conduct and compliance with the laws and regulations that govern
our business. We don’t compromise on either for the sake of success”

But Duvall wasn’t content to just share one adulterous tale at the July 8 committee hearing. He referenced a second, simultaneous affair with another woman. He seemed amused that he was cheating on both his wife and a mistress.

“Oh, yeah, Sher, Shar, Shar,” Duvall said. “Oh, she is hot! I talked to her yesterday. She goes, ‘So are we finished?’ I go, ‘No, we’re not finished.’ I go, ‘You know about the other one [Barsuglia], but she doesn’t know about you!'”

The assemblyman punctuated his observation with laughter.

During his political career, Duvall has unabashedly espoused conservative
 principles and is known as a partisan Republican with a knack for theatrics:
 He has noisily driven his Harley-Davidson motorcycle to functions. In 2008, 
Duvall blasted efforts to condone gay marriage. Legislatively, he has 
proposed bills to aid the insurance industry and government contractors 
feeding off the state’s massive transportation kitty.
 He has offered a law to alter the First Amendment rights of Americans by
 banning anti-war activists from putting the names of fallen soldiers on 
T-shirts with messages such as “Bush lied” on the front and “They died” on the back; he observed that the dead soldiers fought to protect freedom, and “opportunists” should not be allowed to “exploit” the sacrifices with political messages opposing war.

Such thinking impressed certain constituencies. Earlier this year, the man who never graduated from high school received “100 percent” approval scores 
by the California Republican Assembly, the state’s leading conservative outfit, and the Capitol Resource Institute (CRI), a fierce guardian of traditional family values.

“Assemblyman Duvall has been a consistent trooper for the conservative causes,” CRI president Karen England announced in March. “For the last two years, he has voted time and time again to protect and preserve family values in California. We are grateful for his support of California

Acknowledging the CRI award, Duvall observed in a press release that as long as he is in office, he would work to protect “California families” from “constant assault in Sacramento.”


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »