Hearing today on disclosure
March 16, 2010
By Julia Rosen
Today Judge Walker is hearing an appeal of Magistrate Judge Spero’s ruling on disclosure by groups opposing Prop 8. Spero had expanded the disclosure needed by those groups, which they are trying to avoid.
Teddy over at FDL tried to liveblog it this morning, but there is no overflow room. He was in the courtroom itself and the clerk asked him to close his laptop. Will update when we have more information.
Entry Filed under: Trial analysis. Tags: Judge Walker.
134 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
Randy | March 16, 2010 at 10:57 am
I am not entirely clear on this entire disclosure thing so if my next few comments are way off base forgive me and let me know why! Is there any reason why we wouldn’t want to disclose everything? As I understand it there is no basis as it is not what the case is about, and that it is basically just a move by prop 8 as revenge against us asking the same thing. But really I think we should just throw the books open, we should have nothing to hide. Even if it is just the principle of the thing that has our side not wanting to do this I think we should be as open as possible, let that work as a demonstration on how closed the other side is.
2.
Kathleen | March 16, 2010 at 11:13 am
Randy, first, they’re asking for documents from organizations that are not parties to this lawsuit and there is expense involved in producing these documents. The more inclusive the order, the more time and money that has to go into producing them.
Secondly, because what they’re asking for is communication about a political campaign. Part of the argument that the No on 8 Campaign is making, in objecting to the order, is that even if they must disclose, “the order should be modified to preclude disclosure to anyone involved in the Prop 8 campaign or who may be involved in a future political campaign involving the right of same sex couples to marry.” (from the No on 8 brief filed with the court)
BTW, this hearing isn’t just about the third party (No on 8) orgs wanting he order modified to include less discovery. The D-Is are objecting, asking that it be modified to include even more than Spero ordered.
3.
Randy | March 16, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Ok that makes sense I hadn’t thought of the cost and time, I just figured it was all easily accessed stuff. So what exactly is the reason they used for asking for this disclosure then? As I understand, if it has no bearing on the question on hand, which is the basis of animus for the Prop 8 campaign, what are they looking for?
4.
Kathleen | March 16, 2010 at 1:18 pm
According to the order issued by Spero, the D-Is “assert that they seek the documents to help elucidate voter intent and the purpose of Proposition 8 and because the documents may address the political power of gays and lesbians.”
The question of intent is at the core of plaintiff’s argument — that there is no legitimate state interest served by the amendment. And the issue of political power is part of the argument in establishing that glbt people should be considered a “suspect class” and thus any law which singles them out should be subjected to a higher standard of judicial review.
Spero’s order limited discovery to communications between “non-core” members of the political groups, spelled out who the core members are, and then defined a list of search terms that would be used to identify which emails were covered by the order.
D-Is already petitioned Spero to significantly increase the list of search terms, a petition he denied. D-Is brought it up again in this hearing in front of Walker.
I’ll let everyone know when Walker files his order and, as always, make it available to anyone who wants it.
5.
Kathleen | March 16, 2010 at 5:16 pm
A correction. Spero didn’t limit disclosure to only communications between non-core people; he actually exempted any communication that was strictly between core people. There’s a difference and my first statement wasn’t accurate.
6.
Ed-M | March 17, 2010 at 7:47 am
Yes, we should just throw everything at the D-I team that they want. What are they going to find? IMO not anything that will help them prove their case. In fact, it could prove the opposite! I think what is going on is that they are at the eleventh hour, fifty-ninth minute and fifty ninth second, covering up for their own incompetence and hoping to buy enough time so that once it gets to SCOTUS, Justice Anthony Kennedy will no longer be on the bench and that a Republican “pro-family” president and congress will have installed his successor. Yes, it is that critical. For they do not want us to be, period. Their ideal for our country would be a Patriot-Act-enabled country where we and the LGBT youth that would come after us are afforded NO place to be safe, not even if we and they after us pretend to be ‘straight.’
I came upon this horrifying story of one NC young guy who was a “ladies’ man” at a fundamentalist private high school, yet was led to trust and open himself up to someone else under false pretences: a fellow classmate posed as a gay teen and ‘courted’ him for several months until he got him to send graphic pictures of himself (both were over 18) and then outed him to the entire student body. Result? He was thrown out of school, confronted by his religiously bigoted parents, and had to flee to his aunt’s house in Tampa, under threat of being sent to an “ex-gay” cult re-education camp. His parents literally gave all his belongings to charity, save for a few “christian” items and his aunt had to return the car he fled in. He is still, mind you, STILL, being cyber-bullied by his former classmates from the fundie ‘academy’ and their actions could cause him problems at his new school in Florida.
The story is in the top six articles at this link: http://florida4obama.dailykos.com/
This incident proves we won’t be safe by any means, even lying and hiding, if these hateros were to get their own way.
7.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | March 16, 2010 at 11:21 am
Looking forward to the next post with the results of this hearing.
8.
Kathleen | March 16, 2010 at 11:24 am
For anyone interested, I’ve been posting updates regarding these proceedings at the Prop 8 Trial Trackers Facebook page, including making the court filings (briefs for both sides and Spero’s Order) available to anyone who wants them.
I’m hoping Teddy will let us know the outcome today. Without coverage of the hearing, the first I’ll know of any possible outcome will be when Walker’s Order is filed with the court.
9.
PDXAndrew | March 16, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Unfortunately, I don’t have access to acomputer during the day at work; I’m doing all this P8TT stuff on my iPhone, and the FB app doesn’t give access to groups, just friends.
If you could, can you pretty please make sure to keep this site up-to-date too?
Love, Andrew
10.
Kathleen | March 16, 2010 at 8:22 pm
I always post updates here first, Andrew. It’s just sometimes hard to find the posts amidst the many different topics that get covered here.
11.
Kathleen | March 17, 2010 at 1:34 pm
@Andrew, can’t remember if you’ve ever request court docs from me before…. but in case you want any of the filings, find me on the facebook group, send me a private message through fb, letting me know what you want and what email address to send it to.
12.
Ronnie | March 16, 2010 at 11:24 am
Prop Ha8te…..really needs to stop this whole putting their noses into other peoples lives…..they want info from people who have nothing to do with this trial….You’d swear the were gay because they put their noses up more @$$es then every gay man in the world combined….I’m just saying….<3…Ronnie
13.
Richard W. Fitch | March 16, 2010 at 11:37 am
[{ following: "Hearing today on disclosure" }]
14.
Kathleen | March 16, 2010 at 11:57 am
Hearing over. Full report here:
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/35471
15.
dieter | March 16, 2010 at 12:10 pm
interesting how all of a sudden no-one is allowed to even have their laptops open anymore…so now we cannpt even follow the case?….wow. not a good omen for the outcome. Now they don’t even want us knowing what is going on. guess we did too good a job getting the facts out there before, and “they” didn’t like it.
16.
Kathleen | March 16, 2010 at 12:13 pm
dieter, I think all the live blogging before was done from overflow rooms, not the main courtroom. With a hearing like today’s, there was no need to open an overflow room. I suspect the rules today were the same rules that were in effect for the main courtroom during the testimony phase.
17.
JimiG | March 16, 2010 at 12:15 pm
I am pissed, just got off facebook with my old pastors wife. She was telling a story about her daughter playing dolls and having two Dads. I told her I was proud she didn’t interfere, this was after some of her friends commented she should leave CA and go back to MO. She wrote me back and said just to be clear I think being gay is against God’s will and a sin. I love her to death but my response was pretty hard. I think I just lost a friend of 15 years.
They know me, they know my family and yet they have the balls to call my parents sinners. Anyway I reminder her that 30 years ago the same people telling her gays are sinners were telling her inter-racial marriage was a sin. maybe next sunday she can talk with her friends about how they feel knowing this.
I also pointed out that a large number of pasters, minister and Christian are changing their minds and opening their hearts.
Why don’t they want to be disclosed because every pastor and church who gave money will be forced to answer the question I just raised. If you are against LGBT people how do you feel against all the other issues you faith has challenged over the last 40 years many of which are racial and biggoted.
End of rant, now to read the hearing.
18.
Kathleen | March 16, 2010 at 12:22 pm
JimiG, I’m so sorry. I know this must be painful.
19.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | March 16, 2010 at 1:45 pm
JimiG, I agree with Kathleen, this must be extremely painful. And I can definitely understand you being pissed off. I am thankful that you feel comfortable in sharing this here, and I hope that you continue to use your anger constructively to continue fighting with us for full equality for ALL! I know your moms must be very proud of you. And I for one am grateful to be getting to know you through this site.♥ ♥ ♥♥ ♥ ♥
Richard
20.
David Kimble | March 16, 2010 at 3:48 pm
I realize, too, how painful this is for you, JimiG – my sympathies are with you! <3 David
21.
Straight Grandmother | March 16, 2010 at 5:02 pm
JimiG- Grrrrr. What ever happened to that old saying, live and let live. I don’t blame you for being upset. I hardly know what to say. You are the only person I know that has 2 moms and it is really important for me that I have come to know you here on Prop8TT. One thing is for sure I am glad you spoke your mind.
22.
G Rod | March 16, 2010 at 7:12 pm
@ JamieG
The Movable Middle
Your recounting suggests that the pastor’s wife is in the movable middle, but being challenged by her friends.
The following text suggests that your friend, who you have loved to death, needs to be reassured of your shared values and experiences. Not so much the things that divide the two of you.
Were not all His followers at one time or another sinners….?
Check out a full report on the middle:
http://www.equalitymaine.org/blogs/dorian-cole/the-moveable-middle -
“Maine has a slightly larger than national average moveable middle at, get this, 47%. Our middle consists of 22% who believe gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights but a different name and 25% who believe that same-sex couples should have some legal recognition. There are also 10% who believe same-sex couples deserve no recognition (the anti-equality base), and a whopping 39% who support marriage equality (the pro-equality base).
Still Learning How to Influence Fellow Voters:
A recent study showed that Maine’s middle voted overwhelmingly against marriage equality. It is believed that this is so because the middle saw marriage as an ideal, not a legal contract or a right [the way Equality Main pitched it]. They’re still not sure if gay couples meet that ideal.
However, this isn’t to say that the middle is anti-gay. In fact, they identify themselves as those who know gay people, they believe themselves to be growing more acceptant toward gay and lesbian people, they do support relationship recognition and they do hold shared values with the pro-equality base.
What is needed to influence the Movable Middle?
Encourage gay people and their allies to talk to others about why they support marriage. In Maine, people who had talked to a gay person about marriage voted No on Q1 by 63% to 37%. In our poll, 35% of Mainers had talked to a gay person about the initiative.
Also, interestingly, people who said they had talked to their own kids about the issue voted for marriage 55% to 45%. And among parents, 70% who had talked to anyone about the issue had talked to their own children.
These conversations work to generate support because they naturally convey those shared values that the middle needs to hear. Talking to a gay person helps to convince the middle that gay couples want to get married for the same reasons straight couples do—and that those couples will do their best to honor the lifetime commitment, sacrifices, and responsibilities that marriage entails. Spotlighting these shared values taps into the true spirit of marriage and addresses the middle’s concerns by showing that allowing gay couples to marry won’t change the tradition,
or how their kids perceive it.
Perhaps your pastor’s wife friends needed reassurance that you understood the pressure she was experience. There is an adage, be slow in making friends, slower in loosing.
23.
Gregory in Salt Lake City | March 17, 2010 at 9:54 am
Jim – I think we all can sympathize. I get dumbfounded how so many, especially those close to us, hold on to “it is a sin” who said? what evidence? I get more and more disappointed in religion all the time. I have hope for those close to me will take time to listen to their hearts and recognize I’m a good person, not to be feared, rather embraced for following a path that is true to me. It gives me hope for future generation to hear pastors daughter is playing “house” with two dads :)
24.
rainbowneck1963 | March 16, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Yes, that’s right. I forgot myself that there was an overflow room and that there were no communications allowed from within the courtroom itself. thanks for the reminder Kathleen.♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥
Richard
25.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | March 16, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Yes, folks the above is me. I have a new blog myself on WordPress, and it has me signed in under that username. Of course, if this sorks on this one, you can click on my name to go to the blog. Yes, it is related in a lot of ways to the P8TT and I would love to have any of you who wish to as guest bloggers.
26.
Alan E. | March 16, 2010 at 1:22 pm
I like the rainbowneck title.
27.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | March 16, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Thanks. Rainbowneck was a term I coined sveral years ago to describe anyone who is LGBTQQIA and still finds things in the Jeff Foxworthy jokes they can identify with. And anyone who clicks on my links can add their two cents to “A Gay in the LIfe–The truth about the ‘Gay LIfestyle’ as I live it with My Husband in North Carolina. And yes it is a wordpress.com blog. Guess that is something else I can thank Courage Campaign and the Trial Tracker for–I have finally become a blogger!
28.
John | March 17, 2010 at 4:22 am
Hmm, like how my husband and I have gone to Monster Truck events every year since 1994?
29.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | March 17, 2010 at 5:44 am
Or like one I called in to the Foxworthy phone that I was told got used. And this was based on my living situation at the time. “YOu might be a redneck if you think a futon is the pullout couch in the RV.” I guess in a way it is for all of us who are LGBTQQIA who don’t fit in with the stereotypes that people have of us. At least I know I don’t fit in with all of the stereoptypes. And yes, that is why I think sites like this are SO important, and why I started the blog. And I efinitely would like to invite all of you to check it out, leave your comments, and as I find out how to set it up, I will also have guest bloggers. I am hoping this goes very big and gets the word out so that we become more visible and peopl see that we are real human beings. that is how we will win.
30.
Alan E. | March 16, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Teddy commenting at FDL (I changed the words in brackets that he later adjusted in another comment):
31.
Ronnie | March 16, 2010 at 1:34 pm
What part of STFU and NO…do they not understand?…..What the LGBTQQIA community HAS to take no for an answer but they don’t?……f-ing Hypocrite Bigot Hateros…..aka…HBH…..<3….Ronnie
32.
Ronnie | March 16, 2010 at 2:30 pm
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/16/Texas_Jail_Guard_Fired_Over_Antigay_Remarks/
Posted on Advocate.com March 16, 2010
Texas Jail Guard Fired Over Antigay Comments
By Advocate.com Editors
“A veteran Dallas County jail guard with a history of making defamatory statements against gays, blacks, and undocumented immigrants has been fired from his position.”
(me) GOOD!!!!!….and you’ll see why…..
“Stephen Johnson, 59, was fired on Jan. 20, the Dallas Morning News reported on Monday, after interrupting a conversation with fellow employees and stating that gays “should be put to death.” The former guard has claimed his first amendment rights had been violated, but does not plan to appeal his termination.”
(me) WTF!!!!!!!!!…..now if he had said anything other then that….then I would say go ahead plead the 14th but ….NO!!!…..wait for it…..
“They made it out to be that I was a bigot. I was fired [because] I hurt someone else’ feelings,” Johnson told the newspaper.”
(me) Bigot is an understatement….you said people should die….that makes you Hitler…..wait it gets better….
“Johnson denied in a sworn statement that he also said he believed that whites were superior to blacks because slavery “was a fact in the Bible.”
(me) No nothing bigoted about that….fu<king Hatero…..<3…Ronnie
33.
Bolt | March 16, 2010 at 4:04 pm
I hate the anti-gay religious bigots who are defending this disgusting ban on marriage equality.
34.
G Rod | March 16, 2010 at 7:27 pm
@Bolt, as I recently suggested to you, you could target each bigot with a ‘bolt’ of lightning. Your advice to Jonathan was not to give bigots the time of day, or to lose sleep over their lunatic ways…. Hate is a strong emotion.
It is not only religious bigots who have reservations about marriage equality. I encourage you read http://www.equalitymaine.org/blogs/dorian-cole/the-moveable-middle – perhaps you will be motivated to keep those arrows in your quiver.
35.
David Kimble | March 16, 2010 at 5:11 pm
I just found this story at 365gay.com – enjoy!
<3 David
"Liptak asked if the Supreme Court ruling about not videotaping and broadcasting the Prop 8 trial said anything about how the Justices would rule in the final case, or how they felt about the judge.
No, Olson said. It’s just that the Supreme Court is very shy about having cameras in THEIR court room and they feared that allowing these cameras in a constitutional case would make it very hard for them to avoid cameras in their own court.
But instead of saying that, they sided with the Prop 8 backers who said they feared intimidation were they to be videotaped. That decision, Olson said, was “fundamentally wrong.” First of all, all Prop 8 witnesses were videotaped in deposition – Olson and Boies are free to post those tapes to the web, and may do so. Second, all the pro-Prop 8 witnesses were people who had made speeches, given money, and generally made themselves into public figures.
The second [and more important] thing that surprised me: Olson and Boies believe that this case can have no bad outcome.
If the Supreme Court rules against us, they said, the Justices are likely to decide that whether gay marriage is permitted should be left up to the states.
And the third – and most surprising – thing:
Boies and Olson believe that this case will be decided by the Supreme Court by fall 2011."
36.
David Kimble | March 16, 2010 at 5:12 pm
http://www.365gay.com/news/prop-8-forum-olson-boies-speak/
Here’s a link to the full story! We really need an edit button here! <3 David
37.
Straight Grandmother | March 16, 2010 at 5:18 pm
I am not surprised the trial is kind of a mess. Judge Walker fast tracked it and started the trial with open motions on Disconvery. Not everything was finalazed about discovery and he started the trial. Anything that is pertinent to a lawsuite can be supeninead (gosh I know I spelled that wrong) These groups that the Defendent Intervieners want docs out of filed friend of the court briefs.
I still say they have a point. Our side wants LGBT’s to be classified as a suspect class so we get more protections. One leg of our argument for suspect class is that we are politically powerless and therefore need protection.
The want to discover docs from the 3 political groups that supported our side, as those docs might show that we in fact have plenty of political strength (not! or we wouldn’t get our rights voted away).
And afer alll Judge Walker let our side go into their political action groups and Discover docs. So why can’t they do the same to our political groups hunting for docs that show we do have political strength.
This is a big mess right now with Walker finishing the trial before this issue was resolved. This kind of stuff has Appeal written all over it. I have been haunted by this since day one that I read all the docs in the case. I couldn’t then and still don’t understand how the Judge could have a trial when there were open motions on Discovery. The DI’s did write very good motions asking for Discovery, IMHO. It’s a big fat mess.
38.
David Kimble | March 16, 2010 at 5:32 pm
@ Straight Grandmother – I don’t believe the case was fast-tracked, since the DI’s knew from when the case was filed in Federal District Court, what they needed to do – Schwarzenegger refused to defend the state’s position, so that fell to the DI’s. I see this as being a lot like playing Monday Morning QB, they now claim injury, when the reality is they were out-classed by Olson and Boies in the trial.
I do agree, this case has appeal written all over it and this will probably be one the ways the appeal will be heard. <3 David
39.
Shun | March 16, 2010 at 5:32 pm
I’ve been trying to follow the comments here on what’s happening with the case…but I’m sorry to say I’m very very confused. So it’s not going well? It may be go on for much longer? Or…? For ppl like me that really don’t understand all that much about these things, can anyone explain in really simple terms on what’s happening?
40.
Kathleen | March 17, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Shun, what’s going on right now is a battle over how much evidence the D-Is (Yes on Prop 8) have a right to obtain from the No on 8 campaign organizations (organizations that are not a party to this law suit). Think of this as a bit of a side skirmish.
The longer it takes to resolve this, the longer it will be before Walker will schedule closing arguments and wrap up the trial. Also, there’s a chance that if the D-Is uncover evidence they think is important to their case, they may ask the court to resume testimony.
So, right now, the only effect this is having is a delay to the proceedings. It’s hard to say what effect, if any, this will have on the ultimate ruling, because we don’t know what evidence the D-Is might obtain, so we don’t know if it might help their defense.
41.
Ronnie | March 16, 2010 at 6:23 pm
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/16/The_Top_10_Antigay_Activists_Who_Like_Gay_Hookups/
Posted on Advocate.com March 16, 2010
Website Ranks the Top 10 Antigay Activists Who Like Gay Hookups
By Neal Broverman
This is the list from the link at the end of the article:
10.) Mark Foley – Formerly in charge of the House Caucus on missing and exploited children….caught having unlawful IM and email conversations with 2 former pages 16 & 18….Foley described even the thought of early allegations of his homosexuality as “revolting & unforgivable”
(me) ummmm ok….Denial and stigmatization….1 bad combination….
9.) Ted Haggard = Ex Pastor to New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado…still married…was outed by prostitute, and pro. masseur, Mike Jones in Nov. 2006 for paying him for sex for 3 years…..He has opposed Amend. 43 that bans Marriage Equality in the state….in his own words, he’s not homosexual, he’s just a “heterosexual with issues”
(me) I’m sure he has plenty of issues…..of Freshmen Magazine…..
8.) Robert Allen – Rep. Allen was arrested for offering to perform fellatio to an undercover cop in the men’s room of a park for $20…he said he offered the policeman oral sex because he was afraid of black people and “didn’t want to become a statistic”…… Allen who is married w/children has always voted against gay rights…w/voting record is over 90% in line with the Christian Coalition.
(me) Looking at the picture $20 was a low ball(pun intended) offer…I’m just saying…I want to give you a blow job because i’m afraid of black people…ummmm ok…the other 10% was to keep public men’s bathrooms clean…..hehehehe…..
7.) Ed Schrock – vehemently opposed gay-rights issues during his 2 terms in Congress…from SS marriage to military…100% against anything gay….Aug 30, 2004 dropped out of race for 3rd term after being caught on tape soliciting sex from a gay prostitute
(me) WOW!!!!…….
6.) Larry Craig – Former Idaho Repub. served 18yrs in the U.S. Senate…supported the Fed. Marriage Amend. which banned marriage rights to SS couples…..arrested at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on June 11, 2007 for cottaging an undercover male police officer
(me) Got a thing for cops….yeah Mr. Craig?…..
5.) Roy Ashburn – On March 3, 2010….Concerv. Cali. State Sen…..always voted anti-gay…..DUI….yada yada…gay bar Faces….yada yada….tonights trick…yada yada…still wants to vote anti-gay
(me) not surprising that he’s on the list….
4.) Bruce Barclay – Repub. commissioner of Cumberland County, Penn…..”is practically the gay porn star of politics”….due to an allegation of rape by 20yo Marshall McCurdy, police got a warrent to search his home on March 31st….no evidence of rape…instead….found V.T.’s of 100′s of sexual encounters w/men he filmed on high-tech surveillance cameras
(me) Did tax payer money pay for the equipment?….
3.) Richard Curits – Washington state Rep. has an anti-gay voting record against D.P.’s and opposed a bill prohibiting discrimination based on S.O……resigned due to reports of a sexual encounter with the reputed male escort, Cody Castaga….Cody told police that Curtis offered him $1 thou to have sex….Curtis was weraing a red negligee and Cody has pics to prove it…He took the pics only as revenge when he found that Curtis only had $200
(me) These days all we need is our iPhones…..heheheheh
2.) Jim West – Spokane Mayor has worked really hard to debilitate gay rights in his community….supported a bill to ban G’s & L’s from working in schools, daycares, & some state agencies…as well as a bill that bars the state from distributing pamphlets info how to protect from HIV/AIDS…..25yrs, having sex w/boys & young men from his comm. & frequented gay.com…..even offered to find them jobs w/the city for sex
(me) Double WOW!!!!
1.) Troy King – Top entry, Alabama A.G. know for his vocal oppostion to gay roghts and for his attempt to outlaw sex toys…was caught by his wife while having sex with a local homecoming King (see what we did there?) from – wait for it – Troy University
(me) BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!…..<3….Ronnie
42.
Chuck S | March 16, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Just a little reminder that Christian doesn’t necessarily mean hateful… It’s easy to lose sight of that fact as we fight the h8ers.
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/0ahryw_OYfp5faYXQa8M7g?authkey=Gv1sRgCLb2zeDtw72tkQE&feat=directlink
43.
David Kimble | March 16, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Good point Chuck S. – thanx for making that point. Too often, when we speak about the hate, the Christians get lumped into that category. <3 David
44.
dieter | March 16, 2010 at 7:03 pm
problem again with posts showing up.
45.
Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | March 16, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Just got an email from Fight Back NY–HIram Monseratte was DEFEATED by Jose Peralta! And they want to thank everyone who is pro-equality and spoke out!
46.
dieter | March 16, 2010 at 7:07 pm
WOOHOOO!!! now maybe he will retreat back under his rock.
posting a little eye-candy video just because it makes me happy…lol
47.
David Kimble | March 17, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Thanx, Dieter – great video – yeah they did take it off! (Chuckles) <3 David
48.
Ronnie | March 16, 2010 at 7:10 pm
HAAAAAAAAA……HAAAAAAAAAAA…….SWEET VICOTORY OVER A WIFE BEATER….now can we please save that poor stupid naive woman from him before she winds up in the Hudson River….maybe we should start a free Karla Giraldo FB group…. <3…Ronnie
49.
Ronnie | March 16, 2010 at 7:14 pm
His opponent, Jose Peralta received 66% of the vote…I just watched it on abc news…..<3…Ronnie
50.
dieter | March 16, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Hiram “Slasher” Monserrate LOSES Homophobic Bid To Return To NY Senate
Local news has declared Assemblyman Jose Peralta the victor (by an almost 2-1 margin) over former NY Sen. Hiram “Slasher” Monserrate in one of the most homophobia-filled elections in recent NYC history. It appears that turnout, always low for special elections, may have only been about 25,000 total voters, making the impact of activists from groups such as Fight Back New York and the Empire State Pride Agenda even more critical to tonight’s result. Well done, everybody. And congratulations, Senator Peralta.
51.
Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | March 16, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Cool vdeo dieter. I can see why it makes you happy. NOt only are they eye candy, but they know how to sing and dance too.
52.
dieter | March 16, 2010 at 8:51 pm
From the protectmarriage website:
Another letter from Andy Pugno that is full of self loving crap, patting themselves on the back for a job well done in the prop 8 trial:
sorry so long.
A Promising Development
by Andy Pugno – General Counsel on March 15th, 2010
Last week, we finally received some good news about our efforts to level the playing field in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case. As you may recall, when the live testimony phase of the trial concluded in late January, our opponents “rested their case,” but our outstanding team of attorneys defending Prop 8 did not. The reason? Even at that late hour we were still waiting for Chief Judge Vaughn Walker to rule upon our significant pending motion, by which we asked the Court to direct the leaders of the No on 8 Campaign to release to us the same types of internal campaign memos, strategies, and communications that we at ProtectMarriage.com had long before already been forced to hand over to them to use as evidence during the trial.
Under normal circumstances, judges ensure that the discovery and disclosure of potentially relevant evidence occur well before trial, and certainly no later than during the evidentiary portion of the trial. That is exactly what Judge Walker had ordered ProtectMarriage.com and the proponents to do. However, even as the trial was drawing to a close, Judge Walker still had not taken up our “motion to compel discovery” which would have ordered the opponents of Prop 8 to also disclose any of their internal documents of the same kind we had been compelled to disclose. Of course we disagreed from the outset with the idea that any of these internal campaign records should have to be produced— by either side. But once the ground rules had been laid to force us to disclose our confidential records, it was shocking and upsetting to see those rules not applied equally to our opponents.
So after the live testimony in the case had concluded, Chief Judge Walker referred our request for equal treatment to U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero. Despite being outnumbered in the courtroom by 10-to-1, our attorneys clashed once again in the San Francisco Courtroom, arguing forcefully that the “No” campaign should be held to the same legal standards that the “Yes” campaign has had to endure in this case. Last week, Magistrate Spero ordered the No on 8 groups (Equality California, Californians Against Eliminating Basic Rights, an ACLU campaign committee, and the No on Prop 8 umbrella campaign) to produce to our attorneys copies of all their internal documents “that contain, refer or relate to arguments for or against Proposition 8.”
They have until March 31 to produce these documents to us.
While this is good news for us, it clearly requires more work on our end to comb through potentially thousands of pages of memos, notes and emails in order to analyze and extract their impact on the case. Even though the Perry case has been out of the headlines, the work for our legal team has not slowed. This is why we ask for your continued financial support as they work tirelessly on your behalf.
Notably, when we sought to protect some of our internal documents as being confidential and privileged, our opponents cried foul. Yet the executive director of California’s most influential homosexual activist organization is trying to make the case that records of communications from and to his group should be out of bounds.
Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors argues that, because EQCA “is a nonparty and because it worked to oppose Proposition 8, its internal campaign communications are not relevant and production would be unduly burdensome.” The ACLU is trying to sing the same song, arguing that the documents we seek are “irrelevant and privileged.” Of course, prior to being mandated to turn over thousands of our own documents, we made almost exactly the same arguments to the court and yet were denied relief!
Magistrate Spero noted in his ruling that “as was the case with the proponents, the documents and communications at issue may shed light on the meaning and impact of the messages that were sent to the voters. Thus, the subpoenaed documents are relevant and must be produced to the extent the documents…contain, refer or relate to arguments for or against Proposition 8.”
But the legal shenanigans of our moneyed opponents continue: EQCA has appealed Magistrate Spero’s ruling to Chief Judge Walker, who has granted a hearing on Kors’ motion. The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 16.
We will continue to keep you informed about the progress of this issue and how it may affect the scheduling of a date for closing arguments. In the meantime, please continue to pray for our attorneys and their staff and all who are involved in this epic battle to preserve traditional marriage
53.
John | March 17, 2010 at 4:38 am
“legal shenanigans of our moneyed opponents”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Shenanigans?
Like the letters pro-prop H8ers sent to businesses who supported the fight against Prop H8, essentially threatening to blackmail them?
Like Mormon church leaders visiting members of their congregations AT HOME with specific sums of money they were expected to turn over to support Prop H8?
Like the Prop H8ers using discredited, decades old “research” to show what horrible people LGBTs are?
Bitch, please!
54.
Ronnie | March 17, 2010 at 6:48 am
Yeah well…..I have a word to counterpunch (hahaah….see what I did there?)…….the illegal, unethical, unconstitutional, inhuman, immature, disrespectful, immoral, uneducated, soulless, heartless, tax stealing, blind, deaf, and dumb, triple K, Swatzy, Hatero “shenanigans” of our moneyed opponents….(funny how they call us moneyed when they have been publicly proven to have more then triple the amount)…..Ok back on topic….
whats with all the Hateros……..hooplatwiddledeedinks?……<3….Ronnie
55.
Alan E. | March 17, 2010 at 9:28 am
Zack Ford posted a commentary (very similar to Ronnie’s style) about this letter.
http://zackfordblogs.com/2010/03/protect-marriage-whah-we-have-to-work-sooooo-hard/
56.
Sagesse | March 17, 2010 at 11:22 am
I’m not a lawyer, just a logical person. But it seems to me that this particular back-and-forth is setting ground rules for future campaigns as to what communications have to be disclosed. For example, just including a cc to someone outside the ‘core group’ makes a document disclosable that otherwise would not be. That’s part of the reason it’s being pursued to its conclusion.
The result would be that the Prop 8 crowd will continue to spout venom and propaganda, they’ll just know better how to hide it. I agree that the disclosure they’re seeking is probably a fishing expedition, and probably won’t get them much, but suspect it may have to play out.
Anyone more knowledgeable feel free to chime in.
57.
Kathleen | March 17, 2010 at 11:57 am
@Sagesse, I think you’re absolutely right as to why the No on 8 campaign orgs are fighting this so hard. There is a very important First Amendment right being tested here. Whatever decisions are made about discovery of political campaigns’ documents in this case could have an impact on how future campaigns communicate within their ranks, and that, in turn, could potentially limit their effectiveness. So, as you astutely note, this has ramifications far beyond the outcome of this particular trial.
Personally, I think the Yes on 8 D-Is are on a fishing expedition. While they may have a right to non-privileged evidence that is both relevant and necessary, I’m not entirely convinced that they’ve made their case. Teddy Partridge, reported this exchange in yesterday’s hearing: Judge Walker asked the D-I attorney today, “What do you hope to find? What’s your smoking gun?” and the reply was “We’ll know it when we see it.”
There’s another perspective on yesterday’s hearing here:
http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/03/walkers-got-little-patience-.html#more
(not sure if you have to register to read it. If so, it’s free reg)
We’ll see where this goes. I’m keeping a close watch for Walker’s written order. And I think, whatever the ruling, this may get appealed to the 9th Circuit.
58.
Ed-M | March 17, 2010 at 12:40 pm
@Kathleen #55: And it looks like Judge Walker is going to order the No on 8 side to hand over the docs. Not that it would give the D-I team anything to work with, but just to fill out the evidentialry record and give a signal to SCOTUS that this trial and his verdict thereupon aren’t the handiwork of a gay “liberal judicial activist”.
F*****’ basterds… let them have their doc dump… it’ll show they’re just harassing us, wearing us out and disempowering us yet again and proving no smoking gun… we have to bend over backwards for them so their allies on the SCOTUS won’t automatically rule against us with prejudice and venom… after all it’s the right winged “conservatives” who are the judicial activists these days… Citizens United v FEC is a fine example!
59.
Bob | March 17, 2010 at 1:18 pm
With this document dump and disclosure, there may be many reasons, including president setting, but in that let’s not forget, the battle to get Churches to stop spending tax free dollars on political campaigns, there should be an obvious possibility in this that they would have to be taxed on all the money they spent on their campaign, and they just want to make sure if that happens, we would have to do the same. I hope that the courts would not forget that major point in all this.
Make the campaigns transparent, any tax free money spent on them would have to be taxed. That’s the way government is paying the churches to fight the campaign. that has to stop.
60.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | March 17, 2010 at 5:46 am
They are just so meshuggah! (Yiddish for crazy)
61.
Dave T | March 17, 2010 at 6:51 am
I was searching the Atlantic Monthly site looking for a particular column by Andrew Sullivan, when I came across an interesting article from 1932: What College Did to My Religion. The quote below caught my attention:
It’s interesting to note the same sorts of forces at work today, 80 years later. The author of that piece would probably include the suppression of homosexuality as one of those “practical functions of religion” that the religious are trying to get government to take over.
62.
Ronnie | March 17, 2010 at 7:22 am
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/17/Court_Antigay_Cyberbullying_Not_Protected_Speech/
Posted on Advocate.com March 17, 2010
Court: Antigay Cyber-bullying Not Protected Speech
By Julie Bolcer
“In one of the first cases in California to examine the issues surrounding free expression and online bullying, a state appeals court said Monday that antigay slurs and threats posted on the Web are not protected speech.”
(me) hmmmmm….a few names come to mind…not mentioning them…that would be fatal……
“The case involves a 15-year-old boy, a former Los Angeles high school student who sued classmates for posting antigay messages on his Web site in 2005. The suit contended that the messages constituted hate crimes and defamation, but one classmate said the messages were protected by his right to free expression.”
(me) free expression my @ss….you went onto a his website and ect ect ect….Hate is Hate get over it…own your fu<king words…and deal with the consequences….wait for it….
“In a 2-1 ruling Monday, the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles said the violent language of the message – threatening to ‘rip out your … heart and feed it to you’ and to ‘pound your head in with an ice pick’ – conveyed a harmful intent that is not protected by the right of free speech.”
(me) So your free expression is that you want to kill him?….which mapped out and great graphic detail by the way……little homicidal freak……<3….Ronnie
63.
Bob | March 17, 2010 at 9:04 am
I would ask us to look back at the posts on this website, and see how many posts where actually hatefull threats, (from us to our opponents,,,,,, )
64.
Ronnie | March 17, 2010 at 9:11 am
Nope….. no threats from me……”STFU” is not a threat…..predicting that this country will fall into Civil War Part II is not a threat….I have not said anything as of late that is on the same level as that little homicidal freak….Voicing ones anger is not the same as what the Hateros do….they don’t voice anger….they voice hate….there’s a difference…..<3…Ronnie
65.
Bob | March 17, 2010 at 9:33 am
I did at one point mention my anger turning to homicidal rage, but did not direct it at an individual. But I do know that the rage festers in me.
66.
Ronnie | March 17, 2010 at 9:36 am
Secondly…..anything that was said to them on this site was provoked…..we didn’t provoke them to call us names, say, that we have a disorder, and make threats….they did that all on their own and they said it first….yeah sure there’s that whole 2 wrongs don’t make a right saying….But why are we suppose to just let them say does things?…..Why are we suppose to let them threaten us?….Like I said this peaceful thing is wearing thin…..Let what is happening in Uganda happen hear(and mark my words..it will)….you won’t be saying don’t return the gesture anymore….this is not 1940…and this is not Germany…I AM NOT AFRAID OF THEM…..I am not some Hateros b!tch or slave that they can tell what to do, who to marry, where to live and how to live…….They will not be taking MY tax money and using it against me…….If they come after me and mine….they better be prepared to fight to the death…I’m just saying…….<3…Ronnie
67.
John | March 17, 2010 at 9:36 am
Not on here, but elsewhere, I’ve been told by people who don’t think we deserve the right to marry that I’m angry and hateful.
I’ve responded, “No, I’m full of righteous fury at your hatred.”
68.
John | March 17, 2010 at 9:41 am
It blows my mind when we’re accused ot being hateful and intolerant just because we sometimes respond angrily at our basic civil rights being denied.
In a lot of ways, we’re the “uppity n_____s” of today, not willing to be trod underfoot, as is expected of us.
69.
Bob | March 17, 2010 at 9:43 am
If it comes to that Ronnie, my rage, will join yours, don’t worry!!!!
70.
Ed-M | March 17, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Ronnie, I’m with you too… if they do succeed in making this country like Uganda or Iran they’ll probably bring back crucifixion… and I have researched the ancient writers from back then… crosses were instruments of state sanctioned rape as well as torture and execution… due to the design of the support for the crucified body at crotch level…
71.
Ed-M | March 17, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Of course, if the victim sits astride the top of the back of the support instead of the tip… the victim is tortured in the perineum and that and the genitals go numb….
72.
Alan E. | March 17, 2010 at 8:07 am
Read this article on Huff post
The Straight View: What We Lose in Prohibiting Gay Marriage
73.
Ronnie | March 17, 2010 at 8:21 am
“In order to deny basic civil rights, one has to deny the humanness of the “other.” We see this all the time in countries where basic human rights are not valued and where civil war destroys communities,” – - – from the Article that Alan E. linked too……
(me) Ding!!!…..Ding!!!!……Ding!!!!!………that’s what I have been saying and prophesying all along…..the Hatero’s just don’t get……Why do the history teachers POUND into our heads that we study history so that we are not doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past?…… That tells me that the Hateros did not listen to anything and learn anything when they were in school…..I’m just saying…..U.S. Civil War Part II…….<3….Ronnie
74.
Billy | March 17, 2010 at 2:05 pm
I got all riled up in this article when someone wrote this comment:
“Well; my point is that the gay couple themselves simplu cannot have children together. Most often the children the raise togehter are children of a previous (straight) marriage. In that incident the child has visitationa nd a relationship with his or her Mother or Father. This right of the child to know and be known by his/her parents is a fundemental right of children and should not be dismissed lightly.
In the case of adoption the couple is intentionally depriving a child of either a Mother or a Father; I consider this very irresponisble, this is also the case with artificial insemenation, with that situation being even more egregious because the parents are actually depriving that child of a relationship with their natural parent by design. That seems even worse in my judgment.”
And here is my response:
“So, by your logic, a child is better off as a ward of the state without any parents at all, instead of being with two adoptive parents (who happen to be both male or both female) who make a conscious choice to raise a child in a loving environment? Your argument makes no sense to anyone with reason, whatsoever.
First off, you don’t need to be married to have children. Secondly, if you ARE married, it is not a guarantee that you will have children. What about elderly couples, infertal couples, etc? Do they not deserve marriage rights either? Of course not. Third, where did these fatherless/motherless children come from? Heterosexuals that either didn’t want them, abused them, or couldn’t care for them. You think about that before you spout off claiming to argue in the best interests of the child.
You only use this silly argument because deep down, something disgusts you about homosexual sex. Well guess what? No one is forcing you to marry another man. You have the FREEDOM to marry whomever you want; something that your fellow tax-paying glbt citizens are lacking because of your own prejudices and bigotry, and law-makers like you. See past your own animus and get your nose out of my goddamn gay life!”
RAWR BILLY SMASH!
75.
Monty | March 17, 2010 at 2:14 pm
What really bothers me about the “kids need both parents” argument is that it directly insults all gay and/or single parents in the world, by saying that they are somehow unable to raise their children properly. There are plenty of role models of both sexes in the average kid’s life; all they really need from their parents is love.
The issue of biological parents is even worse, as if your genetic similarity somehow makes you a better parent.
76.
Ronnie | March 17, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Not to mention children whose parent’s have died and are be raised by lets say their single aunt and grandmother under on the same roof…..they are insulting their parenting skills to raise these children…..These ASSumptions and insults show how really stupid the Hateros are…..<3….Ronnie
77.
Sheryl | March 17, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Where to begin with this one. How about starting with the visitation. Obviously blinders are on as there are many parents who couldn’t care less about those visitation rights. My stepdaughter is a case in point. Her mother used to call and tell her she would be coming to see her and never show up.
As for adoption, it’s already been said. Wonder if they are going to track down all of those parents, who for whatever reason, have given their child up for adoption (or had them taken away by the state) and insist that the children go back with the parent. We don’t care if they aren’t wanted or are abused the best environment is with the natural parent. Yah, right. tell that to the abused child.
As for artificial insemination, last I was aware, guys who donated to sperm banks weren’t interested in assuming the responsibility for the child that their sperm might create.
These people will never listen, their minds are made up, homosexuality is evil and all of you who “made that choice” just need to give it up and return to the straight life and all will be well.
Sheryl B
As for
78.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | March 17, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Also, Sheryl B, they are forgetting all about those of us who were adopted because one or both biological parents died while they were very young. What, they would rather these children grow up in orpahnages and be abused, or would they rather these children go to a family that would show them true love and encourage them to reach for the sky and work to be the best person they can be? Of course, like you said, their minds are made up and they don’t want to be confused by hearing the truth.
79.
Ronnie | March 17, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Hehehe…Sheryl B…..from Legally Blonde…..<3…Ronnie
Elle: Although Mr. Huntington makes an excellent point. I have to wonder if the defendant kept a thorough record of every sperm emission made throughout his life.
Professor Callahan: Interesting. Why do you ask?
Elle: Unless the defendant attempted to contact every single one-night stand to determine if a child resulted in those unions, he has no parental claim over this child whatsoever. Why now? Why this sperm?
Professor Callahan: I see your point.
Elle: And for that matter, any masturbatory emissions, where the sperm is clearly not seeking an egg, could be termed reckless abandonment.
Professor Callahan: You've just won your case.
80.
roxanne | March 18, 2010 at 10:09 am
There are plenty of us transpeople who have biological children who live in stable families with both parents. My wife and I have five children together. My daughter delights in explaining to her friends that she has two moms and is biologically related to both of them.
Not every woman or man divorces their spouse because of a gender transition. In fact, some of us become closer and create stronger marriages because we can be ourselves after the brick wall of lies has all been tore down. It’s a loophole in the shield against same sex marriage.
81.
John | March 17, 2010 at 8:30 am
That’s exactly the argument a lot of them use. We’re denied nothing because we want is disgusting and wrong and certainly not human. We homosexuals surrender ourselves to our bases instincts of lust and care about nothing else, as far as they’re concerned (and they refuse to listen to any challenge to that assertion).
I’ve been told more than once that I’m a slave to my genitals and that it’s pathetic and lowers me to the level of the animals (of course, these are people who think humans are not animals . . . are we vegetable or mineral, then?).
82.
Ronnie | March 17, 2010 at 8:35 am
I’m made of Glitter, Diamonds, and Swarovski Crystals…..so I guess I’m mineral……ehehehehe…..<3….Ronnie
83.
John | March 17, 2010 at 8:42 am
I’m made of metal (Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Motörhead, etc.), so I guess I’m mineral, too.
^_^
84.
John | March 17, 2010 at 9:03 am
Oops, that should’ve been, “I’m made of metal, my circuits gleam. I am perptual; I keep the country clean.”
85.
Bob | March 17, 2010 at 9:36 am
John, correction noted, and applauded, !!!!
86.
Ronnie | March 17, 2010 at 9:41 am
So on a good note….Happy St. Patrick’s Day….I’m part Irish and this is one of my favorite holidays….My cousins and I are going out 2night and having a real Irish celebration….WOOO HOOOO!!!!…..but here’s a celebration to pick up the day…..<3…Ronnie:
87.
JimiG | March 17, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Lt Dan Choi will be speaking at UC Merced, Merced CA.
April 9, Start time 5:00 pm
Location: Joseph Edward Gallo Recreation Center
Address: 5200 N. lake Rd Merced Ca 95343
This event is being sponsored by ASUCM
The event is open to the public but seating is limited to 900
If you live in the Central valley or know someone who lives in the area please pas this on.
88.
Ronnie | March 17, 2010 at 12:45 pm
191 down…..27 more to go……
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/17/Another_GOP_Congressman_Joins_DADT_Repeal/
Posted on Advocate.com March 17, 2010
Another GOP Rep Joins DADT Repeal
By Neal Broverman
“Louisiana representative Joe Cao is the latest Republican to sign on to the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which, if passed, will do away with the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.”
(me) shoop shoop shoop….ya going down Hateros……
“Cao, a 43-year-old politician who represents parts of New Orleans, signed on as a cosponsor to H.R. 1283 this week. The bill currently has 191 sponsors — the only Republican other than Cao being Florida congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen — and would need 218 votes to pass.”
(me)hmmmmmmm……
“I am proud to stand with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in support of a repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’” Cao said in a press release. “Our military commanders at the Pentagon believe it is time to proceed with dismantling this flawed policy, and I am happy [to] put my name on this legislation as well as to continue to work alongside Log Cabin Republicans as we speak to our Republican colleagues about the merits of repealing the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in our armed forces.”
(me) You hear that Hateros…..The time is now….if you keep using tax payer money to discriminate…..you will not get anymore of our hard earned money….and that’s a promise…..I’m just saying…..<3….Ronnie
89.
Monty | March 17, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Thought you guys might like this link I got in an email today: Bracket of Evil
90.
Kathleen | March 17, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Monty, I got that same email and was completely incapable of choosing the worst of two of the two in most cases.
I mean, how do I choose between Russ Limbaugh and Glenn Beck?
91.
Monty | March 17, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Yeah, there were some tough choices in there. I ended up just going with my gut on a few.
On an unrelated note, did this site not switch to DST, or am I just crazy? All the times are off.
92.
Kathleen | March 17, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Hadn’t noticed before, but the times are an hour off.
93.
Ronnie | March 17, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Day lights saving…..yeah?……<3….Ronnie
94.
Ronnie | March 17, 2010 at 1:52 pm
So this is for the Hateros……here’s your study for those who want to nkow what the soldiers want and since you LOOOOVVEEE….polls(pun intended)….
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/17/Most_Vets_Comfortable_Around_Gays/
Posted on Advocate.com March 17, 2010
Most Vets Comfortable Around Gays
By Michelle Garcia
From Vet Voice Foundation – link at the end of the article…
73% of Vets from Iraq and Afghan wars said they felt comfortable around G & L colleagues……including 37% very comfortable……
%age jumps to 80% only younger Vets are counted….but among older Vets only 7% very uncomfortable….
In all 60% agreed that S.O. has little bearing on a service members ability to perform their duties….67% felt the same about gender…..82% felt the same about race……
There’s your study….Repeal DADT…..NOWWWW!!!!!!!…..<3…Ronnie
95.
Monty | March 17, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Yep. The hateros love to toss around assertions, but once you actually look at the numbers, things change.
96.
Ronnie | March 17, 2010 at 2:24 pm
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/17/NJ_Marriage_Goes_Back_to_Court/
Posted on Advocate.com March 17, 2010
N.J. Marriage Goes Back to Court
By Michelle Garcia
We may not have Boies and Olsen…but we’re doing it anyway……taking Cali’s lead….
“Two months after the New Jersey senate failed to pass a bill to legalize marriage equality, gay rights advocates are heading back to the state supreme court.”
(me) Remember it passed then was rejected…..
“The case will draw from the 2006 ruling by the N.J. supreme court that ordered the state to issue marriages or civil unions to same-sex couples. The state settled on civil unions, but advocates have argued that their unions are separate and not equal.”
(me) And boy are the NJ Hateros P.O.ed……<3….Ronnie
97.
Kathleen | March 17, 2010 at 2:33 pm
I”m thrilled to see this development.
98.
Bob | March 17, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Yes, now this is the fight that N.J. is taking all the way, and this is what will put the U.S. back at the front of all of us who settled for civil unions. You can do it.
99.
dieter | March 17, 2010 at 4:22 pm
New york has decided to do the same!!!
they want to keep denying rights?..we will fill every courtroom in every state until they are all broke. end of story.
100.
Sagesse | March 17, 2010 at 4:11 pm
A point that gets lost. Compare the support for marriage at the national level with the much stronger support for repealing DADT. The support for marriage is split because there are two choices: marriage or civil union. If there was only one choice, some of the civil union support would go away, but the approval rate for marriage would be much higher. Wonder if they did that on purpose?
101.
Sagesse | March 17, 2010 at 4:15 pm
I read this after I posted, honest :).
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4972643-503544.html
102.
Kathleen | March 17, 2010 at 5:05 pm
From the video Straight Ally posted near the top of the comments in this thread:
http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/03/15/nom-returns/
I remember the politicos hired by the Yes on 8 people saying they recognized that part of what made their campaign stronger was the argument that “but they have all the rights through domestic partnerships.” I seem to remember that they discovered the majority of the electorate would not have been willing to strip away all rights.
103.
Mark | March 17, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Aging issues can be tougher on gays
By Tom Watkins, CNN
(CNN) — Last Christmas, Missouri State Highway Patrol Cpl. Dennis Engelhard was putting flares near a minor accident on a snowy road in Eureka when he was hit by a car and killed.
“I’d had a premonition about it,” said Kelly Glossip, 43, Engelhard’s domestic partner of 15 years.
The openly gay couple had discussed what might happen if Engelhard were to die in Missouri, a state that does not recognize same-sex partnerships, he said.
“He had faith in the system and told me not to worry about it,” Glossip said from his home in suburban St. Louis.
But now Glossip, who works only part time in a billing office because of back problems and who supports his 17-year-old son, is worried and angry.
The state would have given a pension to the wife of any officer killed on the job but has no such provision for domestic partners, Glossip said.
“I’m basically on my own,” he said.
Denny Meyer, 63, knows all about being on his own. He joined the U.S. Navy in 1968 to pay his country back for welcoming his parents, both Holocaust survivors, after World War II.
He stayed 10 years and loved it but remained in the closet until after he was discharged.
After a career in New York, where he was open about his sexuality, “I started to get old,” he said. “I’m an old 63 because of bad luck with cancer and this and that.”
Living alone on a limited income, with no close relatives, he was accepted to live in a senior citizens’ home in the borough of Queens but turned it down.
“I’m used to being out, so the idea of going into senior housing in a straight environment is horrifying,” he said. “I knew that I would have to go completely back in the closet.”
Though aging is tough for everyone, it tends to be tougher for people who are gay, according to a report presented Wednesday at the annual conference of the National Council on Aging and the American Society on Aging in Chicago, Illinois.
According to the report, Improving the Lives of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Older Adults, issues that disproportionately affect LGBT older adults include stigma, isolation and unequal treatment. Together, they translate into their being poorer and sicker and having fewer opportunities for social and community engagement than do their heterosexual peers, according to the report.
Many older LGBTs’ financial woes can be traced to the fact that discrimination was legal during their working lives, which often meant thinner paychecks, limited access to health care, fewer chances to build pensions and smaller Social Security payments, the report said.
For example, lesbian couples’ Social Security benefits are typically 31.5 percent smaller and gay couples’ benefits are 17.8 percent smaller than are those of heterosexual couples, the report said, citing a 2009 study.
Family members provide about 80 percent of long-term care in the United States, but that’s not the case with LGBT elders, since they are more likely to be single, childless and estranged from their biological families, said the report.
Instead, many of them wind up relying on friends and the community, so-called families of choice, it said.
And that’s just the beginning, according to the report, which cited “official policies, laws and institutional regulations” that offer same-sex partners few of the resources afforded to spouses and biological family members.
That’s largely because those laws, programs and services either don’t acknowledge or don’t protect the partners of LGBTs or because they don’t address the stigma and discrimination that result in worse treatment of LGBT elders, it said.
The report cited a 2001 study by the U.S. Administration on Aging that found LGBT elderly are only a fifth as likely as heterosexuals to use such services as senior centers, housing assistance, meal programs, food stamps and other entitlements.
“There’s a whole labyrinth of challenges and pitfalls for same-sex couples and LGBTs in general,” said Michael Adams, the executive director of Services & Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Elders, who helped write the report.
The report cited these other inequalities:
• Despite paying into Social Security, LGBT elders don’t get the same benefits that their heterosexual peers get, with the biggest difference being that same-sex couples are denied spousal and survivor benefits routinely provided to married heterosexual couples.
• Similar disparities occur in Medicaid and long-term care programs. Medicaid does not require a healthy partner to impoverish himself or herself to qualify a spouse for long-term care. But spousal impoverishment protections do not exist for same-sex couples and families of choice.
• LGBT elders’ IRAs and other retirement plans have benefits that are unequal to those enjoyed by heterosexual couples.
• Employer policies regarding pensions do not provide surviving partners of same-sex couples with the same financial protections that are accorded heterosexual couples, the report said.
• Under federal tax law, employers can provide health insurance to the heterosexual spouse of a current or retired employee tax-free, but insurance benefits for partners in same-sex couples are taxable.
• A surviving heterosexual spouse can inherit the couple’s assets without incurring a tax penalty, but federal and state law requires same-sex partners to pay inheritance taxes in some cases.
• Heterosexual spouses of military veterans get federal benefits, including pensions for spouses of service members killed in combat, medical care and home-loan guarantees, none of which is available to same-sex partners of veterans.
• It is typically more complex and expensive for same-sex couples to navigate inheritance laws than it is for heterosexual couples.
The disparities also extend to health care, with LGBT elders more likely to delay getting needed care and more likely to have HIV/AIDS and chronic mental and physical conditions, the report said.
Even personnel at places that deliver health care may discriminate, it said.
“These providers may be hostile, discriminatory, or simply unaware that LGBT elders exist,” it said.
Nursing homes sometimes have staff who create unwelcome environments for LGBT elders and rules — such as visitation policies and medical decision-making laws — that exclude families of choice, it said.
Social isolation can loom large as a quality-of-life issue among LGBT elders, who are more likely than others to live alone, the report said.
Such isolation has been linked to higher rates of depression, poverty, re-hospitalization, delayed care-seeking, poor nutrition and premature death, the report said.
Not only do LGBT elders lack support from many mainstream aging programs, including senior centers and places of worship, but elder LGBTs tend to lack support from and feel unwelcome in the broader LGBT community, it said.
Finally, LGBT elders may face discrimination in connecting to their communities by being denied housing in mainstream retirement communities.
“This discrimination may separate LGBT elders from loved friends or partners, or push them into homelessness,” it said, adding, “LGBT elders may also feel the need to re-enter or stay in the closet in order to obtain or maintain housing.”
Adams expressed optimism that changes will occur, but slowly. “It’s taken decades and decades to build up this neglect, and we’re not going to solve it overnight,” he said.
He said he was asking that the government apply “a neutral policy” to LGBT older people, according them the same protections and services accorded to heterosexuals. He cited the Social Security and Medicaid programs as discriminatory.
Kathy Greenlee, the openly lesbian assistant secretary for aging at the Department of Health and Human Services, acknowledged that issues of aging can be difficult for gays and lesbians.
“There are certainly some financial hardships based on our status,” she said. But, she added, “That financial hardship is not especially based on a same-sex relationship but on an unmarried relationship.”
In other words, “you could have a male-female couple who lived together for 40 years with similar issues.”
While public debate about marriage is strong, “what is clear — and not debatable — is that marriage is an economic institution” as well as a religious one, she said.
“The lack of marriage then creates different issues — whether the couple that’s not married is heterosexual or same-sex, there are not protections of a financial nature that are equivalent to marriage.”
Asked about the laundry list of issues cited by the report, Greenlee said, “I’m willing to be an ally as I can be, but some of those decisions are clearly within the jurisdiction of other people within the federal government.”
She credited her agency with working to ensure that its services “are culturally competent, regardless of whom we are dealing with.”
The report was released in collaboration with the Movement Advancement Project and such mainstream groups as the National Senior Citizens Law Center and the Center for American Progress. The foreword to the 90-page report came from AARP.
The issue is growing. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of Americans over age 65 is expected to double over the next 30 years, from 40 million to 80 million.
But a senior fellow for policy studies at the conservative Family Research Council was unmoved.
“Some of these problems that they face are the result of their own choices,” Peter Sprigg said. “In other words, the fact that they choose not to marry based on how society defines the institution of marriage leaves them without the support that married people have.”
104.
Ronnie | March 17, 2010 at 2:46 pm
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/17/Gay_Marriage_Support_Increasing_Among_Students/
Posted on Advocate.com March 17, 2010
Gay Marriage Support Increasing Among Students
By Ryan Holman
“A new report shows that support for same-sex marriage among college freshmen has increased by 13% in the last decade.”
69% of college Freshmen support gay marriage up from 56% in 2000
“Since the survey began asking in 1997, research indicates that support for same-sex marriage has jumped 21% among left-leaning students, 16% among moderate students and 2% among right-leaning students.”
(me) WOW!!!!
“”Young people who know gay people, talk with them, and examine why marriage matters in the lives of real people move in support,” – Executive director Evan Wolfson
(me) So much for hiding your teens and 20′s somethings from Equality….all they need to do is talk about…..Give up Hateros…..these number s match the same numbers when segregation and civil rights was the issue and women’s rights and interracial marriage….PWND….
“He says that he finds support of same-sex marriage among students to be weak as he travels to campus’ to promote his organizations conservative views, describing the support as “not well formed or articulated in their minds.” – Glenn Stanton from Focus on the family……
(me) dude …..you just called the people who you want to vote for you stupid unarticulated, and uneducated…..GOOD JOB!!!!!….<3….Ronnie
105.
Billy | March 17, 2010 at 5:02 pm
This is a very interesting article. I think everyone should take a few minutes to read it, as I think it brings up a very good point. Maybe this is why some people vehemently hate us? Sure, they won’t admit it, but I think this is as good a reason as any:
http://cchronicle.com/2010/03/threatened-sense-of-moral-superiority-drives-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/
106.
draNgNon | March 18, 2010 at 12:30 am
just wanted to point out that the CNN article Mark posted above was at
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/wayoflife/03/17/gays.aging.problems/index.html?hpt=T2
and linked off the front page, at least when I went there just now.
107.
dieter | March 18, 2010 at 6:14 am
watching the live armed services comittee meeting regarding repeal of DADT. in opening John McCain is stating he is “proud to be here to listen to testimony about this CAMPAIGN promise issue.”
wow..effectively saying ..screw the gays , this is just an obama election ploy.
then he is going on to say that he strongly urges all members to NOT vote on a temporary moratorium to stop gays from being terminated until AFTER the november elections, because allowing gays to serve in the military openly, places our entire nation in a GREAT security risk!!
WTF is this guy smoking?.
108.
dieter | March 18, 2010 at 6:21 am
first witness saying that military is different from the civilian world and they do not want icky gays serving with them because it’s just not right.
I wonder if this guy knows there are already over 60,000 gay members already serving with him?
more quotes below
“since gay men are attracted to the same sex, it appears that joining the military is akin to joining to be part of a huge gay dating club.”
“all it takes is one gay guy to come out to his troops to destroy all of their families”
“is this a possible way to try and recruit straight men into trying out their deviant lifestyle?”
109.
dieter | March 18, 2010 at 6:40 am
now he is saying that all other countries with openly gay members are not really a good example because none of them are at war.
saying that any country with gays is ill prepared for war.
umm…we have 2 wars going on and we are handling it.
110.
Bob | March 18, 2010 at 11:03 am
Excuse me, as Canadians we definetly feel that we are at war, and so would any other country, that is fighting alongside the U.S., that notorious war monger.
Although we prefer to aim for peace , we are constantly drawn into the battlefield in order to assist our neighbour, who can’t seem to keep themselves out of trouble.
Our citizens are being killed alongside yours, we definetly are in a war we don’t want to be fighting, and the U.S. could not maintain it’s position without the assistance of all the countries that have open policies in their military.
The U.S. is now putting the countries that aid them in harms way by continuing this debate.
111.
John | March 18, 2010 at 6:35 am
Yes, being gay is so incredibly alluring that every married man in the guy’s platoon (or whatever) will immediately divorce his wife and then they’ll all try to woo the gay one.
Bitch, please!
Same reasoning for keeping kids from learning about homosexuality: the bizarre fear that straight children will be so entranced by the thought of same-sex coupling that they will instantly change in orientation.
You know, it pretty much says to the world, “Gay sex is *incredible*, so we need to shield people from it, lest they find out.”
112.
dieter | March 18, 2010 at 6:44 am
now he is saying that allowing gays would be as bad as when we allowed blacks which almost destroyed the military..WTF?
113.
dieter | March 18, 2010 at 6:47 am
now saying allowing “homosexual” is horrible because one time in Vietnam..a gay guy was having an argument with a member of his platoon and shortly after they were attacked..LOL
this one time…in Vietnam…LOL
114.
John | March 18, 2010 at 6:49 am
OMG! I knew this straight guy who had a gay friend . . . AND THEY BOTH DIED!!!!!!!!!
115.
Ronnie | March 18, 2010 at 6:52 am
once he said that about blacks, the entire argument was thrown out of the window…..JMHGO….<3….Ronnie
116.
dieter | March 18, 2010 at 6:49 am
here is link to watch live
http://armed-services.senate.gov/Webcasts.htm
117.
dieter | March 18, 2010 at 6:50 am
now claiming almost SEVEN percent of military has been homosexually assaulted..lol…7% have been gay raped?…not very good military people then…LOl
118.
Ronnie | March 18, 2010 at 6:56 am
He must of got that 7% number from the Vet Voice Foundation…..that states only 7% of older Vets are uncomfortable with us…..twisting words and statistics into lies is a distinct noticeable quality of a Hatero…..<3…Ronnie
119.
dieter | March 18, 2010 at 6:58 am
almost lost it when the lady who testified for our side stated that when they called her in to dismiss her for being gay, they took her service pin from her.
Her commander who supported her, walked over to her, removed his own service pin, and placed it on her jacket!!
on her way out, another commander called her into his office she was scared…and then he shut the door behind them, and pulled out his wallet, and showed her a picture..he said this is my son..he is gay…and I am sooo proud of him…and I have never been able to tell anyone in the military how proud I am of my own son.
he thanked for allowing him to finally be able to talk to SOMEONE about his son.
120.
dieter | March 18, 2010 at 7:09 am
and here we go….”allowing gays to be open would strip the rights away from those with traditional RELIGIOUS values.”
the fricken church card again…I tell you I am real close to seeing a few churches burning down…real close.
121.
Ronnie | March 18, 2010 at 7:15 am
So much for freedom of religion, separation btw. church and state…..and ignoring “what about the rights of gays”…..<3….Ronnie
122.
Jordan | March 18, 2010 at 7:23 am
John McCain is running against a republican that is more far right than he is. He is saying these things because if he does not he knows he wont be ellected republican in his primary in Arizona. Both his wife and daughter are for Gay Rights. I’m not condoning his remarks at all but is he better for us than the alternative choice in November? He has a chance to be on the right side of history looks like his election is more important…. Go figure sometimes politics suck. Hes a total sellout and will be remembered as an ANTI Gay Hatero.
123.
dieter | March 18, 2010 at 7:49 am
wooohooo gotta love it. The hater military guy says gays need to prove that serving openly would improve the service.
a committe member asked him if he knows of anyone who has PROVEN that the DADT law has improved the service..
he got a blank look on his face..sat there for a minute and finally said…NO
124.
Ronnie | March 18, 2010 at 7:57 am
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/18/Clinical_Trials_Exclude_Gays_and_Lesbians/
Posted on Advocate.com March 18, 2010
Clinical Trials Exclude Gays and Lesbians
By Julie Bolcer
“Clinical trials financed by the federal government and pharmaceutical labs exclude gay and lesbian participants, says a study published Thursday in The New England Journal of Medicine.”
(me) sooooo…they are using federal money acquired though the taxation of the American people…..including LGBTQQIA American people……but are excluding G&B people….This violates anti-discrimination laws on the federal level…..Tell me government…..why do you continue to steal my money to use it against me…What are you?…..King George III of the Kingdom of Great Britain?……..
“According to Agence France-Presse, the study by the Fox Chase Cancer Center examined 80,000 clinical trials sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, other government agencies, and private industry. Lead study author Brian Egleston reported that 15% of trials used criteria that explicitly excluded gay and lesbian participants. Trials involving sexual function, such as for erectile dysfunction, were particularly exclusionary.”
(me) so all Gay guys don’t have erectile dysfunction?….Hey props for us yeah?…….<3….Ronnie
125.
dieter | March 18, 2010 at 8:09 am
in 10 minutes Live CNN news conference regarding healthcare…
maybe some good news.
as someone recently diagnosed with cancer, and dropped from my insurance the next day. this is an urgent matter to me.
126.
dieter | March 18, 2010 at 8:11 am
As a side note…they dropped me from my insurance after finding out that I had cancer, saying it was a pre-existing condition, because 27 years ago I went to a hospital with a sprained ankle. That has been my only time in my life in a hospital. a sprained ankle. 27 years ago…and somehow that must have caused my recent cancer.
I am now approimately 4 weeks away from losing my house.
127.
draNgNon | March 18, 2010 at 8:19 am
that sucks. health care in the US just sucks.
let them know. tell your rep. tell Obama. you may get yanked into a media circus as an “example”, but it’s gotta be better than losing your house
128.
David Kimble | March 18, 2010 at 8:47 am
dieter: I am so sorry to hear of your cancer! I have been battling cancer, too! Guess we are in good company. My thoughts are with you.
On a side note – my desktop computer is in the shop getting fixed, so I am doing this on my laptop, <3 David
129.
Kathleen | March 18, 2010 at 11:24 am
Oh dieter! I’m so sorry to hear you’re dealing with all this. I agree with the suggestion to contact your elected reps. You’d be surprised how quickly insurance companies and mortgage lenders become cooperative when they get word that politicians are looking into your case. I doubt I ever would have gotten my social security disability if I hadn’t gotten my US congressional reps involved.
130.
fiona64 | March 18, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Oh, Dieter. I wish there was something I could do to help.
:-(
Love,
Fiona
131.
David Kimble | March 19, 2010 at 7:24 am
@dieter – I dunno if your State has an Insurance Commissioner, but many do – try contacting your State Insurance Commissioner and have them look-into this matter – Insurance Companies don’t like to be subjected to scrutiny. It’s a thought…hope you are better today! <3 David
132.
draNgNon | March 18, 2010 at 8:20 am
hmmm, AFER hasn’t yet posted a transcript of yesterday’s hearing?
133.
Kathleen | March 18, 2010 at 8:50 am
The minutes haven’t been filed yet, but even when they are, I’m not sure AFER will post them. They never posted a transcript of the earlier discovery hearing in Spero’s court. Unfortunately, the minutes aren’t available online through the PACER system until about 3 months after they’re filed.
134.
Kathleen | March 22, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Walker’s just issued his ruling on challenges to Spero’s discovery order. He has denied the both sides’ appeals of the order. From today’s filing:
“the objections of the ACLU and Equality California … and of proponents … are DENIED.
The magistrate’s order contemplates that production will take place on a rolling basis to conclude not later than March 31, 2010. Doc #610 at 14. The court adopts the schedule set by the magistrate. If proponents wish to supplement their trial record with documents obtained through this production, they must make the appropriate motion or submission not later than Monday, April 12, 2010.”
The Yes on 8 orgs have previously stated their intent to appeal this to the 9th Circuit, so this may not be the last word on this issue.