Los Angeles Film Festival Director Resigns Over Prop. 8

Film Independent announced Tuesday that it had accepted Richard Raddon's resignation as director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, a title he has held since 2000. On November 14, blogger David Poland reported on his Hot Blog, hosted by Movie City News, that Raddon had personally donated $1,500 to the Yes on 8 campaign, which sparked some controversy.

According to Poland, Raddon actually submitted his resignation that day, but Film Independent's board chose not to accept it. Instead, board members met as a group to decide what to do next.
Raddon issued the following statement today:

“I feel honored to have worked with such a wonderful group of people at the Los Angeles Film Festival over the last nine years. I am proud of our accomplishments. And I am proud to have worked at Film Independent, an organization whose principles and values of diversity and artistic integrity I cherish. I have always held the belief that all people, no matter race, religion, or sexual orientation, are entitled to equal rights. As many know, I consider myself a devout and faithful Mormon. I prefer to keep the details around my contribution through my church a private matter. But I am profoundly sorry for the negative attention that my actions have drawn to Film Independent and for the hurt and pain that is being experienced in the GLBT community.”

The board of Film Independent countered with a statement of its own.

“With great reluctance, Film Independent has accepted Richard Raddon's resignation as Director of the Los Angeles Film Festival. Rich’s service to the independent film community and to Film Independent has been nothing less than extraordinary. He has always shown complete commitment to our core principles of equality and diversity during his long tenure. It was through his leadership that the Los Angeles Film Festival has grown into a formidable and exciting showcase for talented artists and diverse voices. We are sorry to see him go.”

The Los Angeles Film Festival is one of the many divisions of Film Independent, a nonprofit film organization that also hosts the Independent Spirit Awards

Raddon has always been open about being a devoted member of the Mormon Church and is the producer of a number of independent films, including the Lili Taylor-Guy Pearce movie A Slipping-Down Life.

Ann Coulter's Jaw Wired Shut?

Ann Coulter may be completely silenced, at least for a while.

If the New York Post's Page Six report is true, Coulter broke her jaw and her mouth is wired shut: WE HEAR...THAT although we didn't think it would be possible to silence Ann Coulter, the leggy reactionary broke her jaw and the mouth that roared has been wired shut.

Bush Pardons 14, Commutes 2 Prison Sentences

President George W. Bush has granted pardons to 14 individuals and commuted the prison sentences of two others convicted of misdeeds including drug offenses, tax evasion, wildlife violations and bank embezzlement.

The new round of White House pardons announced Monday are Bush's first since March and come less than two months before he will end his presidency. The crimes committed by those on the list also include offenses involving hazardous waste, food stamps, and the theft of government property.

Bush has been stingy during his time in office about granting clemency, but more grants are expected.

Including these actions, he has granted a total of 171 pardons and eight commutations. That's less than half as many as Presidents Clinton or Reagan issued during their time in office. Both were two-term presidents, like Bush.

On the latest pardon list were:
-Leslie Owen Collier of Charleston, Mo., who pleaded guilty in 1995 to unlawfully killing three bald eagles in southeast Missouri. He improperly used pesticide in hamburger meat to kill coyotes, but ended up killing many other animals, including the bald eagles. Collier, who was convicted for unauthorized use of a pesticide and violating the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, was sentenced Feb. 2, 1996 in the Eastern District of Missouri.

-Milton Kirk Cordes of Rapid City, S.D. Cordes was convicted of conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act, which prohibits importation into the country of wildlife taken in violation of conservation laws.

-Richard Micheal Culpepper of Mahomet, Ill., who was convicted of making false statements to the federal government.

-Brenda Jean Dolenz-Helmer of Fort Worth, Texas, convicted of concealing knowledge of a crime. Dolenz-Helmer, the daughter of a Dallas doctor accused of medical insurance fraud, was convicted in connection with the doctor's case. She was sentenced Dec. 31, 1998 in the Northern District of Texas to four year's probation with the special condition of 600 hours of community service and a $10,000 fine.

-Andrew Foster Harley of Falls Church, Va. Harley was convicted of wrongful use and distribution of marijuana and cocaine during a general court martial at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo.

-Obie Gene Helton of Rossville, Ga., whose offense was unauthorized acquisition of food stamps.

-Carey C. Hice Sr. of Travelers Rest, S.C., who was convicted of income tax evasion.

-Geneva Yvonne Hogg of Jacksonville, Fla., convicted of bank embezzlement.

-William Hoyle McCright Jr. of Midland, Texas, who was convicted of bank fraud.

-Paul Julian McCurdy of Sulphur, Okla., who was sentenced for misapplication of bank funds.

-Robert Earl Mohon Jr. of Grant, Ala., who was convicted of conspiracy to distribute marijuana.

-Ronald Alan Mohrhoff of Los Angeles, who was convicted for unlawful use of a telephone in a narcotics felony.

-Daniel Figh Pue III of Conroe, Texas, convicted of illegal treatment, storage and disposal of a hazardous waste without a permit.

-Orion Lynn Vick of White Hall, Ark., who was convicted of aiding and abetting the theft of government property.

Bush also commuted the prison sentences of John Edward Forte of North Brunswick, N.J., and James Russell Harris of Detroit, Mich. Both were convicted of cocaine offenses.

Under the Constitution, the president's power to issue pardons is absolute and cannot be overruled.

Some high-profile individuals, such as Michael Milken, are seeking a pardon on securities fraud charges. Two politicians convicted of public corruption - former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., and four-term Democratic Louisiana Gov. Edwin W. Edwards - are asking Bush to shorten their prison terms.

One hot topic of discussion related to pardons is whether Bush might decide to issue pre-emptive pardons before he leaves office to government employees who authorized or engaged in harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Some constitutional scholars and human rights groups want the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama to investigate possible war crimes.

If Bush were to pardon anyone involved, it would provide protection against criminal charges, particularly for people who were following orders or trying to protect the nation with their actions. But it would also be highly controversial.

At the same time, Obama advisers say there is little -if any - chance that his administration would bring criminal charges.

Happy Thanksgiving

California to investigate Mormon Prop 8 donations

California officials have begun an investigation into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to see if it broke the law during the campaign for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission said it wants to determine if the Church accurately described its role in the battle over Proposition 8.

The Commission’s executive director, Roman Porter, said the investigation follows a complaint by Californians Against Hate which accuses the Mormon Church of failing to report the value of work it did to support Proposition 8.

Porter said that while the complaint merits further inquiry, it does not mean any wrongdoing by the Church has been determined.

The Salt Lake City-based Mormon Church was heavily involved in the campaign to pass Prop. 8. It encouraged its members to work to pass California’s Proposition 8 by volunteering their time and money for the campaign. Thousands of Mormons from across the country worked as grassroots volunteers.

The Church put an estimated $25 million into the battle to end gay marriage in California.
If the Commission finds the Church broke state election laws, it could be fined up to $5,000 per violation. The Commission also could file an additional civil lawsuit. Porter said, seeking remedies up to three times the amount that was misrepresented or misreported.

Dianne Feinstein Does About-Face on Same-Sex Marriage

Though California senator Dianne Feinstein has long been a supporter of gay rights, she’s stopped short of supporting full marriage equality. But an interview for NBC Nightly News with Maureen Dowd suggests she may well have done an about-face.

In the interview, Feinstein discusses finding the body of Harvey Milk and her involvement in Focus Features’ forthcoming biopic. She also talks about her decision to speak out against Prop. 8 in California and her evolving views on same-sex marriage.

"I think as more and more people have gay friends, gay associations, see gay heroism, that their views change,” Feinstein said in the interview. “I think people are beginning to look at it differently, I know it’s happened for me.

“I started out not supporting it. The longer I’ve lived, the more I’ve seen the happiness of people, the stability that these commitments bring to a life. Many adopted children who would have ended up in foster care now have good solid homes and are brought up learning the difference between right and wrong. It’s a very positive thing."

Feinstein had previously said that while she would not endorse a statewide ban on same-sex marriage, she supported civil unions over “redefining” marriage.

San Diego Christian Church Apologizes for Prop. 8 Via Giant Billboard

"Mission Gathering Christian Church is sorry for the narrow-minded, judgmental, deceptive, manipulative actions of those who took away the rights and equality of so many in the name of God."

Prop 8: What went wrong

GLBT Americans awoke Nov. 5 to the news they had snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
While right-wing candidates and causes were largely voted down at ballot boxes the day before, state proposals to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage in California, Florida and Arizona nonetheless prevailed, as did a law prohibiting gays and lesbians from adopting or serving as foster parents in Arkansas.

Of those defeats, none stung worse than Proposition 8.

Approved by 52 percent of California voters, Proposition 8 overrode a May ruling by the state’s supreme court legalizing same-sex marriage. In addition to banning gay and lesbian couples in the state from future marriages, the ballot initiative left about18,000 existing same-sex California marriages in legal limbo.

What went wrong?

Proposition 8 seemed to have more going against it than for it. California voters are among the nation’s most liberal, and they turned out on Nov. 4 to support Democrat Barack Obama by a whopping margin of 61-37 percent.

Popular Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger campaigned against Proposition 8.

And while same-sex marriage supporters are often outspent in ballot fights, the No on 8 campaign amassed a war chest of $38 million. That was not only the most money ever raised to defeat such a measure, but it was as much as—or more than—the amount raised by gay opponents on the Christian right.

The story from the polls
In the wreckage following this defeat, GLBT activists and supporters groped for an explanation. The first place they turned their attention was to exit polls, which indicated that several demographic factors played a role.

The first of those factors—and the one that initially received all the attention—was race and ethnicity. While white and Asian voters narrowly opposed Proposition 8, African-American voters supported it by 70 percent and Latinos by 53 percent.

The polls found the greatest demographic divide on the issue was generational. Six in 10 voters under 30 opposed Proposition 8, while an equal number of voters 65 and over favored it. Voters 30 to 64, who made up most of the electorate, backed the measure by a small majority.

Another big difference could be seen along religious lines. Two-thirds of the seven in 10 voters who described themselves as Christian favored the initiative. Strong support also came from married voters and voters with children, while unmarried voters opposed it.

The picture that emerged from the polls showed that the vast majority of voters who were inclined to support Proposition 8 did just that. So what effect did the tens of millions of dollars poured into this race have on convincing people to change their hearts and their minds?‘Missed opportunity’

With this question hanging in the air, the finger-pointing began. Most of the criticism has focused on the organizers of the No on 8 campaign, which included representatives from more than 70 member organizations.

Critics say their campaign wrongly focused on intangible concepts such as discrimination and justice without offering a positive alternative argument for the morality of same-sex marriage.

“It seemed like there was a missed opportunity here for education in general,” says Cathy Renna. After more than a decade with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), Renna is now managing partner of Renna Communications, based in Washington, D.C.

Renna and other critics say what was fatally missing from the No on 8 campaign’s advertising was the presence of actual gay and lesbian families telling their stories. By holding back on the emotional punch and choosing instead to focus on cold principles, they say the campaign failed to move people on the opposing side.

“I think the whole marriage debate in general has not been framed in a way that takes our relationships and our families out of more than a superficial or abstract context,” Renna says.

“We’ve not dug deep enough and tried to touch people’s hearts. Marriage is, at the end of the day, something that protects the most vulnerable in our community. That is a story that would deeply touch people and would help people understand why we want to get married.”

“I’m all for being polite,” Renna added, “but ‘please treat us equally’ doesn’t always work. It’s a little naïve.”

Comments by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that appeared in Maureen Dowd’s New York Times column on Nov. 23 seemed to support Renna’s assertion. Feinstein, who formerly opposed same-sex marriage rights, said her mind was changed as she learned about the positive effects that marriage had on the lives of her constituents.

“The longer I’ve lived, the more I’ve seen the happiness of people, the stability that these commitments bring to a life,” Feinstein said. “Many adopted children who would have ended up in foster care now have good solid homes and are brought up learning the difference between right and wrong. It’s a very positive thing.”
Next page: Why we lost

Turning point

Many observers of the Proposition 8 battle feel that a major turning point in favor of the measure came when Yes on 8 aired TV commercials warning that same-sex marriage would lead to kindergarten children being forced to learn about homosexuality.

Although this is a scare tactic that has been employed frequently in other same-sex marriage ballot initiatives, it seemed to take No on 8 campaign by surprise. The campaign responded by condemning the ads as false, but critics characterize the tone of the response as tepid.

Worse, they say the commercials forced No on 8 into a defensive position that might have been avoided if the campaign had run a more forceful, pro-active effort from the beginning.

“The No on 8 campaign began by allowing the Yes on 8 proponents to define the debate and it was never able to recover,” wrote Terry Leftgoff on the Bilerico Project. Leftgoff was formerly the highest ranking openly gay officer of the California Democratic Party. “This violated the first rule of political campaigns, which is to never let your opponent define you first.”

In the same article, Leftgoff also took the No on 8 campaign to task for failing to develop specific messages targeting African Americans, Latinos and Republicans.

“An effective target strategy would have been to send Democratic voters mailers with a picture of Barack Obama and other prominent diverse leaders who oppose Prop 8 and, alternately, to send Republican voters mailers with pictures of Arnold Schwarzenegger and other prominent religious and conservative leaders who oppose Prop 8,” Leftgoff wrote. “This is textbook targeting.”

Paul Hogarth, writing for the California Progress Report, said No on 8 allowed the opposition to mislead black voters into thinking that Obama supported their measure.

“Gay marriage supporters were not happy that Barack Obama said he believes marriage is ‘between a man and a woman,’ but he rarely got credit for going further than any presidential candidate had gone before,” Hogarth wrote.

“He supports fully repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and—more importantly—he came out against California’s Proposition 8. Knowing that Obama was going to win the state comfortably, No on 8 should have stressed Obama’s opposition from Day One.”

“Polls showing Prop 8 either ahead or behind hinged almost completely on whether African-Americans strongly supported it—or barely supported it,” Hogarth continued. “Aggressive overtures needed to be made to that community, and there was no better messenger in this election for this group of voters than Barack Obama. Instead, No on 8 waited until the other side made their own hit piece that implied an Obama endorsement of Prop 8. By then, we were being reactive.”

Voter complacency

While not directly addressing these criticisms, No on 8 spokespeople have countered that their campaign was hurt mostly by complacency from their supporters stemming from polls that showed the measure losing by wide margins.

“It was difficult raising money because of those polls,” said Geoff Kors, head of Equality California and one of the campaign’s leading organizers, in an article that appeared in The Advocate.

In the same article, Lorrie Jean, another major organizer and head of the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center, also complained of apathy.

“If we could have found a way to energize our community faster, we could have competed with (Yes on 8),” she told The Advocate. “We experienced enormous complacency in our community until we finally put out the word that we were going down.”

Some California activists have acknowledged they might have given Proposition 8 short shrift in their zeal to elect Obama. Hogarth wrote that he should have spent more time campaigning against Proposition 8 after it became clear in early October that Obama was going to sweep his state.

Some bloggers also have noted that the wording of the ballot initiative was confusing and probably cost No on 8 some votes: If they voted “yes,” were voters supporting or opposing same-sex marriage?

Silver linings

Despite losing, GLBT advocates have managed to find a couple of silver-linings to the Proposition 8 debacle.

In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 22, which banned same-sex marriage, by a margin of 61 percent—far more than the 52 percent who voted for the constitutional amendment this year. And the defeat has ignited a new wave of activism that GLBT advocates see as a positive sign.

“This gave people a kick in the ass who were maybe a little complacent before this happened,” Renna said. “This was a reality check. I hope people stay engaged. The question will be how the larger organizations integrate this new wave of activists and energy.”

The California Supreme Court is now considering three lawsuits that challenge Proposition 8 on the grounds that it overstepped voters’ authority in removing a legal right for a vulnerable minority group. Right-wing groups have issued a warning that they will seek to recall any justices who vote to overturn the measure.

The final words on Proposition 8 have yet to be spoken.

Top 10 Sarah Palin Excuses For Turkey Slaughter

David Letterman's "Top 10 List" tonight was Sarah Palin's top ten excusesfor the unfortunate interview that Palin gave right after she pardoned a turkey for Thanksgiving. As Palin answered questions, a worker right behind her was slaughtering turkeys in a turkey grinder. Palin seemed oblivious to the gruesome events as she continued talking for three minutes. Watch Letterman's top ten excuses Palin gave for the turkey massacre.

Sarah Palin’s deadly media appearance

Sarah Palin just won't stop appearing on television and saying nothing. At least this time there is a little action happening the background. Have you ever seen a live turkey get killed in a giant funnel before?

Prop. 8 Protests Are Changing Minds — A Little

A SurveyUSA poll shows that Prop. 8 protests have changed the mind of 8% of respondents, which doesn't sound like much, but "If eight percent of the 52.1 percent who voted for it have changed their minds, that's a 4.2 percent swing in favor of equality. Or, put another way, you're looking at a 52-48 vote in favor of gay marriage [in California based off of the Nov. 4th vote]."

The Gays are Coming

The American Family Association has made an informative DVD called They're Coming to Your Town, that instructs you on how to prevent gays from "taking over" the local government.

Florida Gay Adoption Ban Overturned

Miami Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman ruled Tuesday there was "no rational basis" for prohibiting gays from adopting children.

Openly gay father Martin Gill will be able to keep custody of the two foster children he has cared for since 2004. The state will appeal the decision.

Gill took two half-brothers into his North Miami home after a child abuse investigator asked for his help. While the arrangement was supposed to be temporary, the state was unable to place the children elsewhere and Gil became their de facto guardian.

When Gill petitioned to adopt the children, the state, which has one of the strictest anti-gay adoption laws of the country, hauled Mr. Gill to court.

Daily Show Remixes Sarah Palin Hits

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

The Daily Show's Best Sarah Palin Moments

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

[You know I can't resist!]

"There is no longer an American dream, at least for the moment."

VICTOR CLARK, director of a Tijuana-based human rights organization working with illegal migrants, on the 42% drop in Mexican emigration over the past two years

Bob Jones University apologizes for racist policies

Fundamentalist Christian college banned interracial dating until 2000

A fundamentalist Christian University has apologized for racist policies including a one-time ban on interracial dating that wasn't lifted until nine years ago and its unwillingness to admit black students until 1971.

Bob Jones University founded in 1927 in South Carolina said its rules on race were shaped by culture instead of the Bible, according to a statement posted Thursday on its Web site.

The university, with about 5,000 students, didn't begin admitting black students until nearly 20 years after the U.S. Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling found public segregated schools were unconstitutional.

Proposition 8 Forces Focus On The Family Into Massive Layoffs

Focus on the Family announced yesterday afternoon that 202 jobs will be cut companywide — an estimated 20 percent of its workforce. Initial reports bring the total number of remaining employees to around 950.

Focus on the Family is poised to announce major layoffs to its Colorado Springs-based ministry and media empire today. The cutbacks come just weeks after the group pumped more than half a million dollars into the successful effort to pass a gay-marriage ban in California.

Critics are holding up the layoffs, which come just two months after the organization’s last round of dismissals, as a sad commentary on the true priorities of the ministry.

“If I were their membership I would be appalled,” said Mark Lewis, a longtime Colorado Springs activist who helped organize a Proposition 8 protest in Colorado Springs on Saturday. “That [Focus on the Family] would spend any money on anything that’s obviously going to get blocked in the courts is just sad. [Prop. 8] is guaranteed to lose, in the long run it doesn’t have a chance — it’s just a waste of money.”

In all, Focus pumped $539,000 in cash and another $83,000 worth of non-monetary support into the measure to overturn a California Supreme Court ruling that allowed gays and lesbians to marry in that state. The group was the seventh-largest donor to the effort in the country. The cash contributions are equal to the salaries of 19 Coloradans earning the 2008 per capita income of $29,133.

In addition Elsa Prince, the auto parts heiress and longtime funder of conservative social causes who sits on the Focus on the Family board, contributed another $450,000 to Prop. 8.[..]

Lewis, the Colorado Springs activist, wonders whether the families who donate to the nonprofit ministry, realize where their funds really end up.

“Seriously, I would imagine their supporters have got to be asking the question about whether their church is really practicing their theology.”

World leaders don’t shake Bush's hand

Bush looks like "the most unpopular kid in high school that nobody liked."

Action on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Postponed Until 2010?

The incoming Obama administration may wait until 2010 to move on "don't ask, don't tell," if at all. Given the challenges facing the country, from the economic crisis to winding down the war in Iraq, experts on the matter say it's unlikely the new president will act right away to reverse the ban on military service by openly gay soldiers, The Washington Times reports.

"What's the reality for the new administration?" Aubrey Sarvis, head of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, told the Times. "Financial crisis. Economic upheaval. Health care reform. Environmental challenges. Where does 'don't ask, don't tell' fall in all this? I would say it is not in the top five priorities of national issues."

Sarvis, whose group's mission is to end "don't ask, don't tell," told the paper he's had "informal discussions" with the Obama transition team about a timetable for achieving the goal and says 2010 is a reasonable estimate. "I think 2009 is about foundation building and reaching consensus," Sarvis said.

Obama is on record as supporting the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," but it's widely believed he's not going to spend any political capital there immediately, hoping to avoid the situation President Bill Clinton found himself in in early 1993.

Dear Prop. 8 Supporters

You May Think You Won, but Really You’re Losers

Woo hoo! You did it! You really stuck it to those romance-punchy, justice-squawking gays. It’s been two weeks since you succeeded in “protecting” the fine institute of marriage from those who would … who would … I don’t know, but I’m sure they would muck it up somehow.

So tell me, how does it feel?

Well, that’s a silly question because it feels the same as it did before, right? Your happy hetero marriage wasn’t actually affected by the vote. Really, your life is exactly the same today as if Prop. 8 had failed. It’s only those sexual deviants — the monogamous ones, the ones whose lives look just like yours except for their pelvic hardware — whose lives have changed. Some of them may even have their marriages busted up.

But it does feel good to deny people something they really want, doesn’t it? Something you were born with but they’ve had to plead for. Ha! Good times, good times.

You were so worried your kids would learn about gay marriage in school. Now, thanks to your vote, they’ll learn something else: that when they realize they’re gay — and one out of 10 absolutely will — the Golden State will cease to treat them as equal citizens.
The good news is your god is happy now. At peace. Not threatening to pelt us all with locusts or anything, right? Although, do you wonder, as I do, why he hasn’t yet smote anyone down in Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been legal for four years? Or in the entire nation of Canada? Maybe God doesn’t “recognize” Canada in the same way California no longer “recognizes” gay marriage. Maybe if we ignore them both, they’ll go away.

I do worry that your vague “religious freedom” defense may have turned some people against your faith. Lots of folks who were ambivalent about your church now are sort of sickened by it. But why? You’re not the bad guys! You just think homosexuality is wrong. It doesn’t turn you on. Or it does, but you really, really don’t want anyone to know that.

You’re hot for “traditional” marriage — which, you have to admit, is funny considering a third of your campaign was funded by Mormons, who think marriage should be between a man and, ahem, as many women as he needs to feel holy.

Now that the election’s over, do you ever stop to think: If we compared your traditional partnership with that of a ring-seeking gay couple, how would your commitment measure up? Is it stronger? More pure? More righteous? If you and your spouse had to endure the discrimination gay couples face daily, would your relationship prevail? Would the “marriage” label be worth it to you?

Funny. It is to them.

But forgive me for getting so “thinky” about these issues. I know people with college educations voted overwhelmingly against Prop. 8. It makes me wonder: If you were just a little smarter, would it make you kinder?

No matter, though. The fact is you’re winners. And you should flaunt it. Keep that yellow “Yes” sticker on your car until it fades to white, and stick out your tongue at drivers with rainbow decals. Because the other group that voted overwhelmingly against 8 is young folks. And as they dust the cobwebs out of our voting booths in the coming years, they’re going to outlaw your particular brand of bigotry. It’s inevitable: For all your popular arguments — selfish and senseless as they were — history will remember you as losers.
I wonder if you’ll “recognize” it.

Starshine Roshell is the author of Keep Your Skirt On, a collection of columns available in December at KeepYourSkirtOn.com.

Late Night Jokes

'Swift' Timetable to Result in Prop 8 Decision Possibly by March

Speculation begins on whether the California Supreme Court's "swift" timetable for its decision about the validity of Prop 8 is a good thing, or a bad thing, and what's behind the votes of certain justices:

"The court may hold a hearing on the lawsuits as early as March, a timetable that scholars said was swift considering the complexity and importance of the legal issues. The court's action, taken during a closed conference, suggested that the court wants to resolve all of the legal issues surrounding Proposition 8, including the fate of existing gay marriages, in a single ruling. It also indicated that at least one of the court's seven members, Justice Carlos R. Moreno, may be leaning in favor of overturning the measure. Moreno, who joined the state high court's 4-3 ruling in May to strike down a state ban on same-sex marriage, was the only justice to support granting a stay of the proposition. In a move that puzzled some legal analysts, Justice Joyce L. Kennard, a generally reliable supporter of gay rights, voted to deny review of the Proposition 8 challenges. The court gave no indication of her reasons but said she was willing to hear a separate case on the validity of existing gay marriages. Some analysts said the timeline for a hearing in the spring bodes well for the challengers, while others said it indicated nothing about the court's leanings."

'Yes on 8' Forces Threaten Recall of Justices if Prop 8 Overturned

Talk of the possibility of a voter recall of Supreme Court Justices (similar to the recall effort that ousted Governor Gray Davis in 2003) by opponents of marriage equality should the Court overturn Prop 8 has been reported:

"With all eyes now on the court as it considers whether to hear a number of petitions asking it to invalidate the proposition, Andrew Pugno, an attorney with Prop. 8 told the Los Angeles Times that the court could face the very real possibility of a recall should the justices vote to overturn the measure. Officially, however, Pugno said the campaign is discouraging supporters from making such threats until the high court renders a decision. 'We think the discussion of a recall at this point is premature and not helpful to the current situation,' Pugno told the newspaper in this story. 'The court should have a chance to do the right thing,' Pugno said. But should it go against the measure, 'no one would be able to stop' a recall, he added."

Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors reissued a statement condemning the threats. Said Kors: "It is unconscionable that the supporters of Proposition 8 would threaten to recall California’s Supreme Court justices who are simply doing their job in making sure all Californians are treated fairly and equally under the laws of our state. Once again, the proponents of Prop 8 are resorting to scare tactics in their attempts to eliminate the rights of same-sex couples in California. We are confident the justices will not be swayed by such blatant intimidation."

Subway Franchisee Retracts Yes on 8 Gift

PageOneQ.com blogger Mike Rogers put the pressure on fast-food chain Subway last week after finding on a list compiled by the Human Rights Campaign that a Subway franchise owner had donated $2,500 to Yes on 8 -- using the company’s name.

Rogers immediately reached out to Subway headquarters with three demands: Repudiate the gift, expand the corporation's nondiscrimination policy to include sexual orientation and gender identity, and give an equal donation to the opposing side.

He got two out of three.

Subway director of corporate communications Michele DiNello wrote in an e-mail to Rogers that not only will the franchise owner who made the donation be getting an e-mail, but “we will be sending to our franchisees and developers -- around the world -- the policy regarding political donations.”

The e-mail reminded franchise owners that “your franchise agreement prohibits your use of the Subway trademark as part of your business or corporate name. Further, it states that you agree to '...not use the Trademark in a manner that degrades, diminishes, or detracts from the goodwill of the business associated with the Trademark' and 'to promptly change the manner of such use if requested to do so by us.'"

DiNello said that the franchise owner has requested a refund of his gift from Yes on 8. She also said that the company is currently in the process of changing nondiscrimination policy language.
"The company used the exact language you gave us," she wrote, referring to Rogers’s request to add "both sexual orientation and gender identity" to its nondiscrimination policy.

Gay marriage throughout New England by 2012?

The Boston-based group that won equal marriage rights in Massachusetts and Connecticut said Tuesday it intends to fight for gay marriage rights in the other four New England states and predicted success by 2012.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders announced the campaign on the fifth anniversary of the Massachusetts court ruling that opened up marriage to gays and lesbians. GLAD dubbed the campaign “Six by Twelve.”

“We can make New England a marriage equality zone by strategically combining existing legal, electoral, and on-the-ground know-how to fast-track marriage in every New England state,” said GLAD Executive Director Lee Swislow.

“By 2012, we not only can have marriage equality throughout New England, we can have a road map for the rest of the country.”

GLAD said it would achieve this goal through litigation and by working with statewide equality groups and with MassEquality, which lobbied politicians and led the fight against two bids over three years to void gay marriage through constitutional amendment.

“The route to marriage equality looks different in each state—not every state is ripe for a marriage lawsuit like Massachusetts and Connecticut,” said Swislow.

“Through our collaboration with MassEquality, we can add value to the state equality groups. To the state groups’ local knowledge, grassroots experience and organizing strength, GLAD brings legal and communications expertise and MassEquality brings proven experience in legislative, political, and electoral strategy. This combination will accelerate the pace to marriage equality.” Swislow said.

In Connecticut, GLAD teamed up with Love Makes A Family to achieve marriage equality.
In the remaining four states, GLAD said it would work with Equality Maine, Marriage Equality Rhode Island, Vermont Freedom to Marry and a variety of allies in New Hampshire.

GLAD’s announcement comes on the heels of Proposition 8 in California, a voter-led initiative that amended that state’s constitution to end same-sex marriage there.

Gay marriage bans harm mental health

Amendments that restrict civil marriage rights of same-sex couples – such as Proposition 8 that recently passed in California – have led to higher levels of stress and anxiety among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adults, as well as among their families of origin, according to several new studies the American Psychological Association said Wednesday.

Focus on the Family planning layoffs

Focus on the Family plans an unspecified number of layoffs, and will be announcing specifics in the next few days, Focus spokesman Gary Schneeberger said Thursday.

This comes on the heels of Focus' announcement in October that 46 employees would be reassigned or laid off next year due to a restructuring of its distribution arm. Focus has a staff of about 1,200 people.

[I am not real upset about this.]

104 Generals and Admirals: Military Gay Ban Must End

More than 100 retired generals and admirals are calling for an end to "don't ask, don't tell," the military's policy of not allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, reports the Associated Press.

"As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality," the officers wrote. Military readiness was the overall focus of their call for repeal.

The statement from military leaders resurrects the policy debate for President-elect Obama at a time that parallels similar deliberations at the outset of the Clinton administration. Those contentious talks ultimately resulted in adoption of the discriminatory policy and is widely considered to be the first major PR blunder of incoming President Clinton, who had made a campaign pledge to repeal the ban on gays in the military.

President-elect Obama supports repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" but told The Advocate last spring that he would not use the issue as a litmus test for choosing his Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Maine Catholics told to oppose gay marriage

The leader of Maine’s Roman Catholics has told churchgoers across the state they have a moral duty to oppose moves to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.

Although no legislation has been introduced in the state House, LGBT groups are gathering support for gay marriage. Bills have been filed in neighboring Vermont and New Hampshire. Same-sex marriage already is legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

The pastoral letter by Bishop Richard Malone was read at Sunday mass and called on Catholics to work to preserve the traditional sacrament of marriage.

The letter said that redefining marriage strips the institution of an essential component, “namely the ability and obligation to procreate.”

Malone’s letter was read as hundreds of gays and lesbians marched in Portland’s Monument Square to protest California voters’ rejection of same-sex marriage, and only days after a group of Maine ministers from different faiths announced their support for gay marriage.

The pastors held news conference to say they had the support of more than 120 religious leaders representing 14 different faiths from throughout Maine.

The group has formed the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry in Maine to raise awareness of the same-sex marriage issue.

Maine law defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"It seems to me that we are tampering with the sacred."

REV. ROY BOURGEOIS, 69, a Roman Catholic priest in the US, on not allowing ordination of women as priests, after the Vatican informed him that he will be excommunicated next week for participating in an ordination ceremony for a woman

Vermont Senator to Introduce Marriage Bill

Vermont state senator John Campbell said Tuesday he will introduce a bill to legalize gay marriage when the legislature returns in January, the Associated Press reports.

Gay and lesbian couples have had civil union rights in Vermont since 2000. A commission of legislative leaders formed in April to discuss whether the state should allow same-sex couples to marry. Though the panel concluded that instituting same-sex marriage would be positive for the state, it stopped short of suggesting that the state grant same-sex marriage. Recommending gay marriage "would undercut the purpose and usefulness of [the commission's] work and [the] report," the April 21 report said.

Campbell, the senate majority leader, said that the bill wouldn't likely go far unless it were supported by Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican. Douglas recently beat out Democratic challenger Gaye Symington to retain his position.

HUCKABEE: GAYS HAVEN'T CROSSED 'CIVIL RIGHTS' VIOLENCE THRESHOLD

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee was on The View talking about same-sex marriage and declaring that gay rights are not civil rights because gays have not had violence inflicted upon them like Blacks have.

Said Huckabee: "People who are homosexuals should have every right in terms of their civil rights, to be employed, to do anything they want. But that’s not really the issue. I know you talked about it and I think you got into it a little bit early on. But when we’re talking about a redefinition of an institution, that’s different than individual civil rights. We’re never going to convince each other...But here is the difference. Bull Connor was hosing people down in the streets of Alabama. John Lewis got his skull cracked on the Selma bridge."

eHarmony Settles Suit, Agrees to Offer Same-Sex Matching Services

Three years after a New Jersey resident filed a discrimination suit against Web-based matchmaking service eHarmony.com, the online dating portal has settled out of court and agreed to offer same-sex matchmaking services to members.

Garden State resident Eric McKinley filed suit against the California-based company in 2005. As part of the settlement, eHarmony agrees to provide new services for members identifying themselves as "male seeking a male" or "female seeking a female" by March 2009.

eHarmony did reserve the right to provide a disclaimer -- that its compatibility-based matching system was developed solely on the basis of researched focused on married heterosexual couples.

"I applaud the decision of eHarmony to settle this case and extend its matching services to those seeking same-sex relationships," New Jersey Division on Civil Rights director J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo said in a statement Wednesday.

eHarmony was one of a few Web-based dating holdouts that had not ventured into the world of offering same-sex dating services. Last year Time magazine named eHarmony one of the five websites to avoid, noting, among other things, its discrimination against gay people.

Obama posts campaign pledges on LGBT rights

President-elect Barack Obama has laid out his commitment to LGBT civil rights in an eight-point plan posted on his transition Web site.

It calls for passage of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act; a gender-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act; repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell; repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act; opposition to any attempt to reintroduce an amendment to the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, support for inclusive adoption rights; and an expanded war on HIV/AIDS.

The program is identical to Obama’s positions during the campaign and LGBT rights groups said it shows that the president-elect is committed to keeping his word.

The Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Act would add sexual orientation to the list of categories covered under federal hate crime law. It passed the House in 2007 and the White House threatened to veto it. In an effort to get around a veto, the Senate version was tied to the 2008 defense authorization bill. It passed but then went to conference, where it was stripped out.

Obama was a co-sponsor of the bill. On his transition Web site, Obama notes that in 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported, making up more than 15 percent. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama helped pass tough legislation that made hate crimes - and cthe onspiracy to commit them - against the law.

Obama, in his eight-point plan, also supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and says it must include gender identity.

ENDA passed the US House in 2007 without protections for the transgendered, but was not taken up by the Senate.

The legislation would make it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in hiring, firing, promoting or paying an employee.

ENDA as originally introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) included transpeople, but Frank removed those protections in committee, saying it would be impossible to pass the bill if it included gender identity.

More than a dozen LGBT groups immediately distanced themselves from the legislation. Frank has since said he would fight to ensure an inclusive ENDA is passed.

Obama’s support for an inclusive ENDA virtually assures it will include gender identity when it is reintroduced in the next session of Congress.

“While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees’ domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy,” Obama says on the transition site.

Legislation to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ban on gays serving openly in the military, was taken up in committee this year for the first time, but did not make it to a vote.

DADT was enacted in 1993. Since then more than 12,000 servicemembers have been dismissed when it was learned they are gay. According to statistics from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which advocates for gays in the military, an average of two service members each day are dismissed under the law .

“The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited,” the Obama transition site says.

“Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.”

The Web site also touts Obama’s commitment to same-sex families, but he remains reluctant to support gay marriage.

“Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples.” the transition site says.

“Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights,” the Web site says.

He also supports adoption rights for all couples “regardless of their sexual orientation.”

Obama’s plan also offers a comprehensive plan for combating HIV/AIDS.

“In the first year of his presidency, Barack Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities,” the Web site says.

Part of that plan would see a diminished role for the Bush administration’s dependence on abstinence education, as well as distributing contraceptives in prisons and lifting the federal ban on needle exchanges.

California Supreme Court Grants Review in Prop 8 Legal Challenges

Court to Determine Constitutionality of Prop 8

Today the California Supreme Court granted review in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, which passed by a narrow margin of 52 percent on November 4. In an order issued today, the Court agreed to hear the case and set an expedited briefing schedule. The Court also denied an immediate stay.

On November 5, 2008, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court on behalf of six couples and Equality California. The City of San Francisco, joined by the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and Santa Clara County, filed a similar challenge, as did a private attorney in Los Angeles.

The lawsuits allege that, on its face, Proposition 8 is an improper revision rather than an amendment of the California Constitution because, in its very title, which was “Eliminates the right to marry for same-sex couples,” the initiative eliminated an existing right only for a targeted minority. If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take way an existing right only for a particular group. Such a change would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority rights. According to the California Constitution, such a serious revision of our state Constitution cannot be enacted through a simple majority vote, but must first be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature.

Since the three lawsuits submitted on November 5, three other lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 have been filed. In a petition filed on November 14, 2008, leading African American, Latino, and Asian American groups argued that Proposition 8 threatens the equal protection rights of all Californians.

On November 17, 2008, the California Council of Churches and other religious leaders and faith organizations representing millions of members statewide, also filed a petition asserting that Proposition 8 poses a severe threat to the guarantee of equal protection for all, and was not enacted through the constitutionally required process for such a dramatic change to the California Constitution. On the same day, prominent California women’s rights organizations filed a petition asking the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because of its potentially disastrous implications for women and other groups that face discrimination.

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and violates the fundamental right to marry. Proposition 8 would completely eliminate the right to marry only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group.

Over the past 100 years, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging either legislative enactments or initiatives as invalid revisions of the California Constitution. In three of those cases, the Court invalidated those measures.



The California Supreme Court decided to grant review to numerous lawsuits regarding Prop. 8, making the case that:

Prop. 8 is invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution.

Prop. 8 violates the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution.

If Prop. 8 is not unconstitutional, the marriages performed before Prop 8 passed should still be valid.

The court gave a very short briefing schedule, giving the state until December 19th to respond and giving our side until January 5th to respond to those briefs. Amicus briefs must be filed by January 15th, with replies to those due by January 21st.

Mormon Church feels the heat over Proposition 8

The church, which has long sought to be seen as mainstream, joins other religious organizations to back California's gay-marriage ban. But now it has become a political target.

In June, leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made a fateful decision. They called on California Mormons to donate their time and money to the campaign for Proposition 8, which would overturn a state Supreme Court ruling that permitted gay marriage.That push helped the initiative win narrow passage on election day. And it has made the Mormon Church, which for years has striven to be seen as part of the American mainstream, a political target.

Protesters have massed outside Mormon temples nationwide. For every donation to a fund to overturn Proposition 8, a postcard is sent to the president of the Mormon Church. Supporters of gay marriage have proposed a boycott of Utah businesses, and someone burned a Book of Mormon outside a temple near Denver."

It's disconcerting to Latter-day Saints that Mormonism is still the religious tradition that everybody loves to hate," said Melissa Proctor, who teaches at Harvard Divinity School.As an indication of how seriously the Mormon leadership takes the recent criticism, the council that runs the church -- the First Presidency -- released a statement Friday decrying what it portrayed as a campaign not just against Mormons but all religious people who voted their conscience.

"People of faith have been intimidated for simply exercising their democratic rights," the statement said. "These are not actions that are worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation. The end of a free and fair election should not be the beginning of a hostile response in America."

Jim Key, a spokesman for the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, said barbs by gay marriage activists were directed at church leadership, not individual Mormons." We're making a statement that no one's religious beliefs should be used to deny fundamental rights to others," he said.

Proposition 8 opponents estimate that members of the Mormon Church gave more than $20 million to the effort to pass the measure, though that is difficult to confirm because records of campaign donations do not include religious affiliation.For years, church leaders have tried to blunt the assertion that Mormonism is somehow out of the political and cultural mainstream. The backlash over gay marriage carries risks and rewards toward that goal.

To support Proposition 8, the Mormon Church entered into a coalition with other religious organizations, including evangelical groups that have tended to view Mormons warily. It was a Catholic bishop, Mormon officials said, who requested the Mormon Church bring its members into the fight. Now those groups are rallying behind the embattled church."

Being against gay marriage puts the church right in the mainstream of American religious behavior," said Quin Monson, a political science professor at Brigham Young University.But the outrage directed toward the church could hurt its efforts to expand."

The backlash is going on all over the country," said Jan Shipps, a prominent scholar of modern Mormonism who is an emeritus professor at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. "There are people who had a lot of respect for the Mormons who now say, 'Well, they're just like the Christian right.' "That's ironic, Shipps said, given that the Mormon Church has a more tolerant stance on homosexuality than some evangelical groups. The church has pointedly declined to state that homosexuality is a choice. And it has cautioned against programs that purport to "cure" same-sex attraction, even though Mormon theology holds that marriage is a divine relationship between men and women that continues into the afterlife.

Also, Shipps said, though the church had been riding high ever since the successful 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, the gay marriage fight and other recent setbacks have forced the church to deal with skepticism over its faith and history.

First there was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's unsuccessful run for the Republican presidential nomination. Many in the church were shocked that Romney's Mormon faith was a source of discomfort for some voters.

"Latter-day Saints were just amazed to think there was such bigotry in the country," church spokesman Michael Otterson said.And a raid on a polygamous breakaway sect in Texas last spring was a reminder of the church's practice of multiple marriages in the 19th century, even though the Mormon Church has long renounced polygamy."

That whole story in Texas was probably much worse for the church's image than Proposition 8," Monson said.Some have suggested that Mormons might have been eager to cement partnerships with other churches, especially because evangelical voters were particularly distrustful of Romney's faith.

But Otterson dismissed that possibility. "That kind of thinking would never even factor into the thinking of church leadership," he said. "The church couldn't remain silent on a pivotal issue like this."

Gay marriage foes to try again in Illinois

Last week, voters in Florida, Arizona and California supported gay-marriage bans by 62, 56 and 52 percent, respectively, adding to the 27 states that already have such laws on the books. Since May, when courts in California legalized same-sex marriage, thousands of homosexual couples there have wed.

Proponents of an Illinois constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to heterosexuals, buoyed by voter approval in three states on Nov. 4, say they’re gearing up to try again in 2010.

A group called Protect Marriage Illinois fell short of collecting the needed 270,000 signatures, which is 8 percent of the number of people who voted for governor during the last election, in time to get an advisory measure on Illinois’ fall ballot. The proposal called for amending the state’s constitution to declare “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”

The General Assembly would have to vote to place the amendment itself on the ballot.Illinois law already prohibits same-sex marriage, but amendment advocates say that’s not enough.

Ralph Rivera, a lobbyist for the Illinois Family Institute, said Wednesday getting the required number of signatures would send a message to lawmakers about their constituents’ values. “There’s a real threat, and it’s because you have activist courts that find things in the constitution that don’t exist,” Rivera said of judges’ rulings in other states that have legalized gay marriage. “If we’re to protect traditional marriage here and not have the state forcing companies and churches to accept hiring and benefits for same-sex couples, then you have to have some protection from the courts.”

1992 Colorado Anti-Gay Discrimination Case Much Like California's

A 1992 court battle in Colorado over anti-gay discrimination offers hope for how the California Supreme Court might handle the case.

"Following the enactment of Colorado's Amendment 2, its opponents filed suit claiming that it unlawfully singled out gays and lesbians as a class to deny them rights that other citizens not only possess but take for granted. These rights include access to housing, government services, public accommodations and public and private employment opportunities without regard to an individual's race, sex, religion, age, ancestry, political belief or other characteristic that defines each of us as a unique human being. Amendment 2, the opponents argued, therefore denied gays and lesbians the equal protection of the laws, which is a guarantee of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To the surprise of many, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed."

California AG Urges Court to Hear Marriage Cases

California attorney general Jerry Brown urged the state supreme court to review legal challenges to Proposition 8, according to his statement on Monday. Brown said that the court's ruling was necessary to ensure that all state agencies are cohesive in enforcing laws and policies.

"There is significant public interest in prompt resolution of the legality of Proposition 8," said Deputy Attorney General Mark Benington in a statement. The supreme court could choose to issue a stay on Prop. 8, thus halting its enforcement until the court rules on the ballot measure's constitutionality. Unless a stay or a ruling is handed down, Prop. 8 is legal and gay couples have no legal right to marriage in the state.

The Attorney General “steered clear of taking a position on the validity of the voter-approved ballot measure, which restored California's ban on gay marriages. Instead, the attorney general argued that the justices must agree to review legal challenges to Proposition 8 to "provide certainty and finality in this matter.

Lower courts typically hear cases before the supreme court agrees whether to review them, but petitioners have asked the state's highest court to directly accept the review, in order to promptly resolve the issue.

Brown told the San Francisco Chronicle in August that if Prop. 8 were to pass, he believed that same-sex marriages performed before its passage would be found valid by the courts.

While Brown's position is that all the marriages performed before Nov. 4 are still legal, he asked the court not to issue a stay on the gay marriage ban as it would cause further confusion. None of the proceedings today dealt with the issue of the validity of Prop. 8, but rather, whether the court should address the question.

Baptists Press for Marriage Amendment in WV

After last week's election and the passage of Proposition 8 in California, the Christian Coalition announced that one of its primary goals for the short-term future was seeing that the 20 states that do not currently ban gays from getting married do so and that those states that do allow marriage put an end to the practice.

Presumably, the first step in that battle will take place in West Virginia. The Family Policy Council of West Virginia is already threatening the Governor that if he doesn't call a special legislative session to put an amendment on the ballot, he'll face the wrath of the voter and now the West Virginia Convention of Southern Baptists has joined the call:

The resolution, adopted at the 38th meeting of the West Virginia Convention of Southern Baptists, passed unanimously.

"As citizens of West Virginia, we avail ourselves of the opportunity to affirm the historic, legal, and reasonable definition of marriage by supporting and promoting a marriage amendment to the state constitution," the resolution states. "... [W]e will strongly encourage Christians throughout West Virginia to engage in the civic process in defense of marriage and in support of the government's leadership in defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman (Romans 13)."

The resolution commits to praying regularly for the governor, legislators and judges. It also makes it clear that West Virginia Southern Baptists believe "same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex couples."

"[T]o believe otherwise is to ignore the uniqueness of each gender's design and undermines marriage (Genesis 2:18)," the resolution reads. "The break down or weakening of the institution of marriage has devastating moral, spiritual, economic, and social effects on the whole of society. Marriage protects children by giving them an opportunity to grow up in the ideal environment: with a married mom and dad. Knowingly depriving children of that opportunity exposes our children to a great social experiment that is in no one's best interest."

As the Baptist Press article "West Virginia does not have a petition process allowing citizens to gather signatures and place a constitutional amendment on the ballot" so any such amendment must first pass through the state House and Senate, both of which are controlled by Democrats. But seeing as passing anti-gay amendments seems to be the only thing the Right has been having any success with in recent years, it is probably safe to assume that West Virginia leaders are going to be coming under increasing pressure to put one on the ballot there as well.

Ashton Kutcher Gets Emotional About Prop. 8

OK, so it doesn't really surprise us that Ashton Kutcher is against Prop. 8. It just sort of seems to go with his whole vibe. But the fact that he got so passionate about that fact that Americans are ever voting on civil rights took us off guard. Check out Ashton getting right down to the heart of why Prop. 8 is so wrong on Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher. The other guy is good too.

Schwarzenegger won’t petition court on Prop 8

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will not submit a legal brief to the California Supreme Court arguing for the overturn of Proposition 8, the voter initiative that bans same-sex marriage, nor will he join a group of state lawmakers in their brief despite making statements he believes the court should declare the measure illegal.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” Schwarzenegger said that he believes marriage is between opposite-sex partners, “but I don’t want to ever force my will on anyone.”

But he rejected a call to enter the legal challenge to Prop 8.
A day after voters agreed to amend the constitution to bar same-sex marriage three separate notices were filed with the high court arguing the proposition was illegal because it conflicted with existing portions of the constitution.

4th diocese breaks away from Episcopal Church over gays

The theologically conservative Diocese of Fort Worth has voted to split from the liberal-leaning Episcopal Church, the fourth traditional diocese to do so in a long-running debate over the Bible, gay relationships and other issues.

About 80 percent of clergy and parishioners in the Texas diocese supported the break in a series of votes at a diocesan convention.

The Steering Committee North Texas Episcopalians, an umbrella group for those who want to stay with the denomination, plans to reorganize the diocese. They promised that “the Episcopal Church’s work of Christian ministry and evangelization will go forward” in the region.

A lengthy, expensive legal battle is expected over who owns Episcopal property and funds. The Fort Worth diocese oversees more than 50 parishes and missions serving about 19,000 people. The Steering Committee estimates that at least five parishes and hundreds of other churchgoers will remain with the New York-based national church.

David Hyde Pierce is Gay, Married... and Marching Against Prop. 8

As Dr. Niles Crane on the hit sitcom Frasier, David Hyde Pierce had a great deadpan. That also extended to his own life: for years he wouldn’t confirm or deny being gay. Since then he thawed enough to thank his longtime partner, Brian Hargrove, in his 2007 Tony Award acceptance speech. And on Saturday, Pierce was one baseball-capped protester among maybe 20,000 others marching for equality in Los Angeles.

Protesting Prop 8 in Pasadena

Several hundred people gathered at City Hall in Pasadena to protest Prop 8 and discrimination in California. Thousands of people gathered at City Hall in Los Angeles.