The Gay Thread

[Prudence]

I didn't read the article closely, but didn't the MA court say that DOMA infringed on the states' rights to define marriage? That seems like it could be a problem later when one might, say, want to argue that OK has to accept out-of-state gay marriages under the full faith and credit clause.

[JWBear]

I didn't read the article closely, but didn't the MA court say that DOMA infringed on the states' rights to define marriage? That seems like it could be a problem later when one might, say, want to argue that OK has to accept out-of-state gay marriages under the full faith and credit clause.

They'd come up against Loving v Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia).

[Alex]

Actually, there have - as I understand it - been two federal court rulings against DOMA today.

Yep, both by the same judge. One uses 5th Amendment arguments,the other 10th Amendment arguments.

Haven't read the decisions and I'm obviously not an expert but while the arguments I've seen paraphrased sound good on this issue, they do seem like a potential double-edged sword.

I wonder if conservatives would be willing to trade gay marriage for a revitalized 10th Amendment.

ETA: For example, if DOMA is an issue because it intrudes on the historical role of states in defining marriage, how would that argument relate to the recent health care bill which intrudes on the historical role of states in regulating health insurance by creating national minimal standards?

[Alex]

And it should be noted that neither ruling struck down the "Full Faith & Credit" exemption part of DOMA. So even if these stand there's still no obligation for Oklahoma to recognize Massachusetts' marriages.

[Alex]

Am reading one of the decisions now (a readable 39 pager (http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2010-07-08-gill-district-court-decision.pdf)). The judge used a rational basis review in reaching his conclusions (a relatively deferrent standard). I'm guessing most people here will agree with it but it is interesting to read the judge dismissing each argument offered for why the federal government has a valid purpose is withholding marriage recognition from those in states that allow gay marriage. (Mostly typing this out to force myself to read carefully and think about what it says.)

Rational Goal - Encourage responsible procreation
a) Expert consensus is that being raised by gay parents is not a harm.
b) DOMA doesn't actually do anything to encourage responsible procreation, just withholds benefits from some children.
c) Procreation has never been an explicit part of marriage qualifications (he quotes Scalia here).

Rational Goal - Defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage
a) DOMA can't encourage heterosexual marriage among those it deprives of benefits because they are already legally married.
b) Denying benefits to gay marriages does nothing to strengthen heterosexual marriages.
c) To the extent that it makes heterosexual more valuable or desirable it does so only by punishing people evercising a legal prerogative and it is fundamentally unconstitutional to legislatively punish a politically unpopular group.
d) Defense of traditional values of morality is not sufficient. Quotes Lawrence here with "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practics as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."

Rational Goal - Preservation of scarce federal resources.
Rejected with citation to Pyler v. Doe (1971) that "a concern for the preservation of resources standing alone can hardly justify the classification used in allocating those resources." Since no reason is given for this method of saving money beyond serving as a way of expressing disapproval of same-sex marriage there's no argument in support.

Also rejected because DOMA's sweep is so broad in impacting more than 1400 federal programs that rely on this definition of marriage that many have nothing to do with "scarce" federal resources (whether that be money or effort) such as the Family and Medical Leave Act which allows 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a sick spouse.

Rational Goal - There's a federal interest in maintaining a status quo while the states work it out.
Everybody concedes it is entirely a state right to define the qualifications of marriage. There has never been a nationally uniform definition of marriage and federal laws an regulations have always simply deferred to state definitions without issue. Gay marriage did not create any new hurdle. The argument that gay marriage is different in scale if not type from other historical changes is rejected as being no more signficant or contentious than the fall of anti-miscegination laws were.

Further, the government misstates its case in stating it has an interest in maintaining the status quo for federal law as of 1996, before the first suggestion of same sex marriage came up. The judge notes that the 1996 status quo was complete deference to states in defining marital requirements and thus DOMA, rather than maintaining a status quo is itself the departure from the status quo. Further, DOMA does not actually create a federal standard for marriage, it just eliminates one source of state-by-state variation. Example given is a 13-year-old girl marrying a 14-year-old boy which is legally sanctioned only in New Hamphshire but still recognized as valid by federal law.

=====

At least in this ruling, since the Part 3 of DOMA is rejected on a rational argument basis it seems to me less like a double edged sword than it if had failed under strict scrutiny.

[JWBear]

And it should be noted that neither ruling struck down the "Full Faith & Credit" exemption part of DOMA. So even if these stand there's still no obligation for Oklahoma to recognize Massachusetts' marriages.

That's because it wasn't part of the original complaint. If challenged in court, there is no way it can stand.

[Chernabog]

And it should be noted that neither ruling struck down the "Full Faith & Credit" exemption part of DOMA. So even if these stand there's still no obligation for Oklahoma to recognize Massachusetts' marriages.

I'm pretty sure that if DOMA is struck down on ANY basis, then the marriages would have to be recognized on full faith & credit (though it may take another lawsuit to hammer the nail into the coffin).

In other words, if DOMA is found unconstitutional, I don't think it's a piecemail sort of thing (like a contract). In most contracts, for instance, there is a clause which states something to the effect that if one of the aforementioned clauses is found unenforceable, illegal or invalid, then the rest of the clauses can still be enforced.

A statute like DOMA on the other hand is either constitutionally valid or it isn't. It isn't going to remain on the books simply because there hasn't been a lawsuit testing its constitutional validity in every situation or under every theory out there.

[Ghoulish Delight]

NBC allows gay couples to compete for on-air wedding ceremony (http://www.popeater.com/2010/07/09/gay-weddings-today-show-nbc/)

[Strangler Lewis]

Apart from whatever full faith and credit limitations are in DOMA, there is full faith and credit case law about when states need not accord full faith and credit. Now, if the DOMA provision had been challenged and struck down, it's difficult to imagine what other interests individual states might advance, but the Supreme Court (if it gets this far) could still allow each state to have its say on the matter.

[Alex]

In other words, if DOMA is found unconstitutional, I don't think it's a piecemail sort of thing (like a contract). In most contracts, for instance, there is a clause which states something to the effect that if one of the aforementioned clauses is found unenforceable, illegal or invalid, then the rest of the clauses can still be enforced.

I would be glad to be wrong but I every analysis I've seen has been clear that these rulings have no impact on the Full Faith and Credit stuff in Part II of the law.

If bills were all or nothing then that would mean if any single part of an omnibus budget or one section of the healthcare reform bill would invalidate the entire thing.

[Chernabog]

I would be glad to be wrong but I every analysis I've seen has been clear that these rulings have no impact on the Full Faith and Credit stuff in Part II of the law.

If bills were all or nothing then that would mean if any single part of an omnibus budget or one section of the healthcare reform bill would invalidate the entire thing.

I didn't mean that every bill was an "all or nothing" proposition, and I apologize because the contract example was a really bad analogy in retrospect. What I meant was, if a provision is found unconstitutional for ANY reason, then it is unconstitutional period. It doesn't matter if it's constitutional in certain situations, or if the unconstitutionality in a particular situation wasn't argued in the lawsuit overturning it, etc. I thought someone was arguing that the statute would remain on the books because a mere phrase in the statute had not been challenged, or it hadn't been challenged on a particular basis (namely, full faith and credit).

However, on that note I have to eat some crow here because I violated a principal rule of lawyering in my previous post, namely RTDS, which stands for "Read The Damn Statute!" I had it in my mind that DOMA was codified as one statute but it is not. The full faith and credit part (28 U.S.C. section 1738C) is a completely different code section than what was challenged (1 U.S.C. section 7). It doesn't matter than both were enacted into law under the same bill. What was challenged was not "DOMA" technically but "1 U.S.C. section 7" which would not have an effect on a completely separate statute. So the rulings will have limited effect, in the way DOMA was codified, how it is set up, etc. -- the "parts" are not interdependent as I assumed they were. The rulings themselves speak in terms of DOMA part 3. However, it always boils down to RTDS, which I should have done in the first place.

Hey, we can always move to Canada, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, or South Africa to get married. They are all lovely places, you know, and marriage is much less confusing there.

I hope that makes more sense. :p

[Alex]

Yep, all good.

[Chernabog]

The Perils of Lesbianity (http://www.queerty.com/apparently-lesbians-have-special-powers-like-vampires-20100610/) ok so this was funny and new to me, so I had to share :P

[alphabassettgrrl]

Awesome! Lesbians have special powers... :)

I'm still giggling.

[Kevy Baby]

Awesome! Lesbians have special powers... :)I know they have tremendous power over my attention frequently.

Purely for scientific purposes of course.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Of course. :)

[Chernabog]

Argentina legalized gay marriage... their President was highly in support of it, and the bill passed their legislature, which she will sign into law.

Amazing how two heavily Catholic countries (Spain, 73% and Argentina, 70%) have legalized gay marriage but the US is still behind. And how the head of a mostly Catholic country (with large protests from the Church) can come out fiercely in support of gay marriage, but President Fierce Advocate cannot. He still thinks he can buy my vote by throwing the gays a cocktail party. Sorry Mr. President, I've been sober for a while now.

[Alex]

Coexisting with a strong sense of frustration is also an amazement at just how fast things are changing on this issue. I appreciated this chart posted to 538.com (http://www.538host.com/ssm.png) today

http://www.538host.com/ssm.png

[alphabassettgrrl]

Huzzah for Argentina!

It's funny; countries that have an official church have less religious influence than the US, who supposedly has separation of church and state and no official state religion.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

The Perils of Lesbianity (http://www.queerty.com/apparently-lesbians-have-special-powers-like-vampires-20100610/)And now the companion piece: The Homosexual Menace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhaXh1UY7-4)

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Homo-Cidal Maniacs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS4c05WPyRY)
Why Gays are always villains in Hollywood

[innerSpaceman]

Heads up: Decision in the Perry Case (Validity of Prop 8) will be announced between 1 pm and 3pm tomorrow, August 4.

[Ghoulish Delight]

On our anniversary. Hopefully we'll have two reasons to celebrate tomorrow...

[Ghoulish Delight]

My guess (based on very little) is that the ruling will be to overturn Prop 8, but grant the injunction preventing same sex marriages from being performed until the appeals process is complete.

[Gemini Cricket]

Happy Anniversary, Greg and Jen!
:)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Happy anniversary indeed! (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?p=330814#post330814)

[Gemini Cricket]

Federal judge in California knocks down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. An appeal is expected.

[JWBear]

YES!!!

[alphabassettgrrl]

Whoooo-hoooo!!!

[Chernabog]

Suck it, Carrie Prejean. :)

[Kevy Baby]

Cool. On to the next court...

[Alex]

Cool, but I do fear the end road if this gets reversed at the Supreme Court.

[Snowflake]

Happy anniversary indeed! (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?p=330814#post330814)

Happy Anniversary! Happy Anniversary! Happy Anniversary! Haaaapppppppppppppppyyyyy Aniversary! :cheers:

Happy No on H8 day, too! :cheers: :D

[innerSpaceman]

Ya know, I would even get some perverse pleasure in seeing the pretzel twists the Supreme Court would have to knot itself into to refute Walker's decision.

Walker absolutely eviscerates the case for Prop 8, puts together an exhaustive evidentiary record, scolds the defendants for failing to put on more than 2 witnesses, both of whom - after detailed analysis, Walker finds deserving of little weight (Miller) and zero weight (Blankenhorn). Furthermore, and more importantly, he finds the 14th Amendment Due Process claim worthy of strict scrutiny, which Prop 8 fails, and the 14th Amendment Equal Protection claim also worthy of strict scrutiny, but that Prop 8 doesn't require such - as it fails even a rational basis level of scrutiny. Bwahahaha.

He goes on to find that, d'uh, the only basis for passage of Prop 8 was animus towards gays and lesbians.


This is a shoe-in to be affirmed by the Ninth Circuit - where it will be an actual appeal (i.e., reversible only if error was committed at the trial level - not bloody likely). Of course, SCOTUS can and likely will make up law and justice from whole cloth to suit their political leanings ... but with such a reasoned and careful and all-out d'uh-ness of a decision by Walker, they could only reverse at great peril to the rule of law and their own stature as jurists.

[Snowflake]

Very visible :iSm: mojo!

[innerSpaceman]

Some legal scholars are saying the Proposition 8 proponents may not have legal standing to appeal today's decision. And the State of California will certainly not.

If that holds true, this would be the end of the line. I don't know if that's true, but it would be wonderful.

I would want the case to go to SCOTUS anyway - because marriage in California is pretty meaningless without federal recognition - but there are already a couple of high-wattages cases against DOMA working their way through the courts right now.

[Disneyphile]

Ya know, I would even get some perverse pleasure in seeing the pretzel twists the Supreme Court would have to knot itself into to refute Walker's decision.Just think of those positions! Because today, somebody called out "Right hand, blue!" ;)

Oh, and it also tickles me to no end to think of how much money the Moron* church wasted. Heh, heh.

(*Typo intentional.)

[innerSpaceman]

I should correct something I alluded to earlier. The findings regarding unconstitutionality will be reviewed de novo by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, meaning 'from the beginning.' But those rulings will still be based on Judge Walker's exhaustive Findings of Fact, which can only be reversed if exceptional error is found in them.

[katiesue]

Maddies view -"why can't it just be a Federal Law. If the Supreme Court declares it unconsitiutional then it should just be a Federal Law".

Yea, she needs more civics classes. Honestly this all just puzzles her as it never occured to her until Prop 8 that Gay's couldn't marry anyway.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Maddies view -"why can't it just be a Federal Law. If the Supreme Court declares it unconsitiutional then it should just be a Federal Law".

Yea, she needs more civics classes. Honestly this all just puzzles her as it never occured to her until Prop 8 that Gay's couldn't marry anyway.

There's hope for the future! :) I agree that equality should be painfully obvious.

[Not Afraid]

All day long I was wondering if, in the future, we will look at people who oppose marriage rights in the same way we look at people today who think there should still be separate drinking fountains.

[JWBear]

I sure hope so.

[Morrigoon]

I can't wait to have to explain to my grandkids the answer to the inevitable question.... "Why?" And try to define the mindset of people I don't understand even though we live in the same time.

[€uroMeinke]

I'm kind of disappointed in learning how ignorant some of high school classmates are that have friended me on Facebook. I guess there's reason we haven't made contact in 30 years.

[3894]

So, who's going to catch the bouquet and be next?

http://www.romance-fire.com/pictures/hello%20kitty%20wedding%20bouquet.jpg

[Stan4dSteph]

I'm cautiously optimistic.

[blueerica]

I'm kind of disappointed in learning how ignorant some of high school classmates are that have friended me on Facebook. I guess there's reason we haven't made contact in 30 years.

I'm really glad that I was busy last night. Got to miss the expected ignoramus comments.

[Chernabog]

Haha.... I think Kerry posted this on her facebook page but:

Overturn of Prop 8 leads to Disneyland price increase (http://punditkitchen.com/2010/08/04/political-pictures-disney-anti-gay/). LOL!

[Strangler Lewis]

I should correct something I alluded to earlier. The findings regarding unconstitutionality will be reviewed de novo by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, meaning 'from the beginning.' But those rulings will still be based on Judge Walker's exhaustive Findings of Fact, which can only be reversed if exceptional error is found in them.

A reviewing court does not have to upset any of the findings of fact to apply the legal standard of whether the law meets the low rational basis standard for constitutionality. Scalia's view is that states may enact moral judgments so long as they do not intrude on any constitutionally protected class, so his threshold for rationality is certain to be very low, if indeed, he doesn't find a way to skirt the standard of review entirely.

[Chernabog]

Scalia's view is that states may enact moral judgments so long as they do not intrude on any constitutionally protected class, so his threshold for rationality is certain to be very low, if indeed, he doesn't find a way to skirt the standard of review entirely.

Yeah, Scalia is a real c0cksucker, and I don't mean that in the good way.

[innerSpaceman]

I wonder how much upper courts will be bound or influenced by Walker's finding that the claims were deserving of strict scrutiny, but didn't receive it - since they didn't even rise to the level of rational basis.

The Ninth Circuit is going to uphold this in a walk. (Well, ya know, a 2-year+ strolling walk). And like I said before, the pretzel twists needed for the Supremes to overturn it would be entertaining in their own right. (As would Washington going up in flames. Angry, queeny, flaming gay flames.)

[Kevy Baby]

The trend continues

Mexico High Court Upholds Gay Marriage Law (http://mystateline.com/fulltext-news/?nxd_id=184685)

[Disneyphile]

I can't believe the comments I see online from some people. One idiot spouted that "voters rights" have just been taken away, and how we're losing our freedoms in this country, yet gays should not be allowed to marry, because they can't procreate "by design". And then also said how "liberals" aren't intelligent like he is, and how before long, we'll all be in "bondage" and enslaved to a "socialist society".

Anyone else see the blatant contradiction in that statement?

I've mostly been ignoring it, but it was his response to a No-H8 friend of mine on Facebook, so I had to go in and defend her. This was my response:

I totally believe in a free country. I believe that people should stay the hell out of others' bedroom preferences, otherwise, no one is truly free.

In some states, they still have laws making oral sex illegal. Steve, if you live in one of those states, I really hope you're abiding by all the laws that the people set and not having a single blow job. Oh, and some states also require that sex be solely performed in the missionary style. So, I also hope you don't do anything "doggy style", because that's what other people have decided for you as well. If you want to dictate what people should do in their bedrooms, then you should be ready to accept the same. So, for you - no blow jobs or other positions besides missionary, and no, no, no sex unless you're trying to conceive, ok? Those laws are still on the books and have not been changed. So, to break them would make you a hypocrite and you seem far too smart for that.

However, thanks for mentioning bondage, because that is a favorite fetish in my heterosexual marriage. I'd suggest you try it sometime, but that would go against your "by design" belief, and since it is a free country, I wouldn't want to dictate what your beliefs should be. I do what I like in my bedroom and you do what you like in yours and we'll just agree to disagree and let everyone do the same, since it a free country and all.

:)

[Alex]

Not that I disagree with the general sentiment but errors will become the point of rebuttal even if they don't change the general argument.

The premise of your second paragraph is false. There's no state in which anal or oral sex are illegal. There may be states where such statues remain on the books (but this is common across many areas later invalidated) but since Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 all such statutes regulating private consensual sexual acts have been unconstitutional.

I know of no state law ever existing that mandated only the missionary position for heterosexual partners. But I'd love to learn I'm wrong about that, though such laws would still have been negated by Lawrence.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I know of no state law ever existing that mandated only the missionary position for heterosexual partners. But I'd love to learn I'm wrong about that, though such laws would still have been negated by Lawrence.
I believe she's referring to anti sodomy laws since by some definitions "sodomy" is "anything other than missionary sex".

[Alex]

Yeah, but I've never been able to actually track down an instance where statute defined sodomy in that way. I'd love to be wrong but the determination on some legal boards I found when last looking into the issue (it's come up before) was that it is kind of a legal urban legend or possibly a broad theoretical reading of a statute that wasn't ever actually implemented that way.

I'd love to be wrong though as stupid laws are funny. Broader point remains, even if that was ever the case, it is definitely now no longer the case.

And it suddenly occurs to me that I've been searching various phrases including the word sodomy from work. Probably nobody cares.

[Disneyphile]

It's ok. He only rebutted that I was "being rude", and that he doesn't feel that sexuality should be shoved in anyone's faces.

Of course, I responded that he needs to practice what he preaches then and never hold hands with his wife in public.

So, homophobia is obviously his REAL issue.

[Kevy Baby]

My wife and I do it doggy style: I sit up and beg while she rolls over and plays dead.

[Gemini Cricket]

My wife and I do it doggy style: I sit up and beg while she rolls over and plays dead.
Ba-dum-ching!
:D

[Disneyphile]

:eek:

Sinners!


;)

[Alex]

Of course, I responded that he needs to practice what he preaches then and never hold hands with his wife in public.

Or start holding hands with people he has no sexual interest in (which might mean he can still hold hands with his wife).

[Gemini Cricket]

About holding hands... I tried it a couple of times in public with an ex or two. Didn't like it. It felt too needy. 'Oh, I can't walk down the street without holding someone's hand.' To me, holding hands isn't romantic.
:D

[innerSpaceman]

Borrowed from Gemini Cricket's Facebook:


http://a.imageshack.us/img824/50/yogiandbooboo.jpg


Yes, Yogi, great things do indeed come in bears, and from the look on your face - I'd say Coming real Soon.

[flippyshark]

Gosh, I was just on my way over to post the same thing. This really can't be an accident, can it? Wow. Here's a link to the trailer (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/bad-ideas/yogi-bear-trailer.html) in case you have neurons you need to destroy.

[Alex]

Borrowed from Gemini Cricket's Facebook:


One wonders if GC borrowed it from here (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?p=330957#post330957).

[JWBear]

Equity California has an online petition asking Meg Whitman and Steve Cooley to not defend Prop 8 if they get elected.

You can sign it here (http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=6172793)

[Chernabog]

Meg Whitman donated money to Prop 8, I don't understand why she would not support it now.

[Ghoulish Delight]

http://cagle.com/working/100807/plante.jpg

[Chernabog]

^^^ LOL yeah... I just wanna punch Maggie Gallagher in the FUPA every time I hear her say "activist judge."

[innerSpaceman]

Walker expected to rule on the Stay of his Decision within the hour.

(This posted at 11am, Thursday, August 13)

[innerSpaceman]

NO? REALLY? SERIOUSLY? OMG!!!- Then burst out in tears.


That was my reaction moments ago when I learned that my new fearless hero, Judge Vaughn Walker, has refused to stay his decision in the Prop 8 case, and in-love gay couples - many of whom are lined up right now at City Hall in San Francisco and other locations, may be issued marriage licenses immediately!!!!!!



I can hardly believe it, and I'm crying again as I type this. Fvck, wha's going on?? - I can't control my emotions.



(oh yeah, when have I ever been able to?)



:cheers: :snap: :cheers: :snap: :cheers: :snap: :cheers: :snap: :cheers: :snap: :cheers: :snap:

[Chernabog]

Wow... BJ and I are on a train right now traveling from Montreal to Toronto, watching the live feed. Crazy!!!! Since CA has to recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions, (per something that Schwartzenegger actually DID sign) maybe we should elope? LOL my parents, brother and sister in law are all here so.... ;) Nawwww...... BJ is reading over my shoulder and he is not amused :p

[innerSpaceman]

Not amused? He's lucky to have you ... and you him. You can legally get married in Canada, and it would be recognized when you return to California. Your family is with you. Do it!


Besides, you live in California. You can get divorced at the drop of a hat.



I like BJ a lot, but what's wrong with him??? ;)

[Chernabog]

I'm looking at the ruling however, and it seems as though Judge Walker is deferring to the 9th circuit court of appeals?? So there IS still a stay.... (despite the Motion being denied... Judge Walker seeing no reason to have a stay).

OK so basically, he's allowing until August 18th at 5:00pm PST for the 9th Circuit court of appeals to do anything, and if they havent issued a stay by then, then Prop 8 is lifted.

I'm pretty sure the 9th circuit will stay the thing, but who knows???

[innerSpaceman]

That's ok, I was pretty sure Judge Vaughn would keep the stay - knowing that the Ninth Circuit would uphold it anyway.

So who knows indeed?

[Alex]

I haven't read the decision yet but apparently Walker also said in today's thing that the Prop 8 people won't have standing to appeal. Of course, higher courts could disagree.

[innerSpaceman]

He cites numerous case law to support that position. Seeing that he's the Chief Justice of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume he knows what he's talking about.

According to Walker, the defendant-intervenors would have to show that THEY, and not the State of California, and not the gay and lesbian citizens of California, would suffer serious harm in order to gain the standing to appeal, which they DO NOT have, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, simply by being the proponents of a ballot initiative proposition that was ruled unconstitutional.

The intervenors were granted opportunity at trial to demonstrate or even state any harm they would suffer if Prop 8 were enjoined, and they failed to do so.


In their motion for a stay, they allude to harm suffered by the State of California, and - amazingly (with chutzpah!) to gays and lesbians whose marriages might be "clouded" by uncertainty if they are married before appeals are decided.


But Governor Terminator and Attorney General Moonbeam represent the State of California; the intervenors do not. Both state officials have supported a lift of the stay (and apparently will not appeal the decision, though they may very well be the only ones with standing to do so.)

As for the intervenors' other, rather specious claim of harm, Judge Walker says it best in today's Order:

Proponents also point to harm resulting from a "cloud of uncertainty" surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents' appeal is resolved. Proponents have not, however, alleged that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse.

Oooh, snap!

He goes on ...
Both plaintiffs and the state defendants have disavowed the harms implied by proponents. Plaintiffs assert that "gay men and lesbians are more than capable of determining whether they, as individuals who now enjoy the freedom to marry, wish to do so immediately or wait until all appeals have run their course."

Proponents do not explain the basis for their belief that marriages performed absent a stay would suffer from a "cloud of uncertainty." The court has the authority to enjoin defendants from enforcing Proposition 8. It appears, then, that marriages performed pursuant to a valid injunction would be lawful, much like the 18,000 marriages performed before the passage of Proposition 8 in November 2008.


And that's just a touch of the total smack-down Vaughn plants on the H8ers.

Read the entire order here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/35799834/Final-Stay-Order). It's a hoot. And it's justice on a plate!

[Kevy Baby]

BJ is reading over my shoulder and he is not amused :p

I like BJ a lot, but what's wrong with him??? ;)Seriously: you shaved the really cute beard that everybody BUT BJ liked. What more does he want?!?

[Gemini Cricket]

I like BJ a lot...
Hee hee.

[innerSpaceman]

me gay, me like BJ whole lots.

[JWBear]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_t6rV3U9ZEHM/TGRFYlw30KI/AAAAAAAA47M/iyMHGZOJIAs/s1600/MarriageBears.jpg

[Gemini Cricket]

"Good things come in bears!"

:D

[Ghoulish Delight]

Favorite stupid sign from the H8ers seen in photos today: "A Moral Wrong Can't Be A Civil Right".

Ummm, since when?

[innerSpaceman]

It cracks me up that it's seeming to be Conservatives' best bet to simply give up on California, and allow the case to die here - without going on to an appeals court.

Cases affirmed on appeal carry roughly a billion times the precedent weight of a lower court decision. If the Ninth Circuit affirms, even though the case is tied to California in myriad ways, the precedent could be used to challenge gay marriage bans across the nation.

Worse yet, the conservo-fundies are not even sure the Supremes could be counted on to reverse Judge Walker's rulings, now that they've had to chance to examine them and have discovered their impenetrable awesomeness.


In some conservative quarters, it's already looking like giving up California for the sake of being able to carry on bigotry in 44 other states would be a wise strategic retreat. Seeing as there's an easy way out ... in fact, perhaps an automatic way out (it's looking less and less like anyone with standing will make an appeal) - restoring equal marriage to California may be what Conservatives are hoping for.


That's delicious irony. I think I'll enjoy the taste for a few days


... but hope that the Ninth Circuit finds some way to take the case anyway.

And I believe they will. Now that we're on a roll, it would be a shame to stop here. It's a roll of the dice I'd be willing to take ... the stakes are too high not to try. Marriage in California for gays is marriage in name only - without the federal rights that accompany straight marriage.

So while I was giddy for a while today at the thought of gay marriages starting up again, I think it would be best if the Ninth Circuit ignored the law and allowed the H8ers to appeal.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Just realized that hopefully, all that money the Mormons and other H8ers spent was completely in vain. :D

[Alex]

One side effect if there is no appeal is that another Prop 8 could be passed and they just hope the next judge, not particularly bound by Judge Walker's decision, comes to a different conclusion

[innerSpaceman]

Sorry, Alex, that's not the way it works. California is indeed bound by Judge Walker's decision.

Measures don't get on the ballot by themselves. The attorney general has to approve measures, and it costs around $3 million dollars to get the necessary signatures. Technically, you are correct that a new measure would have to be enjoined by a new judge - but since that would now be done in a heartbeat, I doubt anyone's going to throw around the money needed, nor would an attorney general be likely to go along.


What I'm wondering is whether the language of prop 8 (marriage in California is between a man and a woman) remains in the Constitution, while Walker's order "merely" prevents enforcement of it.

Another curiosity is that Judge Walker's stay merely delays the Clerk from entering judgment. The decision remains, and nothing prevents the state from voluntarily obeying it. They are not forced to, but they may stop enforcing prop 8 right now if they want to, and would in no way be violating the law.


Interesting technicalities that ... as a law junkie ... I'm following with deep curiosity.






Edited to add: Apparently Alabama kept their state constitutional ban on interracial marriage on the books for 33 years after the U.S. Supreme Court rules such laws unconstitutional. Even then, the repeal got only 60% of the votes. (Perhaps the other 40% were hoping slavery would come back in vogue at some point.)

[BarTopDancer]

Seriously: you shaved the really cute beard that everybody BUT BJ liked. What more does he want?!?

Not everybody. I didn't like it either ;)

[Alex]

California is indeed bound by Judge Walker's decision.

Yes, that is true. I'm not saying what will happen but what could happen by leaving this settled at the District court level. And regardless of how likely it is that it would happen, it could happen.

If, by whatever means, California once again banned gay marriage it would be a new legal issue and you might get a judge that says "Judge Walker already handled this one" or you might get a judge that says "Judge Walker's a wanker and babbled nonsense."

But I agree it is unlikely to happen any time soon. Though isn't it the Secretary of State that has to approve ballot initiatives, not the Attorney General? If elected, I don't see Damon Dunn (or Steve Cooley if it is the Attorney General) throwing themselves in front of a train to prevent another version of Prop 8 getting on the ballot.

[innerSpaceman]

From what I understand (and perhaps I'm a little rusty), it is indeed the Secretary of State that approves ballot measures, but the Attorney General reviews them for the barest baseline violation of constitutionality (the Secretary of State having so such authority). This is usually a technicality, as I don't think even the most egregious ballot measures have been denied by the Attorney General ... but one which repeats a state constitutional amendment already ruled by a federal court to violate the U.S. constitution would, I assume, finally trigger the AG to act.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I want to make sure I have this right. This cannot be appealed, so the judge's decision stands, unless some new action (such as a ballot initiative or legislative action) begins the whole process again?

If so, then we're set for a while, right? Probably until 2012?

[Alex]

Perhaps, but I believe that Steve Cooley (the Republican candidate for AG) is on record (I believe) that he thinks Walker's decision is wrong and that it needs to be appealed to higher levels. If denied that appeal, would you rely on him to not generate the situation in which the opportunity would recur?

Anyway, like you I don't think it is all that likely. I was just pointing out that if somehow the question comes up again and it has only been dealt with at the district level then Walker has minimal precendential weight for the next judge if that judge disagrees.

[Alex]

This cannot be appealed, so the judge's decision stands,

Judge Walker has given his reasons for why he doesn't think the people who want to appeal have standing to appeal (and it is a good argument, though I am not devoid of confirmation bias since I like the outcome that results). But ultimately he doesn't get to make that decision, if the 9th Circuit or Supreme Court disagrees then the pro-8 people will be able to appeal. Otherwise it is left to the State of California to initiate the appeal and Brown and Schwarzenegger have said they don't plan to.

I assume that the deadline to appeal is before the next governor/AG will be in office and therefore if those went Republican they wouldn't have the option to appeal.

[innerSpaceman]

I guess you're right, Alex. If an AG wants to ignore the law and let others spend $3 Million to get something on the ballot, there's nothing to stop them.

Jen, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will next decide whether to do an end-run around the law and let the Prop 8 proponents appeal without legal standing to do so. If they deny them standing, the U.S. Supreme Court will have a shot at it. So it's too early to say they "cannot" appeal the decision.

My gut feeling is that the Ninth Circuit wants to hear the case, but will be mindful of the law prohibiting an appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court wouldn't care about the prohibition - but would prefer to duck the case for now.



ETA: Alex, the deadline to appeal is 30 days from the date of the decision, roughly 3 weeks from now. Long before the next election.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Thanks for the clarifications. I've got my markers ready for more protest signs if needed. :cheers:

[SzczerbiakManiac]

The 9th Circuit Court of appeals has granted Prop 8 proponents a stay on Judge Walker's ruling while it is appealed.

the legalese (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM156_ninth_circuit_appeal.html)

[Ghoulish Delight]

The other thing of note in that document is that it puts the burden on the appealers to prove they have standing to do so.

[innerSpaceman]

I can hardly have confidence the Ninth Circuit will rule correctly on the standing issue when they just blatantly ignored the grounds for granting a stay.

[Disneyphile]

:(

People piss me the hell off sometimes.

[Chernabog]

I can hardly have confidence the Ninth Circuit will rule correctly on the standing issue when they just blatantly ignored the grounds for granting a stay.

To be fair to the 9th Circuit, the order doesn't say WHY they granted the stay. I doubt that it would fall under the abuse of discretion standard.

Did you really think the 9th circuit would NOT order a stay? I mean I was hoping, but there was like a 1 in a million chance.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Now more No More Mr. Nice Gay. Sigh.

[innerSpaceman]

Did you really think the 9th circuit would NOT order a stay? I mean I was hoping, but there was like a 1 in a million chance.
No, a stay pending appeal is pretty typical. But I'd like to know on what grounds it was granted, other than tradition. It seems to me the prudent thing to do, but it also seems to fly in the face of all the requirements for a stay.

I want nothing more from the courts than for the law to be followed.



Pfft, I also hope the Prop 8 Proponents are granted standing, so the case can actually be appealed. But I don't want the law flouted in order to get there. If they don't have standing, then that should unfortunately be the end of it.

[Alex]

If Judge Walker's ruling is eventually overturned, what would the status then be of any marriages from the period in between (if a stay had not been granted).

After Prop 8, I thought it pretty clear that the marriages that already existed should continue as there was no dispute that they were entirely legal during that too short window.

But for marriages allowed because a judge erroneously (technically) ruled in their favor it seems to me the case is much stronger that those marriages should be voided. That seems an acceptable justification, to me, to grant a stay.

I'm no expert, of course, so if this stay does fly in the face of established procedure or law I'd live pointers to more information. None of my usual law blog sources have expressed any real surprise at the stay or thought it technically inappropriate.

[innerSpaceman]

Any such marriages would be valid. It was already ruled in the Strauss case (the one involving the 18,000 pre-prop 8 marriages) that marriage rights vest upon a lawful marriage. In other words, if your marriage is legal when it happens, it remains legal no matter what.

Judge Walker's order is merely stayed. It is not invalidated. Even if it is later overturned on appeal, it is the law of the land today. If there were no stay on his injunction of Prop 8 and gay couples married by the trillions, all trillion marriages would be valid in perpetuity because they were legal at the time of marriage.


As for pointers in the right direction, the four factors a court looks to in deciding whether a stay is appropriate are: (1) whether (in this case) the Prop 8 proponents have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether proponents will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether the stay will substantially injure other interested parties; and (4) whether the stay is in the public interest.

Clearly, even to the common observer, the first 3 factors do not weigh in favor of a stay. Perhaps the Ninth Circuit granted it based on the 4th factor, since that seems rather amorphous and can mean practically anything. But the Court of Appeal did not state any reason for granting their stay in their very brief order.

In any event, the first two factors "are the most critical," according to the Supreme Court in Nken v. Holder (2009). So I still think the stay was granted simply as a matter of tradition and prudent practice on a politically charged issue, and not in accordance with the legal factors for granting a stay.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Gay/Equality Protest Signs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9gbQKwOh68) (humorous)

We've seen some of these before, but I thoroughly enjoyed the video.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Nanny Queen.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUJQXNCefyM) by Varla Jean Merman

[Chernabog]

Nanny Queen.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUJQXNCefyM) by Varla Jean Merman

OK now that was fvcking hilarious. :D :D

[lashbear]

"I brought my own bottle!" :D

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Nanny Queen.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUJQXNCefyM) by Varla Jean MermanHeh, she's pretty talented!

[Chernabog]

OK I am now officially obsessed with Varla Jean Merman (thanks to Szczerbiak's post above). Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA9tRXzDM_o&feature=related) a promo video for her... what a performer!!!

She has a youtube channel...... check out her mashup (http://www.youtube.com/user/jtroberson#p/u/1/b1PM3TWC1s4) of The Magic Flute and Lady Gaga. She has seriously restored my faith in drag.

[JWBear]

Jake Gyllenhaal with a beard and tank top: :D

http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef01348680d454970c-pi

[Ghoulish Delight]

That makes him look like Bryan Cranston.

[innerSpaceman]

Jake Gyllenhaal with a beard and tank top: :D


I thought Reese Witherspoon was his beard. :confused:

[Scrooge McSam]

Why did I wait so long to join Netflix?

I've just seen "Lilies" with Danny Gilmore and Jason Cadieux. I can't recall the last time I've been so moved by a so-called "gay film".

[SzczerbiakManiac]

The Changing Faces of Gay Male Porn (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-life-the-american-male/201008/the-beautiful-men-gay-male-pornography): Are American gay men finally diversifying?

It's discussing porn, but it doesn't use "bad" language nor have pictures (dammit), so I'd say it's 99% work safe.

[Chernabog]

Maggie Gallagher tries to get into heaven.... (http://www.towleroad.com/2010/08/watch-maggie-gallagher-attempts-to-enter-heaven.html#more) Love it! :)

[innerSpaceman]

Tee Hee, my friend Rob Tisinai's first venture into animation!

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Stop8.org Takes Down NOM's Lies About Prop 8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8QdroQgWn8)

[Kevy Baby]

Stop8.org Takes Down NOM's Lies About Prop 8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8QdroQgWn8)Very good. Glad they had subtitles. Is the transcript of that available?

[innerSpaceman]

It's preaching to the choir, but a good sermon anyway.


Somehow I doubt anyone under the influence of NOM is ever going to see that video - just as I would never have seen NOM's video if it weren't for that rebuttal.


(Can we say "rebuttal" in a gay context - or is that too racy?)

[JWBear]

A young Ian McKellen:

http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef0134869c9c67970c-800wi

[MouseWife]

Wow. He is handsome.

[Alex]

Hmm...my reaction was he looks just as odd 50 years ago as he does now.

[innerSpaceman]

I've read some speculation that the photo's a fake. And considering what they did to hideously "youthen" Magneto in the last X-Men film, I guess you can't put anything past technology.

[JWBear]

Why would it be fake? He was already a well known stage actor by that time, and they did have cameras.

Here is a page of photos (http://www.mckellen.com/galleries/06.htm) of him from the early 60's from his web page.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

It's preaching to the choir, but a good sermon anyway.Thought I totally understand why one might say that, I didn't see it that way. To me, it's ammo to use against the fundies when you talk to them face to face. Of course, they will never be won over (we must wait for them to die), but we can certainly use that to graciously rub their ignorance in their face and win the (polite) argument should we be unfortunate to encounter one in person. Like, for instance, at a family gathering.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

The photo seems very current in style and composition.

If it is real, it's rad.

[innerSpaceman]

Why would it be fake? He was already a well known stage actor by that time, and they did have cameras.

The photo seems very current in style and composition.

That's it, in a nutshell. At least, that's some of the opinions I've read which, on a very casual examination of that photo, seem to have some passing merit.

I certainly haven't examined the photos you linked to before assessing that merit, and I'll do so before I form any opinion of my own. I'd like the photo to be real. I'm quite taken with its portrait of young Ian.

[MouseWife]

Hmm...my reaction was he looks just as odd 50 years ago as he does now.

Odd maybe in that his eyes seem so small. But, yes, CP, quite current in style/composition.

He looks, um, old saying 'GQ' here. And, those GQ models weren't always typically handsome. It was the way they were presented sometimes.

I do get what you are saying, iSm, um, did they have color back then? LOL How old is he? Kind of reminds me of the kid from 'Sixth Sense'.

[JWBear]

Steve, could you provide me links to where people are saying it's a fake? I want to see people's reasonings, because I'm just not seeing why this couldn't have been taken in the early 60's. And why would anyone fake something like this?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

And why would anyone fake something like this?Because it looks awesome.

[Chernabog]

Varla Jean Merman will be in Silverlake (http://www.varlaonline.com/index.php?view=details&id=28%3Avarla-jean-merman-the-loose-chanteuse&option=com_eventlist&Itemid=12) in January from the 6th to the 15th!!!!

We are so having an outing.

[innerSpaceman]

Hmmm, is this the second time in as many months that I get to read an articulate, persuasive, logical and considered federal court decision (http://www.scribd.com/doc/37183776/DADT-Unconstitutional), issued after a full evidenciary trial, that completely demolishes the government's discriminatory policies towards gays and lesbians? This time, about Don't Ask Don't Tell?

Oh, in case you hadn't heard, a federal district court judge in Riverside County has ruled Don't Ask Don't Tell unconstitutional, and has ordered the army to stop enforcing it. Turns out DADT violates Americans' free speech rights and due process rights, and is a detriment to, rather than serves, any government interest in military preparedness and military unit cohesion. Whoulda thunk?


Was this barely a month or two after that other federal district court judge in California demolished the proposition of banning gay marriage?

It's wonderful to read the decisions in these cases - intelligent analysis of trial proceedings with all available witnesses and evidence considered, the law carefully and consistently applied, and justice plainly served. On the other hand, though - the decades of time, the vast amounts of energy and money expended on litigation and trials - all for results that are of the commonest common sense of human D'UH.


:D

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I know it's wrong to put this announcement in this thread because Liberace was famously heterosexual, but if you ever wanted to see his museum (http://www.liberace.org/The-Liberace-Museum.htm), you better do it soon (http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/blogs/kats-report/2010/sep/10/liberace-museum-closing/).

In all seriousness though, if you have not been, I highly recommend it.

[alphabassettgrrl]

It's *closing*?????? OH, NOOOO!!!!

I'm glad I did get to see it since I don't think I'll be able to hit Vegas by Oct 17. Anybody in the area, do go see it. Astonishing. Wonderful. His cars, his pianos, his dishes, some of his costumes... wonderful things. Even some of his jewelry.

[CoasterMatt]

Aw man... I love some of the jackets he wore.

[innerSpaceman]

Maybe they'll be for sale now, and you can add to your collection.

[Gemini Cricket]

Liberace. She was fabulous.

[JWBear]

Mildred Pierce remake coming to HBO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzgL7emRnXs)

[Chernabog]

I just saw the trailer for that JWB! It looks awesome.

[BarTopDancer]

I recall reading that there was a deadline to file an appeal in Prop 8 and I thought it was on 9-11. Though Saturday is a bizarre day to have a court deadline.

Last I heard the state said the Governator and Brown didn't have to defend it and some of the bigots who were supporting it wanted to defend it in the "states interests". Did anything ever come of that?

[Chernabog]

There has already been an appeal filed (the notice of appeal was filed almost immediately after Walker's decision went down). There are briefing deadlines set (though I doubt that one of the due dates was a Saturday, since the courts are closed on the weekends).

Even if the bigots brief the matter, the court of appeals could rule that they do not have standing, and more or less end the lawsuit if nobody else intervenes.

[innerSpaceman]

Hahaha, the H8ers actually filed a suit in state court to FORCE the attorney general (Jerry Brown) to file an appeal. Um, no, he has wide discretion and the state court threw the case out. The H8ers then filed an emergency appeal of that to the state supreme court, and they too told them to take a hike.

Now the H8ers are trying to pressure the lt. governor to file an appeal while he has temporary governor authority, as the governator is currently in China. Heheh, the last time that happened was in the 70's or 80's when, teehee, Jerry Brown was governor. The then-lt. gov. signed some controversial law - but Brown simply reversed the action when he returned to the state - - so this is another act of desperation that's going nowhere.

Technically, the H8ers don't have legal standing on their own to appeal the federal district ruling of Judge Walker. They are not harmed in any way by the ruling, and they are not tasked with implementing it. Nonetheless, it's a political hot potato of unreasonable proportions -so I wouldn't be surprised if the Ninth Circuit bends the law a little bit and decides to hear the appeal.


Stay tuned ... in gay speak, it's going to be a bumpy year. :cheers:

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Literally (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/literally)!

http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/literally/1.png
http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/literally/2.png
http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/literally/3.png
http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/literally/4.png
http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/literally/5.png

[JWBear]

People literally use that term too much.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Queerantine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO9C9EG_btA)!

[Chernabog]

Hahah I love this:

If the Tea Party Ran the Sunday Funnies (http://www.towleroad.com/2010/09/if-the-tea-party-ran-the-sunday-funnies.html)

[SzczerbiakManiac]

G.A.Y.S. (Guys Against You Serving) (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/4e70cc3b22/g-a-y-s-guys-against-you-serving?rel=player)

[Alex]

More or Less is a BBC Radio series that examines statistics used in our daily discourse.

The most recent show (http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/moreorless) leads off with a discussion on attempts to quantify the percentage of the population that is gay and issues one runs into doing so.

Many interesting (to me anyway) points are raised along the way and I thought it might be interesting to some.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Yesterday, one of my customers mentioned Gay Days at Disneyland this weekend. Who knew? So, anyone going? I saw tweets from Mark and Mindy from the park, so I know they're representing the Gays of the LoT. Anyone else?

Since getting back from WDW on Monday, this is my first day to rest, and Joe and BJ have no plans to go to the park. What has become of us?

I'm not ready to be an eldergay!

[Morrigoon]

No AP, no red shirt for me :( Sad panda.

[innerSpaceman]

Can't possibly make it. I think I stopped going years ago because it kept being the same old thing.

As it turns out, I could have gone today with some friends I'd never been to Gay Day with, including one who says he's never been to Disneyland!


But, this has turned into one of the busiest weekends of my life, and that's saying a lot. (Unless a certain project for tomorrow gets 86'd, which I'm sorta hoping for at this point.)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I'm not ready to be an eldergay!Nah, you're just too cool to do something that is SOOOO five years ago. ;)

[Chernabog]

Haha well I had to work yesterday. And today. But I'll be going next year :)

[katiesue]

Maddie and I went yesterday but I forgot that is was Gay Days till we were almost there so no shirts for us. But Maddie did think it was great that there were so many red shirts in the park. I can't remember any specifically but there were so pretty funny ones as well.

[blueerica]

Protest I didn't know about until (http://chattahbox.com/us/2010/10/08/pro-gay-in-salt-lake-city-the-protest/) my friend asked if I saw him on TV last night.

Things are getting' crazy up in the SLC.

[BarTopDancer]

Protest I didn't know about until (http://chattahbox.com/us/2010/10/08/pro-gay-in-salt-lake-city-the-protest/) my friend asked if I saw him on TV last night.

Things are getting' crazy up in the SLC.

Protesting might be just the thing to get me to go to the F'in UT ;)

[Kevy Baby]

When I clicked the link, I got a Pro Sarah Palin pop-under ad.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Something Gay happened in the news today, and then all the comment threads on the new sites turned into fvckery.

[Gemini Cricket]

DADT suspended (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11528661)

[Alex]

Well, scaeagles can be happy to know that (I presume) people will be saying nice things about Republicans in this thread.

Though I assume the injunction will be overturned by the 9th.

[JWBear]

Well... some Republicans, maybe... ;)

The ball is in the DOJ's court, as far as an appeal goes. If Obama is smart, he'll order the DOJ to not appeal.

[Alex]

He does have that option but I think the last two years has shown that he also believes strongly in the traditional obligation of the executive to defend duly enacted legislation regardless of his personal opinion on it.

So I'd be surprised (semi-pleasantly since I generally agree with that principal but also want to see DADT ended ASAP) if the administration doesn't appeal.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh yes, he's so smart, his justice department appealed the federal ruling declaring DOMA unconstitutional on the same day another federal judge issued a worldwide injunction halting enforcement of DADT after she declared that homophobic relic unconstitutional.

Brilliant way to alienate your progressive base 3 weeks before an electoral debacle. Oh, and he's certainly giving new meaning to the phrase "fierce advocate."


So yes, Obama is an ass, a backstabber, a liar, and a homophobic hypocrite. If anyone remembers the slur I used a few months back that nearly got me banned from here, I reiterate it in spirit.


In appealing the DOMA decision, which it is in no way obliged to do, the Justice Dept. declares it was just doing its job. Why do I hear that line with a German accent?

[Alex]

Because you disagree with him on this issue?

But this is a view of executive obligation that he expressed before he was elected so it isn't really a surprise to me.

That said, they could certainly sell it better. "We disagree with the law and hope that by appealing it to the highest authorities it will settle the issue nationally in favor of equal rights for everybody rather than just having a hodgepodge of individual regional rulings with minimal precedential weight."

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, Alex, because as a progressive and as a gay man, he's thrown me and mine under the bus at every opportunity. He's weak, and spineless, and a lying rat bastard and a bigot and a hypocrite and a sorry excuse for a man.

[Alex]

Wasn't arguing with you're reasons to be angry, just was answering your rhetorical question about the German accent.

You disagree strongly and so, as is your wont to lash out in the most extreme way possible, you go to the Nazi ****** realm of rhetoric.

[BarTopDancer]

Didn't iSm just Goodwin this thread?

[Kevy Baby]

Didn't iSm just Goodwin this thread?No; Alex did

[Chernabog]

Fvck Obama. Amazing how Dear Leader.. errr I mean fierce advocate drove me straight out of the Democratic Party. The DOJ is under NO obligation to defend this, and what is worse is that the DOJ defends EVERY SINGLE unconstitutional law that screws over the gays and chooses not to on other issues.

Even past presidents have chosen not to defend laws they didn't like: (posted from Americablog) George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.")

Obama threw us under the bus -multiple times now. And those stupid A-list HRC gays who throw money at him and cheer him on at cocktail parties where he asks for more money. Screw those Uncle Tom bastards. They deserve to have this country run by the brain-dead willfully-ignorant teabaggers and their bigoted bible-thumping republican cousins. Take back America? Relocate me to Canada and you can have it.

[scaeagles]

Well, scaeagles can be happy to know that (I presume) people will be saying nice things about Republicans in this thread.

I don't much care about saying nice things about the party of republicans. To me it is about certain ideologies. Just as a couple examples, I couldn't find any joy in defendinf McCain or voting vote him two years ago, and I shot of criticism after criticism of Bush for spending too much money.

I can understand how Chernabog and ISM feel from a political standpoint. You have someone who has claimed he will be a champion for your primary cause and fails time after time to do so, all the while counting on your vote because he knows you won't turn to the other party.

This is precisely what happened during the Bush years. This is what has led to the Tea Party movement, which isn't so much against democrats as it is against what the republican party has become.

[JWBear]

If the tea party isn't anti-Democrat, then why are they all running as Republicans?

[Chernabog]

I can understand how Chernabog and ISM feel from a political standpoint. You have someone who has claimed he will be a champion for your primary cause and fails time after time to do so, all the while counting on your vote because he knows you won't turn to the other party.


You hit the nail on the head right there.

Obama says "I'll help you! I'll really really help you! Hope hope change change hope hope!"

You smile at Obama.

Then Obama kicks you in the balls.

While you're grimacing in pain, you ask "why did you kick me in the balls?"

Obama says "well, if you voted for the other guy, he would have kicked you in the balls three times!"

You ask, "But why did you have to kick me in the balls at all? You said you'd help me, and now my balls hurt real bad!"

Obama says, "really, until Congress outlaws ball kicking entirely, Jupiter aligns with Mars, and Jesus Christ returns to earth, I have to exercise my rights and my famed ability to rochambeau. But until then, would you like to buy me a cocktail for helping you?"

[JWBear]

And it's not just gays. All progressives are getting kicked.

[innerSpaceman]

Yep, he's driven the base away from the Democratic party or - at best - left them feeling so helpless to do anything but vote against Republicans and not FOR Democrats that they are demoralized and, despite their fears of worse to come, will stay away from the polls in droves. Brilliant strategy of re-election leadership.
:rolleyes:

Now the line coming from the White House, and I can hardly contain my laughter and disgust, is that Obama's justice department must appeal decisions he personally disagrees with, such as those on DOMA and DADT, lest a future Republican president fail to appeal future decisions ruling against, for example, the constitutionality of the health care bill.

OMG. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Either he's lying through his big teeth or he's the stupidest man alive. And, I'll give him one thing, he's the most intelligent president we've had in generations.

His idea of bowing down and granting ground to the Republicans in gestures to gain acquiescence on their parts was noble the first time, and perhaps the tenth. It has never worked, and if he doesn't know by now it never will - then I take back what I just wrote about his intelligence.


Nope, the thought that some future Republican president will refrain from appealing an anti-health bill ruling simply because he pursued the vitality of unconstitutional discriminatory laws with vigor against the mutually-hated queers of America is laughable in a madman sort of way.


So, yeah, I'm pretty mad.

[scaeagles]

If the tea party isn't anti-Democrat, then why are they all running as Republicans?

Because it is about getting rid of the republican establishment that they believe have moved away from fiscal conservatism. Of course in the general they will be anti democrat because they are running against democrats. The movement, however, isn't about getting rid of democrats. It's about getting rid of republicans they feel act too much like the opposition party.

[Alex]

Isn't it about both? They still seem to be quite vigorous in their campaigns against Democrats even once they've successfully guaranteed that the incumbent Republican will not be returning to office.

And if it is just about getting rid of RINOs why did the movement only swell to fruition at the moment that the RINOs no longer had the reins of power?

[scaeagles]

If the republican party was still fiscally conservative there would be no tea party. They would throw their full support behind the existing republican establishment. So that's why it was born. Of course there will be opposition to the democrats, but it wasn't born out of opposition to them - it was born out of opposition to the republican establishment.

[JWBear]

Ok... then why all the anti-Obama signs at tea party rallys?

[scaeagles]

That is a good point, no denying that.

However, I still maintain that if the Republicans were fiscally responsible there would be no tea party movement. The tea partiers would be at republican rallies holding up anti-Obama signs rather than tea party rallies doing the same.

[innerSpaceman]

Take all this Teabagger stuff out of the gay thread, huh?







They can be Tea Partiers in the political thread if you like, but not here. :p

[Alex]

Question that may clarify for me your view.

Do you view the Tea Party movement as it currently exists as the same thing as the Tea Party movement that started with the Ron Paul candidacy?

I'd argue that the latter is essentially distinct at this point from the Tea Party movement re-inspired by Rick Santelli and other folks in specific response to Obama's economic stimulus and mortgage bailout plans (including many folk who had been strangely silent when faced with Bush's somewhat similar plans).

[Alex]

Didn't see the last post by ISM, it was on a different page. If scaeagles wants to answer int he politics thread I'll follow there.

[Gemini Cricket]

I don't know if it's the drugs or me getting older or what but I'm not all that upset.

I can't sit and wait for the country's leaders to shift their thinking and get on board with LGBT rights. I can write letters, be a 'role model' for other gay guys wanting to come out and I can attend the odd protest or two BUT my happiness and my destiny is in my hands.

The best revenge on the close-minded politicians, churches and haters out there is to be happy. And that's what I'm striving for. If I focus on what's bad, that's all I'll get - bad news. I'm trying hard to find the good that's happening. I'm delighted in our court system right now. I'm loving the DADT ruling that came forth. I'm happy that PropH8 was found unconstitutional. I'm ecstatic that I have been talking to a wonderful man the past two months who is moving to O`ahu finally. I'm onstage making people laugh. I got a call this morning from someone who called the show 'joyful'. That's a big deal for me.

I look at these candidates running for office, these church leaders all red-faced and loud, these talking heads on cable news, even many of these gay rights advocates, and all I see is anger and misery. I've had enough of anger and misery.

Yes, I'm disappointed in our president when it comes to gay issues but I'm also aware that he has done great things for our country so far. In fact, I just read a Rolling Stone article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/220013) that I mostly agree with. It's not all bad.

[JWBear]

That is a good point, no denying that.

However, I still maintain that if the Republicans were fiscally responsible there would be no tea party movement. The tea partiers would be at republican rallies holding up anti-Obama signs rather than tea party rallies doing the same.

I disagree. My observation is that they were anti-Obama and anti-Democrat in the begining, and only became anti-establisment Republican later.

[innerSpaceman]

And Alex, you or anyone is free to discuss the Tea Baggers here, but you must call them Tea Baggers while in this particular thread. That's the rule. :cool:

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Rudolf Brazda, the last known "Pink Triangle" survivor of Buchenwald Concentration Camp, tells his story (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-1uFsOXWhQ)

[Chernabog]

Here's more proof about what I was saying earlier about Dear Leader:

During a rally in Boston yesterday, a group of gay rights activists and AIDS research supporters interrupted a speech from President Obama while he was stumping for Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. Reportedly chants included "Mr. President, stop the bigotry! Support marriage equality!," "Do you also oppose Atheist Marriage?," and "Would
you want a Civil Union?"

Mediaite reports on the incident, which seemed to noticeably agitate the president:

"The President appeared uncharacteristically upset as, mid-sentence, a group of folks in the crowd began to loudly object to his speech as he described the work his administration had done for AIDS research. As the crowd turned their heads up to look at the hecklers, President Obama followed as well, and modified his speech for them, menacingly pointing his finger up at them as he warned that a Republican leadership would be extremely destructive to their cause. After raising his voice mid-sentence in response to them, President Obama continued: “One of the great things about being a Democrat is, we like arguing with each other. But to the folks concerned about AIDS funding, I would say ‘take a look at what the Republican leadership has to say about AIDS funding.’”

And again, there's that rhetoric -- hey, you think I'm bad, look at what the other guy would have done!!!!

Ummmmmm how about having good policies and ethics yourself! The other guy wasn't elected, YOU were elected. So grow a fvcking spine.

Now, what's doubly stupid about the above response by Obama is that one of the very few things Georgie W. Bush did well was ..... AIDS FUNDING.

[innerSpaceman]

Jon Stewart took the Dem Party Chairman to task a few weeks back for their stated midterm election campaign strategy, which was - in essence - We Suck Less Than The Republicans.


Sheesh.

[JWBear]

I'm beginning to think we need a benevolent dictator.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Many young Broadway stars recorded a song called "It Gets Better" to raise awareness and give hope to LGBT youth contemplating drastic actions. The song was written by Jay Kuo and Blair Shepard. It will be available for purchase via iTunes on October 19th but you can see it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeKI8biAglU). Proceeds benefit The Trevor Project (http://www.thetrevorproject.org/).

[Mousey Girl]

Many young Broadway stars recorded a song called "It Gets Better" to raise awareness and give hope to LGBT youth contemplating drastic actions. The song was written by Jay Kuo and Blair Shepard. It will be available for purchase via iTunes on October 19th but you can see it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeKI8biAglU). Proceeds benefit The Trevor Project (http://www.thetrevorproject.org/).

While I appreciate all of the stuff aimed towards young people not taking their own life, I really wish they would either quit using Seth Walsh as their posterboy or at least report the ENTIRE truth on the many things that contributed to his suicide.

[Chernabog]

I'm beginning to think we need a benevolent dictator.

I would totally swear fealty to Oprah!

[Kevy Baby]

Heard about this on the radio this morning and was just so amused by the ridiculousness of it, I had to share.

There is a group called "Love God's Way" that has come up with a list of 'Gay' music:

One of the most dangerous ways Homosexuality invades family life is through popular music. Parents, please keep careful watch over your children’s listening habits. Especially in this age of Internet mp3 piracy.
There are multiple levels of Gay Music. Some bands are what we like to call Gateway Bands. They lure children in with Pop Grooves and Salacious Melodies leaving them wanting more. They’ll move on to more dangerous bands and the next thing you know you’ve got a homosexual for a child.
We’ve taken the time to highlight the bands that are particularly Gay. Please take the time and dissect your child’s CD / iTunes catalog. If you find 3 or more of these bands in their collection it is time to take action.
We Strongly recommend that you burn the CDs. Make sure your child is watching. Make sure they can feel the heat. It is crucial that the image remains emblazoned in their young minds. They need to know that if they continue to listen to these bands they may Burn eternally as well.You can see the whole list here (http://www.lovegodsway.org/GayBands), but some that caught my eye include (the parenthetical notes are theirs):
Lil'Wayne
George Strait
Toby Keith (cowboy)
Ravi Shankar
The Doors
Phish
Metallica
The Rolling Stones
Kansas
Eminmen
Nirvana
Ted Nugent (loincloth)
Frank Sinatra
Tom Waits
The Cramps I think my favorite entry on the list is a band that I am not familiar with, but I loved their parenthetical note on them:

The Butchies (lizbians)There is also a safe list (http://www.lovegodsway.org/SafeBands), not surprisingly dominated by Christian acts such as Jars of Clay and Michael W. Smith, but four "safe" bands that just amused me were:

Cyndi Lauper
Dresden Dolls
Blondie
Cheap Trick

[Ghoulish Delight]

Heard about this on the radio this morning and was just so amused by the ridiculousness of it, I had to share.
Yes. Ridiculous enough to make me very skeptical.

And rightly so, as it turns out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donnie_Davies). It seems to be a strange and not very funny attempt at some sort of satire.

[blueerica]

That website almost seems like a joke....

[Ghoulish Delight]

See my link...

[blueerica]

Ahhh - yeah, I had this tab open a while before I got to it.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

For those who enjoy "joining":

Wear purple on Wednesday, October 20 to show your support for teens who took their lives because of anti-LGBT bullying. (http://www.glaad.org/SpiritDay)

[Alex]

Wait, we don't support them do we? We think they made a poor decision (though since I do think suicide is sometimes a reasonable option I might actually support some of those decisions).

[Betty]

I'm wearing purple today though... does that mean I don't support suicide?

[innerSpaceman]

Valerie Jarrett vs. Dan Choi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMFcsTRWH7I&feature=player_embedded#!) on the Obama Administration's hard-ball appeal tactics reversing an injunction against enforcement of Don't Ask Don't Tell.




Wow, outright LIES by Ms. Jarrett. Obama has NEVER said he believes DADT is "unconstitutional," and that's a legal position his Justice department is perfectly able to take in relation to appealing or not appealing the law which they already defended and lost. The "defense" of laws on the books stage is over. She's a liar about everything, and frankly Wolf is a pussy of an interviewer who either knows zip about Justice Dept. appeals or purposefully played softball.

Not only does the President have wide latitude to refuse to appeal when he personally feels a law is unconstitutional, but he also has wide latitude when it comes to laws affecting his authority as commander in chief. The problem is he does NOT think the law is unconstitutional (and has never said those words) and has refused for 2 years now to use any of his powers as commander in chief on this issue.

Lie after lie after lie. What a shameful performance. Nice going, losing a core constituency for your reelection bid in 2 years, Mr. President. Dan Choi's is hardly the only gay vote you've lost. Oh, and I'm sure you've appeased plenty of Republicans and Teabaggers by your homophobic actions. They'll be voting for you in droves now, won't they? Sheesh.

[Gn2Dlnd]

"Ted Haggard Is Completely Heterosexual (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZmHC75FDqQ)" by Roy Zimmerman

It's a little past (or "passed," thank you very much Missus Thomas) its use-by date, but completely worth it.

[Chernabog]

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMFcsTRWH7I&feature=player_embedded#!]Lie after lie after lie. What a shameful performance. Nice going, losing a core constituency for your reelection bid in 2 years, Mr. President. Dan Choi's is hardly the only gay vote you've lost. Oh, and I'm sure you've appeased plenty of Republicans and Teabaggers by your homophobic actions. They'll be voting for you in droves now, won't they? Sheesh.

Unless we get whiplash from the way things turn around, I will not be surprised if Obama is a one-termer.

Not that I'm voting for Sarah Palin, mind you. But I am not voting for Obama either. And, frankly, the Dems deserve to be a$$raped in next month's elections.

[innerSpaceman]

.... with no lube.

[JWBear]

I think I've gotten to the point that I'll be actively campaigning for his primary challenger, whomever that might be.

[Betty]

Unless we get whiplash from the way things turn around, I will not be surprised if Obama is a one-termer.

Not that I'm voting for Sarah Palin, mind you. But I am not voting for Obama either. And, frankly, the Dems deserve to be a$$raped in next month's elections.

If it came down to Obama vs Palin - who would you vote for?

[innerSpaceman]

It doesn't much matter. I'd decline to vote. But in California, it will go for Obama no matter what. So my protest vote can be a vote of conscience and not in any way be a vote for whomever the Republican candidate is.


He's not been a total failure as a president. He and the Congress have actually had a lot of successes and accomplishments, which they are beyond lame at communicating.

But he's an incredible disappointment to me as a progressive (even though he was always clearly a center/right moderate), and as a gay man he's been an affront to my very being, over and over and over and over. I could hardly loathe the man more if I were a teabagger.


Er, I mean a Tea Partier.


Silly me, I already am a teabagger. :cool:

[Gemini Cricket]

If it came down to Obama vs Palin - who would you vote for?
Despite not being a fan of Obama at this moment, I'd say I'd vote for him in 2012. To me, it would feel like not voting for him is a vote for Palin.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

If fvcking SARAH PALIN is elected PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I will be SO GODDAMNED PISSED at anyone who didn't vote, because I WILL move out of the country. No sh!t.

There is a precedent to defending the previous administration's laws. Obama wants his health care bill defended in the next administration (which WILL be attacked, guaranteed) so he is defending this. Even Bush defended the Family & Medical Leave Act that was a landmark Clinton victory.

If you think you are punishing democrats by not voting for them, remember that you have to put up with whoever gets into office. You want to cut off your nose to spite your face? It wasn't that long ago that we lived in Bush's America and yet it's forgotten already.

I know this issue hits very close to home for all of you but take a second to think what those conservatives think about you...and how happy you are making them right now. If Dems lose, you lose even more. Isn't that blatantly obvious??

[innerSpaceman]

Well, we don't have any democrats to punish in this State's current election cycle (not for slights to gay issues anyway). Barbara Boxer has been a staunch and consistent supporter, and Jerry Brown's practically a gay hero for his bold stand on Prop. 8.

But you have to remember how All-or-Nothing works. Our vote doesn't count towards the total unless we happen to vote for the winner. Sure, if enough people vote for the loser, the loser becomes the winner. But the outcome of presidential elections in California has been a non-surprise for decades. Obama will not be losing to Sarah Palin in 2010 even if every fag in WeHo and San Francisco votes for Palin.

And stop with the Palin already. It's a scare tactic. Since when did she become the Republican nominee rather than the most drastic example people can think of to illustrate a fear point?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

You made me look. She was a viable nominee about a year ago. Now, she's probably not (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43463.html), though she's still on the short list (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/30/2012-poll-familiar-names-on-top/). In 2 years, who knows?

Regarding CA - yes, I know. But the more people tout ideas like this, the more they spread to places like Ohio.

[JWBear]

Rest assured, while I will not vote for him in the primary, I will hold my nose and vote for him in the general if he wins renomination.

I'd still rather have Him than a Republican in the white house any day.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm gonna vote for who ever the cute hottie is in JW's avatar on election day in 2012. ;)

[Gemini Cricket]

I'm gonna vote for who ever the cute hottie is in JW's avatar on election day in 2012. ;)
I'm not. I hear he's all for stacking our courts with tops. We need balance.

[innerSpaceman]

Nope, sorry - sounds good to me.

[Chernabog]

If fvcking SARAH PALIN is elected PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I will be SO GODDAMNED PISSED at anyone who didn't vote, because I WILL move out of the country. No sh!t.

Montreal was really, really pretty, with good food, a fun amusement park, wonderful people, and gay marriage. Yes, if Sarah Palin gets elected, we can start Le Bar de Demain (www.loungeoftomorrow.ca) ;)

I know this issue hits very close to home for all of you but take a second to think what those conservatives think about you...and how happy you are making them right now. If Dems lose, you lose even more. Isn't that blatantly obvious??

To me it is an issue of choosing between a liar and a homophobe. If you donated money and spent time to get the liar elected before being lied to, how can you in good conscience vote for him again? That's the Democratic strategy -- it's better to be punched in the face than kicked in the balls. If the Dems lose, we lose what exactly, if neither side is able to help us? Honestly, for financial policy I don't agree with the Dems anyway.

[JWBear]

For iSm:

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/JWBear61/Posted/3010288035_b5b64ced19.jpg

[Betty]

For iSm:

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/JWBear61/Posted/3010288035_b5b64ced19.jpg

I'm all for the hot guys but that's a weird photo. Weird angle or something to it.

[JWBear]

The camera is aiming down from above. He's looking up.

[innerSpaceman]

In fact, most photographers will try to photograph you from above with you looking up if they want to make you look more attractive, and from below looking down if they want to make you less so.

Um, it's a trick that's working for me in this photo. Thanks for the big version, JayDub.


(now, if you can get the life-size delivered by Sunday, that would be cool)

[Chernabog]

In fact, most photographers will try to photograph you from above with you looking up if they want to make you look more attractive, and from below looking down if they want to make you less so.



Because that's the angle you see as he gives you head, right? :evil:

[innerSpaceman]

Don't you just love looking in the eyes of someone who's ....


oh wait. um, sorry.







But hey, this IS the Gay Thread. ;)

[BarTopDancer]

If you donated money and spent time to get the liar elected before being lied to, how can you in good conscience vote for him again?

Because my right to choose is still part of the Democratic platform and it's very much not part of the other side. I spent a lot of time and energy campaigning against Prop 8 before the election... more than many gay people I know.. while I was going to school full time. I sacrificed papers and grades to campaign against it*.

When it comes down to it, in my mind my right to choose will trump your right to get married. I'm selfish like that. I also have confidence that gay marriage will be legal, and soon regardless of who is in office. I'm not so sure Row v. Wade won't be overturned.

So that's how I'll continue to vote for Democrats or liberals.

Before anyone jumps all over me ask yourself what you did to stop Prop 8 from passing, what you would do to protect my right to choose and what's more important to you.

*Luckily my PoliSci teacher gave me an extension after the fact since I was taking part of the political process but I didn't ask before, I emailed him after it was already late.

[JWBear]

I agree with BTD. While I'm pissed at Obama, there are far too many important reasons to keep voting Democrat - even if that means returning Obama to office.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I agree with BTD. While I'm pissed at Obama, there are far too many important reasons to keep voting Democrat - even if that means returning Obama to office.

Yeah.

[Alex]

Well, I'm sold. I'll now be voting for Sarah Palin in 2012. I think living abroad would be a wonderful life-changing experience for CP, GD, and the young child (whose name I have forgotten; but it could be worse, I once forgot my sister had two children and not just one).

[Kevy Baby]

...and the young child (whose name I have forgotten...T-Bone

[BarTopDancer]

Regarding CA - yes, I know. But the more people tout ideas like this, the more they spread to places like Ohio.

Don't forget Iowa legalized gay marriage before we did.

[Chernabog]

So that's how I'll continue to vote for Democrats or liberals.



Well I didn't say I'd be voting for Palin!!!! I'll still vote for the person I think best shares my views. I understand of course that for all intents and purposes you only have a choice between two "real" people but I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. If I "waste" my vote on another candidate am I really being that selfish?

Well, I'm sold. I'll now be voting for Sarah Palin in 2012. I think living abroad would be a wonderful life-changing experience for CP, GD, and the young child

Yes, yes! We could all go together! Then the LoT commune will be one step closer to reality. It's all part of my gay agenda! :D ;)

[lashbear]

Yes, yes! We could all go together! Then the LoT commune will be one step closer to reality. It's all part of my gay agenda! :D ;)
Cherny's Gay Agenda:

11:00am Wake.
11:15am Pearls Dissolved In Vinegar For Breakfast-In-Bed
11:30am Hot Workout with Personal Trainer
12:30pm Get Out Of Bed And Go To Gym
01:00pm Hot Workout with Personal Trainer
02:00pm Watch "The Women"
04:00pm Afternoon Nap with Evian and WitchHazel Eye-Mask for that Bright-eyed look
06:00pm Dinner With Liza M (That's Liza With A "Z" ya'know)
08:00pm Organise LoT Commune
10:00pm Workout With Personal Trainer
11:00pm Get out of bed, Clean teeth, Douche (Shower - I'm learning French, remember), Go back to bed for Beauty Sleep.

[Chernabog]

Hells yes!!! Plus, since gays control the weather, I'll make more weather formations like this! (http://gawker.com/5671084/weather-penis-rams-through-southwest) :)

[Kevy Baby]

...weather formations like this! (http://gawker.com/5671084/weather-penis-rams-through-southwest) :)Oh my Goddess!!!

[innerSpaceman]

Love the move where he strokes the, um, thunderstorm shaft and then cups the, ahem, oh hell i don't know what you'd call them in meteorological terms. :p

[Gn2Dlnd]

Dark storm clouds. Heavy, black, and pendulous.

[innerSpaceman]

Is that a reference to the Rocky Horror Criminologist, or to Kevy?

[Gn2Dlnd]

I only have personal knowledge of one, not the other.

[Kevy Baby]

I only have personal knowledge of one, not the other.You promised not to tell!

And I didn't realize you didn't know anything about RHPS

[Gn2Dlnd]

:blush:

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Gay McDonald's ad in France (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBuKuA9nHsw)a parody of that commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpyv5euQC2M)

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Arkansas school board member Clint McCance believes "queers" and "fags" should kill themselves—if they don't get AIDS and die first (http://www.advocate.com/News/News_Features/Arkansas_School_Board_Member_Thinks_Fags_Should_Di e/).

[Gn2Dlnd]

Ignorant fool should be immediately removed from his post.

And then there's the ironically named Tony Perkins (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/27/tony-perkins-gay-teen-suicide_n_774580.html), who knows "from the social science that they [gay teens] have a higher propensity to depression or suicide because of that internal conflict."

[Gemini Cricket]

Arkansas school board member Clint McCance believes "queers" and "fags" should kill themselves—if they don't get AIDS and die first (http://www.advocate.com/News/News_Features/Arkansas_School_Board_Member_Thinks_Fags_Should_Di e/).
A Facebook group (http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pages/Fire-Clint-McCance/170421922968484) has been started to get this guy fired. As of this post, about 20,000 people have joined.

[innerSpaceman]

Except they can't fire him. He's an elected official. He has to be recalled. That's not an easy prospect.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Arkansas school board member Clint McCance believes "queers" and "fags" should kill themselves—if they don't get AIDS and die first (http://www.advocate.com/News/News_Features/Arkansas_School_Board_Member_Thinks_Fags_Should_Di e/).The Board has responded (http://midland.k12.ar.us/) with:The Midland School District, Board of Directors, administration, faculty, and staff do not support or condone the comments Mr. Clint McCance posted on his personal social networking page. Mr. McCance was not acting as an agent of the school board, but as a private citizen when this comment was posted. This post does not reflect the thoughts of the board or administration of the Midland School District.

The district strives to foster an environment that discourages all forms of bullying and an environment that encourages a safe and productive educational climate of all of our students. The district is very diligent in pursuing and addressing bullying of any variety on our campuses.

Sincerely

Dean Stanley, Superintendent
Midland School District

MSNBC's Thomas Roberts talks with Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times about Clint McCance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE76ypLgNeE).

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Untitled (One day this kid...)
http://www.ppowgallery.com/images/uploads/02219.jpg (http://www.ppowgallery.com/selected_work.php?artist=14&image=2)

[Disneyphile]

The motherfukker's resigning! :D

[innerSpaceman]

Yep. Cool. That's the way it's supposed to work. I'm very happy. :D

[SzczerbiakManiac]

The motherfukker's resigning! :DYou can watch him make the announcement on AC360 (http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/10/28/ac.ar.mccance.resign.cnn).

My translation of his comments:
Aw crap! People found out what a sub-human piece of shït I really am and now the School Board is making me resign. I still hate faggots and queers, of course, but I better make it look like I'm contrite. My wife made me wear this sweater.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

George Takei Calls Out Clint McCance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UACK93xF-FE)