CA Supreme Court to rule on Gay Marriage today (5/15) at 10:00am
 

Discussions from:
The Advocate
Good As You
The Official CA SC site

I am crossing my fingers for a positive ruling!

We shall see...
Fingers crossed.
:)

OMG, yeah, I forgot about this. Meant to revive the old thread today (hahaha, a la the Jodie Foster thread today), but forgot.


I'm pins and I'm needles.






ETA: Oh, and if the ruling is what I hope it to be ... will you marry me, Gemini Cricket? :blush:

*crossing fingers*

Congratulations!

I'm not convinced that the judiciary is the right way to achieve this goal but I'm completely happy about it anyway!

Why shouldn't homosexuals have the right to the same misery as breeders?

It's 10:26....

Ha ha ha ha. That joke is just as funny on the 12,120,123rd telling as it was on the 714,312th.

If that was directed at my response, then I don't think that. I am completely fine with anybody getting married that wants to. I just think that there is a fair chance that getting that result through the judiciary will make it more difficult in the long run. I might be wrong (will it be more of a Love decision or more of a Roe decision when it comes to settling issues) but at the moment I'm leaning more towards Roe.

The decision was released 20 minutes ago. The gay marriage ban in California has been overturned.

Hear, hear, Kevy B! And once again quote John Waters:

“The privilege of being gay,” John Waters recently told Fresh Air, “was that you didn’t have to get married or have kids. Now Provincetown will be the new Niagara Falls, and gays have more babies than Catholics.”

Hehe.

That said, it's an absolutely ridiculous thing to disallow two consenting adults to marry. Or, for that matter, multiple consenting adults to marry each other, if that be the way those folks swing. But I also think it's kind of ridiculous that marriage is a legal issue at all, even between two consenting heterosexuals.

Anyhoo, I much prefer living in sin. ;)

Overturned!

:)

Hurrah! And welcome to legalized bondage, gaybies!

(Seriously, this is cool.)

This should help all of those catering and events companies that got hit by the writers' strike.

The Official Opinion of the Court (PDF)
WOOOOOOOHOOOOOO!!

Yay!

Quick. Somebody write a gay version of "Marty."

("When ya gonna get married, Marty, hah? When ya gonna get married?"

I am not sure who this is directed at (since you didn't quote), but if it was my post, then I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, it is an old joke. In case you haven't noticed, I am not serious in all of my posts and often do pull old, lame jokes out.

OH EM GEE!


I can't even feel how happy I feel. I'm kinda in pleasant shock.




Ok, Gemini Cricket, maybe you wanna think about the whole proposal thing .... but wanna go party in WeHo tonight??? It should be quite the gay bash. We could each meet the men of our dreams and, if not by the end of the night, we could always get married tomorrow. ;)



Oh, that invite is open for anyone else as well.

The street party, not the marriage. Really should be the fun celebration of the century!!!

This is awesome news. Heard it from my (lesbian) coworker and ran out here to check the LoT celebration. :D

Let's hope this sticks, and travels to more states. :cheers:

Congratulations, Cali folk!!

I just heard on NPR and a couple of the attorneys came by to mention it. This is good news. :D

Being gay is no longer an excuse to avoid marriage!

Another proposal from a man today?
My inbox is full as it is.
I'll add you to the list.
:D

I'd marry someone all right, but I have to un-domestic partnership with someone else first...
:)

I bet LB Pride is gonna be a celebration too!

I'll be there with some friends. Is anyone else going?

I'm going.
With George.
I think iSm should come along.
I'm trying to hook them up.
:)

I've started reading the decision. It looks like, in the early reading that the decision is essentially that since the substantive traits of marriage are granted to homosexuals through domestic partnerships, that there is an impingement on equality of dignity in giving them a different name than marriage.

I wonder if this means that the issue could be resolved by getting rid of domestic partnerships or defining them to also exclude homosexuals (not advocating that, just curious if it would eliminate the constitutional issue
this decision settles).

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that we've won that battle, we have a state constitutional amendment to fight...

Does that translate to: "I am a donut puncher"?

:D

Yes, big fight to come ... and I wanna be part of it. Where do I sign up?


And yeah, I'll go to LB Pride with GC and George. When is that???

But what about the WEHO PARTY TONIGHT?!?!?!?

LB Pride is this weekend.
I'll go to Weho tonight.
:)

Yay! (oh, arrangements need to be made ... it's not gonna be the kind of thing where we can just find each other .... though cell phones will help.)


(And Holy Hell ... Pride, um this weekend, huh? Well, I'm going to the Indy Marathon at LSP and Tom's on Sunday ... can we do Pride on Saturday??)

The festival is Sat and Sun.
We can do the festival.
The parade is Sun, but I'm not big on seeing it.
:)

I will be at Pride at some point on Saturday with a bunch of people.

Call me.

Yay.

:)

Now go get married so we can bitch about our husbands.

So this is going to have to go to vote now though, right?

And then appeals to the US Supreme Court?

If it goes in November, I can see the two Presidential candidates being forced to pick a side (I know Obama is personally against it, but says it's up for the states to decide, not the federal government).

Great first step, still a long way to go.

It is a state constitutional issue. I don't think there is any appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What we'll likely be voting on in November is a new amendment to the California constitution that explicitly allows defining marriages as between opposite sexes.

Barring anything I haven't heard about yet it sounds like gay marriages will just be able to start happening in 30 days when the ruling goes into effect.

I do imagine that all of the candidates will be asked to take a position on the amendment that will likely be on our ballot in November. Since all three have opposed gay marriage in the past I'm sure their answers will be something along the lines of "I oppose gay marriage, but it is for the people of California to decide."

I haven't read it, but even if it is a state constitutional matter, if it borrows too heavily from federal constitutional principles, it's conceivable that the U.S. Supreme Court will take the case. If we amend our state constitution, that would have to be challenged at the federal constitutional level. Since the Lawrence v. Texas majority is still on the court, it could go well, although it might take a couple of years to get that far.

I couldn't find a single organized webiste opposing the potential ballot measure, but this page from Equality California's site has information on their efforts and links to many other groups that offer ways to get involved.

I sometimes hear fudamentalist preachers say that if gay marriage is legal, then the inevitable slippery slope will begin, and there will be nothing to prevent people from marrying their own children, their livestock, and so on.

So, if I move to California, can I marry my cat? My Nintendo Wii? A corn dog?

I can think of good reasons why you shouldn't be allowed to (legally) marry your cat, wii, or corn dog.

But I can't think of any for why you shouldn't be able to marry your children (assuming they are of an age making consent possible).

So when the loving incestuous couples start clamoring for their right to marry, I'll support them too. If when they're legal you'd like to marry your son or daughter (or all of them; if you have them) then you have my support.

But I'm afraid when it comes to your corn dog you'll just have to live in sin.

Geez Alex; you're so closed minded!

Eat your corn dog and marry it too?

Somwhere there's a LOL-dog to be made.

"ur doing it rong!"

GC, IsM (& anybody else)... If you come down Saturday, let us know. We don't have any plans as yet.

Will do.
I'm thinking of doing an afternoon/evening pride visit. I have a Dr's appt at 4:30pm that I need to make.
I'll give you a call.
:)

Call me old-fashioned, but I'm prone to marry those who would eat my corn dog.


"Ur doing it rite!"

Both parties have to be competent to consent. That's why bestiality is illegal.

It did occur to me that legalizing plural marriage would cut down on some of the welfare abuses >:D

Have fun celebrating, and welcome to the world of wedded bliss :D

What is Long Beach Pride like ?

I've never been to a pride before.

Long Beach meet this weekend????? It will be one hell of a celebration this year!

I was listening to Which Way LA tonight and some doofus said that "gays SHOULD have the right to marry, just not someone of the same sex". Ummmm, me think he needs to go back to school and start with Human Sexuality 101.

What Pride like? Ummm, it's hot and there will be lots of hot men not wearing shirts.

Hmm....damn, that would be fun, but the social calendar is quickly filling up. Will have to keep this in mind though.

That ruling was gay. :D

And just think, if this ruling holds up, the credit for it goes to three Republicans.

It's like the fair. Without the games or rides and lots of same sex couples and groups and gay focused booths. I don't think there were a lot of men without shirts last year. Yummy fair type food and drinks. Concerts at night. It was $20 to get in last year and parking was about that too.

Ya know what ... me neither, i don't think. Never been my thing, tho it always seemed like it might be fun. :blush:



Now it seems like it's the Best Time Ever to go, so I'm doin' it. Sure, Long Beach Meet!!

:snap: :snap: :snap:


:cheers: Ya wanna go earlier, anyone? I don't think Gemini Cricket can make it till the evening. (I don't want to spend all day, but I don't figure G.C. till 6:30-7ish, and that seems kinda missing it too much for my first Pride, and zapppop's and a Long Beach fags and hags meet.)


:iSm:

I've been to a ton of Pride events. Love them all. But I hear it's going to be hot so going in the afternoon/early evening is the way to do it. I'm hoping there's going to be a cowboy tent.
:)

Yeah, I definitely want to miss the hottest part of the day, but not miss the Hottest of the day.

gasp! :)

There is a country stage.
Yay!

Uh, that's where I shall be for the entire time.

If anyone's searching for me, just look under a cowboy.

:D

The train from our house is $5 RT.


(well, from Willow station)

I'm actually practically free on Saturday and Sunday - but I was going to take a hike in the new wetlands area and see the wildflowers.

Boooring! Go see hot men instead.
:D


It's nice seeing the news of the ruling on the front page of the LA Times this morning.
:)

Sorry I never made it to WeHo last night. I got involved in, of all things, a mix-tape project. But I'm looking forward to LBP.

Are you going to go, Not Afraid? It would be much nicer, I think, to take the public transportaton from your neighborhood rather than deal with parking there. I expect attendance to be particularly high this year for some reason. ;)


I know you've watched all the Indy movies already, but I'm going to Tom and Heidi's marathon on Sunday ... so I have to do Pride on Saturday. Are you in, O' FagHag with the Tangle of Middle-Aged Hair???

Yes. No. Yes, but not on Fridays.

Anyone else up for Fantastically Well-Time Pride Fest tomorrow?


Fags? Hags? Bueller??



:cheers:

Will there be any hot lesbians there?

Most lickly.
:D

What time ?

How's 3:00 - 3:30? Meeting up at Lisa's Place. Then we'll take public transport, and she will be our Official Hag!

Sure. But, it's still quite toasty at 3.

Yesh, but we have to gather. Then take a walk to pub transport. Then walk a couple of pooches en route. Then continue on the way to the Festival.

By that time, I predict 4:30 - - just when Gemini Cricket should be getting to his "Doctor's Appointment" (I guess since we know his family is in Hawaii, he can't use the already-taken euphemism Uncle's Cousin's Birthday for his assignations) ;)


Yes, it will still be hot at 4:30. But how else am I going to see a lot of shirtless gay men???


We can linger and aim for 5:00, but I don't want to do much later than that, eh? Though I'm up for groupthink.



Where's JWBear???

Why, JWBear is available via that old, antiquated method that I prefer.

Missionary style?

Honey, watch who you're talking shyt to.

Notice he didn't deny the "Doctor's Appointment" scam. Pffft, like a doctor in Southern California will see patients on a Saturday afternoon! Ha!

Ho ho. He does and will see me. And, if I'm lucky, he's a hottie doctor.
:)

Who'll go along with playing doctor. :)

Congratulations on the wonderful news. iSm, you might have to marry Greg & I when we come out [pardon the pun] next. !!

Mine never takes out the trash ! ;)
Can I be the Nurse ? :evil:

Talking shyt? It ain't Christmas.

:D


(NA - It's a South Park reference.)

Huh?

I don't know what we're doing yet. I wore Bill to the bone with the last 3 days of sightseeing. If we go, we'll probably meet you down at the festival.

I'll keep Lisa posted (she is Communications Central, after all).

Oh my, Lash ...

After the last wedding ceremony I performed in October, I swore it would be the last.


Oh, so, let's say it will be the last straight wedding I'll perform ... because I'll make an exception for you and the Stoat if you wanna get hitched when you visit in Aught Ten.

Um, that's IF we haven't passed a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman before then (which I'm going to work tirelessly to defeat). And of course, even if that hasn't happened, your California gay marriage won't be legal in Australia (which of course we'll use as bait to lure you to the Golden State).


:cheers:

According to a poll of just over a thousand people (however accurate that can be assumed to be), the majority of Californians are against a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24857315/

Well let's hope those who favor equality get their asses to the polls in November!

I'm still looking to find some organization that needs volunteer help, rather than donations, in combating the proposed Constitutional Amendment.


(A volunteer core consisting of hot, single gay men in their late 30's/early 40's is also a requirement.)

You could start such a group if none exists.

Actually, the Equality Group you earlier linked too (that only wanted donations) had links to other groups that I intend to check out.



Oh, and if I could start my own group with lots of hot, single gay men in the late 30's/early 40's, why would I need to bother with fighting the Constitutional Amendment???


:iSm:

Exactly!!! Actually GC and I were just discussing today how it'd be cool to be part of a gay volunteer organization for social purposes as well as for the cause.

Let me know if you find anything, it would be great to help organize marches or rallys or phone bank or anything!!! I mean, with all the Pride events this summer the gays have to get mobilized to vote in November....

(We also discussed volunteering for Outfest.... on an unrelated note. Free movies, cute ushers, free Absolut ;) ) :)

Yeah, I was all about Volunteering for Outfest, but have been informed by those in the know that all the good jobs are long gone. I was supposed to do it in March, but never got around to it.

Truth is, my prime motivation was finding a boyfriend ... and I'm too busy too volunteer my time for something that shallow.


BUT ... with the political campaign to stop the Constitutional Amendment, I really feel passionately about both the stated goal and finding a boyfriend.







And if that doesn't work ... well, there's Outfest every year. :)

As far as Outfest is concerned, what are the "good jobs"? Just being an usher would be cool. Even stuffing envelopes with fun people is a better way (for me) to meet people than doing the "howdy on the internet, let's meet for coffee, yadda yadda" crap. (I *hate* dating. I'm much better at meeting people in a group, or butting into someone's conversation, rather than a "get to know you" planned deal).

It seems like a better way to meet a steady man than the bars or the interwebs (or in a recovery program, for that matter).

Oh, absolutely any kind of gig with other fun, single, queer men is a better way of meeting people than the internet (or, to be specific, than internet dating ... since I've met many cool people and a long-time boyfriend via the internet).

It's just that a past Outfest volunteers coordinator described to me in detail the various volunteer jobs ... and I know there were one or two that particularly appealed to me, that I would have had to grab earlier.

That's NOT to say that envelope stuffing wouldn't be fun ... just that I'm not going to find the time to volunteer for that, with my life as happily busy as it is.


It's tough for me to give up a bird in the hand. In other words, since just about every minute of my socially available time is already filled socially, it's difficult for me to miss out on fun with friends to spend time in a meet-new-people situation ... purely for the sake of potential boyfriending.


If there's a DOUBLE purpose ... like, say, a political cause I feel passionate about (or even one of the Outfest jobs that looked particularly rewarding), I might have an easier time passing up on some of the many social events that usually have me double booked every weekend as it is.


And thats.Just.Me. :iSm:

Some guy was handing out papers at Pride to help stop the marriage ban amendment that may end up going up for vote.

Their website is EqualityForAll.

ETA - this may have already been linked. I saw a reference by iSm to an Equality group. I'm to lazy to go look though.

"Envelope stuffing" - is that some sort of euphemism?[/quote]

Yes, if you must know. Keep it on the down low, though.



And yeah, that Equality Group was linked to before. As far as I can tell from their website, they want only money, not volunteer assistance.

Oh that is a bummer. I was half tuned out when he was talking to us at Pride. Just grabbed the paper for reference.

While we're at it, let's get down to specifics and have this thread be (at least partially) devoted to finding a husband for me, and for Cherny, and for Gemini Cricket.








(We can worry about getting Kevy man-laid later.)

"Matchmaker, Matchmaker,
Make me a match,
Find me a find,
catch me a catch
Matchmaker, Matchmaker
Look through your book,
And make me a perfect match!"

Ugh, my sister and I are in a bit of a fight over a matchmaking attempt by her.

She tried to fix me up with some guy who is 19-years younger than me. I told her that guys that much younger than me are automatically disqualified, and that, ahem, guys exactly 19 years younger than me raise so many red flags I don't even want to hear about them.

But he has an AP and goes to cemetery screenings, and he's gay --- so we must be a match. Over my disqualifier, she then shows this guy my picture and says I will call him. I got pissed at her, and she got return pissed at me.




So - - - potential matchmakers for Zlick ... mid-30's to late 40's ONLY.



Thank you for your consideration. :iSm:

Not even one date? For a little twink nookie?

But... Is he cute? ;)

ETA: I agree with Goonie.

(cough)zapppop-bad-taste-in-the...er...mouth(cough).




NO!





and he's totally cute, and I don't care!

You're passing up a chance to sample some young, cute manflesh when it's offered on a silver platter?!



I hate you.

It's not offered on a silver platter. Reportedly this guy thinks I'm cute ... but I could cherry pick plenty of photographs that would fool people into thinking so. :)


It doesn't matter. I want a relationship, not just hot sex (though the relationship must enable plenty of hot sex). If I were to meet someone and spark a mutual thing, only to then find out they were 19 years younger ... that would be one thing. But I will not purposefully date someone whom I know in advance is precisely zapppop's age difference from me.

Oh well... Then pass him on to GC or Cherny. A hot man is a terrible thing to waste! ;)

Ummm!! Hello!!! *raises his hand* can I see a picture of this guy please, Mr. Spaceman? My age range is roughly 25-38 (for dating, that is). I agree with JWBear and second the motion. All in favor, say aye!

I'd like to see a picture as well.

I posted first!!!

Nerdfight!

Perhaps you can share him. ;)

Who gets sloppy seconds?

No thanks.
:D

Don't get all huffy gentlemen, I'm not about to post anyone's picture on the internet without their permission.

He didn't send me his pic, he sent me a link to his myspace page ... and i needed a password to access his pics, so I think he's into keeping them a bit private.

I know who it is and I was able to hack his site. Here is one of the pictures:

Please tell me he's really not gay and I can have him!

Well, get permission then! ;) Say "hey there are a couple of cute gays on this message board I post to that wondered if you were a top or a bottom."

I mean, I couldn't marry a bottom! (sorry, had to get it back on topic)

I know some really good optometrists...

Ehhh... He's not that bad. Perhaps on the late shift, in a dark dark corner....

When desperation and that sixth vodka tonic sing sweet sweet nothings in your ear...

I don't suppose I can get in on this action... :(

Hmmm, maybe I should stop looking for a gay marriage, and get into the gay marriage business.

I already perform ceremonies (though I can't charge for that), but maybe some kind of gay-marriage-centric event planning could bring into the fold many of the talents of various swankers ... and we could make a killing in a new field of economic opportunity stemming from the goodness of civil rights advances.


I love the potential.

And just think how much more revenue will be generated in divorces! It boggles the mind as to why anyone would oppose it, strictly from a practical perspective.

I on the other hand don't believe there should be state/federal recognition of the institution of marriage at all (Man/Woman included), but that is a whole other can of worms. If you are going to recognize this contract for what it is in the eyes of the law, a financial agreement between two parties, then how on earth could they ever discriminate and claim to hide behind the law, or worse, the will of the people. For one rare moment, I do applaud the CA Supreme Court and I did crack a smile upon hearing of their decision last month.

I applaud the marriage ruling for the rights aspect. But without the Federal government getting on board, it's still kinda sh!tty.
I'm in the marriage camp for a couple of reasons.
I like the idea that someone says "That's it, you're the one and I'm going to let you and the world know." It puts my mind at ease somehow.
And I like the idea of a big celebration with all my fam and friends at a ceremony. I guess you could do it without the ceremony, but I've always wanted one for me. Not to mention the gifts...!

Yeah, the man of my dreams could just say that there's no one else, but a public display of commitment with gifts would be even better.
:)

But what does that have to do with law? I'd much prefer that the government, at any level, had nothing to do with marriage between anyone. You shouldn't have to sign a paper and pay for a license to have a big party. But since it's far too intertwined in our culture to separate it out now, then it definitely should be open to anyone and everyone.

Hey guys (and by guys I mean, iSm especially):

When I was at Pride on Sunday (marched with the attorneys, fun times), my friend Tom informed me of a group that he and some others have started re: the marriage vote, called "Love Honor Cherish" for the protection of marriage equality. They're starting up the website www.lovehonorcherish.org (its just a link to an email address for right now, they're working on it) ... AND THEY NEED VOLUNTEERS (unlike those other places that just want money).

He said they are doing meetings every Tuesday night on this (and they may also have Wednesday night meetings), all of which anyone here is welcome to attend. Should I start a new thread regarding this? If anyone wants to go to a meeting with me I'd be thrilled to do so.

I guess on a personal level it has nothing to do with law. I agree that the gov't should keep out of it, but, you're right, it's in it.

I want the Federal Government to recognize my marriage. I want the country I'm in to acknowledge me and my husband the same way as every straight couple who has been married. I want to know that we're equal in the eyes of our gov't. Because right now, we're not.

At first blush, I was kind of in the same camp. But then I realized that you can't change the world overnight: this is just one of many steps in the march. Within a few short years, it will be a nationwide (legal) acceptance and then within our lifetime, we will be wondering why there was ever such a fuss.

The masses are slow at changing, especially in mindset.

Yes, I'm interested. When's the first meeting? Where?


(I don't think we need a separate thread, but that's up to you.)

Yep. Americans got used to miscegenation didn't they? Well, maybe not all Americans...

It may also another step in the legalization of federal recognition, via the U.S. Constitution's "Fair Faith and Credit" clause (and the unconstitutionality of DOMA).

I only talked to Tom Watson for a few minutes about this -- all he said is Tuesday nights so far, and there may be another meeting Wednesdays. Tom and his partner live off of Mulholland, but I'm not sure where the meetings are. I'll email info@lovehonorcherish.org and if I don't hear back by tomorrow I'll give Tom a call at work.

I heard back from Andrew (Tom's partner) and he's putting me on the email list. Please email that address above and he'll do the same for you :)

Ok, I just emailed them. Hope to hear back, and that this pans out as something worthwhile to stop the spread of evil hated and instead spread the joy and love of joy and love.

Well this is spectacularly unusual and worthy of celebration in and of itself. GD, we completely agree on this.

That is my position to a T.

Cool, lets see if this works out.

Yeah iSm, how bout you drive the heck up to Bakersfield on weekends and perform some gay marriages???? Bust down that bitch's door! (I'm being serious, actually).

Emailed. Thanks!

It makes me want to cry.

speechless

Yeah, the problem is I have to be deputized by the county clerk in each county. Something tells me that won't be happening in Kern.

Should be able to attend the meeting next Tuesday.

Yeah, well, who the fvck wants to get married in Tehachapi anyway?

Ok, I'm going to next Tuesday's meeting.


They need straight women, so it's a good thing EH1812 will be there. Now, we just need some people of color, hopefully some straight Latino men or something like that.

Why, are you trying to recreate the Village People?

Awesome, Tuesday is my normal "program" meeting, but I will bugger out on it next week so that I can do the marriage meeting. There is also a June 29 Pool Party fundraiser if any LoT folks would like to attend.



FYI for other folks who want to get involved, there are other activities/groups that are doing things like phonebanking and stuff -- here's a forward of an email I got:

Meeting details?

It's a hike from the OC, so I'm not sure if I can make it.

Another email:

BTD I will PM you with meeting details since it is at someone's house and I don't know if I should put that up or not on the web?

Thanks Cherny! I replied.

I am going to see if they have MySpace and Facebook groups yet.

How frackin' awesome is (San Francisco Mayor) Gavin Newsom!

That's awesome!

Makes me want to go spend money in SF for the tax revenue.

I heart Gavin Newsom

Me too. Seriously. Bluff called. So happy.

Gavin Newsom isn't really very awesome.

Though on this particular issue he is.

Isn't tomorrow the day?

Only a few places are staying open past 5:01 pm to perform marriages tomorrow evening. Most places will start with business as usual on Tuesday morning ... and I hope there's enough time before November to demonstrate to the good people of California that it will be business as usual for all of our lives even after a flood of homosexuals marry the ones they love.


I find it fitting to be attending the LHC meeting Tuesday night. I hope they are on to something, because I want to get involved.

The LBGLC reports that voter registrations are WAY up!

I'm betting that whole "Rapture" email service is going to get some new business. Perfect timing. ;)

What if the world does end? Won't we all feel foolish then?

Time to buy stock in Food Processing Companies - people are gonna be buying a ****load of blenders...

Could be reminiscent of some nuts who gave away their worldly possessions and fled to the "Holy Land" just in time for Y2K. I remember watching the TV that night for the live report from that area, and pointed at the TV, laughing my butt off.

I can see it now - "Everyone! Git yer butts to the hills, cuz it's the end times fer sure, because them gays are getting married! Rapture's gonna happen fer sure this time! Its the sign I tells ya! And don't fergit to bring yer goats, because they'll try to marry them too!"

Never get angry at stupid people, for they provide some fun entertainment. ;)

There is at least one exception:
But that is a very worthy exception. From here.

Sometimes I think it would be best for all of use if we carved out a chunk of the US and gave it to the far right-wing religious folks, so that they can have their own little theocratic country to themselves. The south-eastern quarter of the country would be perfect – most of them will be able to stay right where they are. (But, we keep Florida… Disney World, and all that.)

Bravo. Yes, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana are all yours. Have freaking fun.

I would be even happier if we could stick the far left in there as well. That would be fun!

Sorry. No one on the far left has ever tried to change the Constitution in order to make me a second class citizen. They can stay. :rolleyes:

I'm fine with the far left having their own country carved out of the United States. Hmmm, lemme see. Oh, look, we've already got the prime candidate. It's called "California"


I'll be sorry to see you go, NirvanaMan. You're a pip. :p

Holy sh**. Four more hours and same-sex marriage is legal in the State of California....

http://planetout.com/news/article.ht...e=2008/06/16/1

I'm thinking after my deposition tomorrow morning I might head down to the courthouse and join the festivities, before heading over to the LHC meeting.

I don't have any meetings this afternoon. I'm tempted to go in to SF City Hall to see the fun.

8 minutes.

Done

License issued, 5:01 :)

...And yet the Earth was not torn assunder, realeasing the hosts of hell...

Are you sure about that? Have you been to Detroit lately?

Mazel Tov!!!!!!

OK, Checked with 2 married friends. Their marriages didn't fall apart/become less valid in the last 28 minutes.

From this story.
__________

And I don't know if it is just the luck of the draw for me, but it seems like a lot of the stories I have been reading on this topic the last couple of days have been focused more on lesbian marriages. Just an odd phenomenon, but something I noticed.

Not by chance at all. Everyone loves lesbians. They have always been, and will continue to be, the "face" of gay marriage because mainstream breeders find lesbianism less offensive, and women less deserving of a punch to the face in general.

Plus, lesbians aren't known for putting things in their butts unnecessarily (though I'm sure plenty still do).

Define "unnecessarily".

To those attending tonight's LHC meeting, I'm going to be a no show tonight. I'm not so sick that I need to miss a full day of work but I'm not so well that I feel like doing much else besides going home directly after. Headache and dizzy spells that have been bothering me for a few days now. Seeing a doc on Thursday morning. Will look forward to a report tomorrow, from those who do attend. And I will do my best to make it to the next one. Apologies!

And in fact, I thought mine became even more valid.

Well, using the "property value" view of marriage (you can't paint your house, across the street from mine, pink because that would diminish the value of my property) I believe my marriage is now worth approximately $0.17 cents less than yesterday. However, this reduction is purely from diminished scarcity. You might argue that my marriage is just as unique as it was yesterday. But this is not true as I suspect the number of married men with painted toenails will now see a surge.

However, my first marriage has been retroactively augmented by $0.03 - a 45% increase in value.

If someone can provide me with a billing address for the Homosexual Agenda I'll see if I can get this $0.14 reimbursed before I am forced to cast my vote on the amendment this fall.

You going to ask for installments, or lump sum?

On a related note, Norway just legalized gay marriage.

Are you pregnant?

Feel better EH1812!



On a more whistful note:


Someday my Party B will come. Le sigh.

What if you meet another Party A? What will you do then?

I can be versatile, in a pinch.





(If you pinch the right place) ;)

Hahahah, do you promise to live long and prosper?!

He actually made some kinda quote like that. George Takei is one frickin strange cookie. I went to an LGLA (Lesbian Gay Lawyers Association) awards dinner at the tail end of last year and he was the featured speaker. A friend and I chatted with him over drinks and appetizers pre-dinner, got our picture with him, etc..... he was really really strange. AND he was trying to make a joke, and ended up insulting me (about my receding hairline .... I *think* it just sort of came out wrong since he laughed afterwards like it was supposed to be a joke, but my friend and I were like OMG you just got insulted by Mr. Sulu).

Oh well, lol.

Yes, I've heard he's a little queer....

There are alot of ugly lesbians getting married on tv - can we request better news shots of some of the hotter Lesbians kissing?

For scientific purposes...

Here ya go. For scientific research.

Toaster Ovens are the whitegood of choice. :cheers:

whitegood?

Ah, you missed that Aussie lesson, did you?

Whitegoods = major household appliances (dishwasher, clothes dryer, range, etc). As opposed to "Browngoods", the small kitchen appliance type stuff that used to be bakelite brown.

Is that a kind of spangly semi-tranluscent sequened feather-adorned fabric?

They should be so lucky.

iSm and I attended last nights meeting of Love Honor Cherish (LHC / lovehonorcherish.org ). I was pretty impressed and we're both getting involved with the organization (in the media group, more on that in a sec). There were a lot of attorneys there but also people from all areas -- Here's the email I was asked to forward, to those who would also like to be involved:

For those that were wondering the funds raised are going directly to the Equality California PAC. There are going to be house parties to raise funds -- and if anyone HAS a place they'd like to do a house party in (and invite their friends.... LoT fundraiser, perhaps?), the group can send a speaker to talk as well. (that's one way of getting involved).

Two of the more immediate things that are coming up are the Public Service Announcements that are going to be filmed this Sunday, and the pool party on the 29th. I've already put up a flier in this thread re: the pool party -- PM me if you'd like to go because I will be there for sure.

As far as the PSAs are concerned -- we need folks from all walks of life-- gay, straight, married, single, etc. to record a short video on this topic. You can talk about anything you want -- what gay marriage means to you, why you should vote against the marriage amendment, or even how you're a straight married couple and you support your gay friends equal rights, anything. If you'd like to participate, the videos will be filmed both THIS SUNDAY and also AT THE POOL PARTY. (These are videos that will be used both on the website and elsewhere). PM me on that if you'd like to participate.

... more on this in a sec... gotta get back to work.

Hence the old Aussie joke:

"Why does a bride wear white?"
"So she can blend in with the appliances in the Kitchen"

^^^ To continue:

If anyone knows anyone that would like to participate, please let me know.

So iSm and I signed up for the media committee, which does the website, among other things. Right now we're searching for a web designer who would be willing to donate some time to making the lovehonorcherish.org site more accessable -- or even making an animated logo from the existing one. Suggestions re: the website are welcome as well (obviously it just got plopped up there)... we just added blogging capability, etc. but the general design of the site needs to be re-done so that the regular page (and not the splash page) is the front.

Other things we have are business cards to hand out, t-shirts, etc. There are simply too many people who are complacent about this -- who either don't vote or who don't understand why gay people want to get married or why equality is important (there is a separate outreach committee that is handling speakers, etc. as well as a fundraising committee... as I mentioned above, a LoT house party might be a cool idea to do. I'm talking my parents into having one at their house as well).

I mean, think of it on these terms (this was discussed at the meeting)-- if, during the interracial marriage debate, you had a solution where if two people of the same race got married, it would be "marriage" and two people of different races got married, it would be a "transracial union". Silly, huh? Well that's what is going on here. Separate is not equal, and this marriage amendment is discriminatory. Gay marriage legitimizes gay relationships, and that is what supporters of this amendment DO NOT WANT.

Please get involved in some way, come to the next meeting (iSm will be there; I will be there every other Tuesday). Thanks for your support!

Cherny - while I'm not available at all this weekend, I'll be happy to lend any shooting and/or editing work into the mix starting next week. I can go and shoot just about anything - parties, rallies, more PSAs, etc.

I will cheerfully volunteer any beer drinking work that needs to be done

Disneyphile, I was going to approach you about this tomorrow night ... but we were wondering if, in connection with your soon-to-be-burgeoning gay marriage videography business, you might ask some (or more than some) of your gay marrieds if we could use a little of their wedding footage on the site, to help the cause (it was tossed around that gay wedding bloopers might be a complete hoot).

Just an idea. :D

I wish I had footage from a gay wedding (obviously unofficial) that I lpayed at about 10 years ago. The ceremony was on the patio at the El Adobe in San Juan Capistrano. From my vantage point, I was able to see an older woman, probably ultra-conservative, watching the proceedings from her table inside the restaurant. She had a "how wonderful: a wedding" look on her face, watching the groom wakl up the aisle followed by the ring bearer and flower girl. But her jaw dropped and she just about lost it when the second groom came up the aisle and held hands with his (soon-to-be) hubby. I could see her ranting up a storm with her table mate throughout the ceremony.

Priceless!

Unfortunately, I've had no gay weddings to shoot yet, but as soon as I do, I'll absolutely ask those clients if I can submit their footage!

Hmmm. Maybe I'll offer up a free shoot to a gay couple and then I can add it to my samples too.

Source
Well, isn't that interesting. I think I shall be attending Love Honor and Cherish meetings. How disappointing to see that there are still those out there who would gladly deprive people of happiness all in the name of Jesus. It's like it was in Hawai'i in 1998 all over again. Wonderful.

It's sad but not surprising.

I forget which movie I was thinking about this morning, but I recalled how militant you are about poor portrayals of gays in cinema, and against the use of "gay" as pejorative.

I was hoping you'd consider channelling your well-intentioned militancy into some good, old fashioned gay political action now that our hard-won equal marriage rights are within a hair's breath of being repealed by a foolhardly election to change the very Constitution of our state.


Please consider checking out Love, Honor, Cherish. There's a meeting tonight! And a fun Pool Party on Sunday.


Hey, EVERYONE'S INVITED TO THE POOL PARTY. It's gonna be a blast!

All fine and good. But it sickens me that Mormons (or anyone) would try to change, not merely the law, but the State Constitution based on the Creator's plan for His children. I'd be just as sickened if, as a jew, a prominent rabbi urged me to change the state constitution to prevent blacks from marrying white folk because it was against God's plan for humanity.


Ugh, I'm seething. I have a few Mormon friends, and I dread to discover their stance on this. I can't imagine they would sheep march in lockstep with hateful urgings from the Mormons on High in Salt Lake ... but it would seriously affect our friendships if they did.

You still need to see the Celluloid Closet, iSm. Good doco.
:)

Oooh, I'll queue it right now (and, heheh, should have it in about a month, at the rate I'm going thru my 'flix films).

I attended an LHC meeting last night. The group is very organized and is led by some really great, experienced people. Also, its structure allows for creativity. If you have an idea, they're willing to hear it, no problem. I have worked with several organizations and some are very regimented, rigid. This one is not which I think is an asset to how successful it can be.

I volunteered to help shoot a commercial tonight and am helping to organize a pool party on Sunday.
:)

I say if you're good at writing letters to the editor, write them now. Any kind of participation helps.

Is it better for someone with no religious axe to grind to want to amend the constitution because gay marriage looks weird? Of course, nobody makes marriage sound weirder and more culty than a poobah for the Mormon church.

Hmmm, I almost want to start a new thread, and not have it be in the Daily Grind ... because it would only be quasi-political at most.


But Chernabog, Gemini Cricket and I are involved with this Love, Honor, Cherish group ... and it's less a political thing than an ongoing fun event thing that we'd love to invite the LoT swankers to.

:cheers:

Yeah, these events are all going to be fundraisers ... but you might as well get used to the fact that the three of us ARE going to (politely) hit you up for money between now and November. And you SHOULD donate generously ... but you don't have to do so multiple times ... and that shouldn't stop you from attending multiples of the fun events put on by L.H.C. - - to have a good time while helping our worthy cause with even just your good-time participation. Does that make sense?


First up ... this coming Sunday ...




7582 Mullholland Drive, LA 90046. Noon to 5pm.

This is gonna be a lot of fun ... and though it's been advertised a bit around town ... well, it would be silly if it's just a party for the folks who meet every Tuesday at Love, Honor, Cherish. Nope, we want all our friends to come ... so Gemini Cricket, Chernabog and I cordially invite you!

:snap: :snap: :snap:

There won't be a hard sell to give money (though it's $25 at the door). But you might as well get used to being pitched to on this issue. This is, as you might imagine, a vital concern for the three of us. As for me, I've never been moved before to donate time and energy to a cause. That's shameful of me, I know. The most I ever did to protest the Iraq war was to honk in support as I drove past huge demonstrations of peace-loving Americans.

But this one gets me where I live. Because it's not about where I live, or how I work ... it goes to the very heart of me being gay, because it's about who I love. Quite differnent from housing discrimination or workplace discrimination .... marriage discrimination is an assault on MY love. So I feel it in my heart most strongly.


And now that justice has been done at long last in California, it kills me to think it may get snatched away so quickly.

But the Fundies are against us, and the Mormons are against us, and even Heinz Ketchup is against us!!

:mad:



So please show your support by Having Fun With Us ... and come to the Pool Party or some of the other events that will be happening. Yeah, we'll have our hand out ... but you needn't grease our palms any more often or more generously than you are moved to.





:iSm:

Probably my favorite quote of the day.

From here.

*sigh*

From the article:
According to my doctrine, the LDS leadership is not human.

Can't we get a ballot initiative to define religion as a superstitious cult ... just to show them what it's like to have other people stick their nose in their business where it doesn't belong?

Fighting intolerance with intolerance, blech, almost not even funny.

Sometimes empathy must be forced where it is not naturally felt.

Do you think the fundies have a clue that so many Americans feel their farcical religious doctrines are the danger to the fabric of society? Perhaps if some people tried to make it unconstitutional, they'd understand what it means to mind your own freaking business, whether your moral code agrees with other people's or not.

I just wonder if it would do much to change anybody's minds or just further boost the anti-gay crowd into voting so that they can ensure trouncing this one...and oh since they're in the booth they might as well vote against gay marriage.

They know they are being intolerant. They think it is a correct and proper intolerance. Such a retaliatory measure wouldn't phase them. To them it would be just as silly as if child rapists gathered together and proposed a measure to make consensual sex between adults illegal.

Does anybody watch 30 Days?

Produced and hosted by Morgan Spurlock, the guy that made Super Size Me. The premise of the show is for someone to live 30 days in someone else's shoes. Either someone with views different from their own or to try something different and controversial.

The last episode was about gay couples adopting. A Mormon woman (with the opinion that gays should not be allowed to adopt) moved in with a family consisting of 2 gay men with 3 adopted boys. The show seems to make an attempt to give equal treatment to both sides of each issue. But in this episode I think both sides were equally not adequately represented. I suppose that makes it fair, but it fell short of what I think it could have been.

They brought up a few pros and cons and talked to people "in the know" of each argument but spent the majority of the time just showing the difficulty that both sides have in discussing the issue.

Anyway, aside from the argument of immorality brought up by those who oppose gay marriage, I think adoption rights is another big issue that certainly comes up should gay partners be granted legal married status.

I feel like I understand and can empathize with both sides of the issue. However I think I still fall on the side of less government regulation. I don't think the government should be in the marriage business, or even the adoption business.

Hmmm, I wonder if an epsiode could really shoot for a Live-in-Their-Shoes experiment ... have a straight man be gay for 30 days. Watch him try every day for a month to "choose" his sexuality, as all us homos are supposed to be able to do.


And, no, Alex, that's no more a real suggestion for programming as my one about unconstitutional religiousity was an actual proscription for political strategy.


Thanks for pointing out there'd be a backlash if I managed to go out and get the signatures needed to put that on the ballot. Whew, now I won't bother. ;)




* * * * *


On a more serious note, I'm wondering if there will be a significant backlash from the Supreme Court ruling that affects the election. I believe there was quite a backlash in Massachusetts, and it took nearly two years for widespread acceptance of gay marriage to take hold in that state.




We don't have that much time.

Pirate Bill ~
I haven't seen the episode, but GLAAD issued a statement about it.
Source

I think letting his statement stand alone makes it sound like fact. I think a differing opinion from someone else should have been presented also.

I also don't agree with some gay activists who say the FX Network as a whole is anti-gay. Nip/Tuck is tre gay if you ask me.
:)

Source
Religious Disobedience. Yes yes yes and totally yes.
It's a neat editorial. I think it's a valid request. In time, I think his family will agree with him.
:)

I didn't see it, but I think 30 Days did that on a first season episode. Obviously, the guy didn't go "all the way", so maybe this isn't germane to what you were suggesting.

Heheh, I'm not suggesting anything but the suggestion, just for kicks.

I imagine it wouldn't go too far, certainly not 'all the way'. But I'd love to see 28 days of Hmmm, can't quite go gay yet. And every day remind the audience that which gender you're attracted to is supposed to be a choice, so what's wrong with this guy??!


And just start collecting petition signatures for a ballot initiative to amend the constitution such that the definition of religion is Protestant ... just long enough for the Mormons to go, Hey, they shouldn't do that! ......oh.

Unfortunately, that's not really the right way to send a message to Salt Lake City. Nobody in church headquarters is going to know about a family getting up and walking out of church, even if the church is located in the heart of Salt Lake. It will only send a message to the local authorities (the bishop and perhaps the stake president depending on how things escalate).

The appropriate thing for anyone to do, if they feel so inclined, is to talk to the bishop directly about it. Before he reads it in front of the congregation if possible. Or afterward if not. Even speak to the stake president if necessary.

These face to face conversations are going to have to take place anyway, even if they do a walkout. People get up and walk out of the church service all the time for all sorts of reasons, and rarely as a means of protest or "disobedience."

Letters can also be sent directly into Salt Lake, but they get so many letters that there's no way for anyone in the presidency of the church to read all of them and still have time to do anything else. I'm sure though, that if the pre-screeners see an abundance of letters on one particular topic they will communicate it up the chain. Otherwise, any problems or concerns that can be handled locally are deferred locally.

I think if enough people did it, it would be a clear message. It's got to start somewhere. My best method for a Mormon to disagree with the LDS church is to not give them money, but seeing as how tithing is required... well... oh well.

I think the LDS church is totally off base on this issue. No one is forcing the Mormon church to have gay weddings. This is about civil marriage, not marriage within a church. The LDS church is trying to scare people into working against marriage equality, I find that pathetic.

And, as I mentioned in some other thread, the irony of the Mormons - of all people - trying to define marriage as between one man and one woman is particularly delicious. ;)

Lewis Black sums it up in this clip..

Apparently if they can't have a non-traditional marriage, nobody else can.

So very true.
I love Lewis Black. I always think that he's going to have a heart attack during one of his tirades.

It's funny when I come across a YouTube clip where the comments have been turned off. I'm like, 'C'mon, coward, let's see what people are saying!'
:D

Hahahah, I missed that clip before. Thanks for relinking. God, I love him.


Can he be president? Sure, he'd have a stroke within the first 10 days ... but they'd be ten glorious days!

The prop on this issue now has a number.
Prop 8.

No on 8.

Some dweeb at the Love Honor Cherish meeting last night wanted us to link our message with the larger political campaign of Equality for All, which is undoubtely going to be No on 8, with lots of No, No, No ... whereas LHC wants its message to be a very positive Yes, Yes message about love.


As in Support Love, Honor Equality, Cherish Freedom. and then, to get people thinking about the issue, perhaps a little know on 8.

Not to hate
No on eight

Courtesy of INXS:

Hallucinate
Dessegregate
Mediate
No on eight
Try not to hate
Love your mate
Don't suffocate on your own hate
Designate your love as fate
A one world state
With no on eight
The number eight
That's no on eight
A gentle trait
The broken crate
A heavy weight
Just no on eight
Like pretty Kate has sex ornate
Now devastate
Appreciate
Depreciate
No on eight
Emulate
The truth dilate
Special date
Really, no on eight
Guilt debate
The edge serrate
The youth irate
No on eight
Deliberate

Fascinate
Deviate
No on eight
Liberate
To moderate
Recreate
No on eight
Annihiliate
Atomic fate

Mediate
Clear the state
Activate
No on eight
A perfect state
Food on plate
No on eight
Vote no on eight
Designate your love as fate
At ninety-eight we all rotate

No on eight
No on eight
No on eight
No on eight

Awesome, Tom! :D

To simplify:

Just Love Your Mate - Vote No on Eight

Random thought: is it too late to get another proposition on the ballot? Why aren't we trying to put a competing prop on the ballot that would amend the state constitution to specifically INCLUDE gay marriage by defining marriage as a union between two persons to create a single household?

Oh, and I already brought this up in the Sooo... thread, but I've decided that when talking to people who are against gay marriage (ick factor, religion, semantics over the word "marriage", etc.) - instead of antagonizing them by trying to convince them to like gay marriage, I'm going to try to provide them with enough reasons that mean something to them (protect freedom, keep the government out of your personal life, don't take away rights that others currently have, whatever it takes) to convince them to not vote on the issue at all.

Yep, I'm going to try to make them just uncomfortable enough with a yes vote to convince them to abstain. And I'm going to make it clear that I can respect an abstention. One less yes vote to overcome :)

Yes. It takes a little over a year to successfully get an initiative onto the ballot (submitting intent with the AG, collecting signatures, etc.).

Go to this link and look for "Suggested Initiative Deadlines"

Source

Interesting.

Source

Manchester: Gays shouldn't marry but I'll take their money...
:D

Breaking News
The Massachusetts Senate has voted to repeal a 1913 law used to bar out-of-state gay couples from marrying in the state.

Obviously, it needs to be approved by the MA House & Governor, but Gov. Patrick looks to be in favor of the bill.

Take THAT Mitt Romney! :snap:

I'm relieved, but confess to being a tad miffed California's economy won't have the lock on out-of-state gay weddings.


Frankly, that was going to be an argument in favor of putting the kibosh on Prop. 8.


Money talks.

Patrick said he would repeal it. I remember hearing that when he was campaigning while I was in Boston.
Let's hope he keeps his word. Then again, he is a politician...

I doubt that would have any significant impact on this issue. I don't see a lot of the religious right suddenly setting aside their beliefs because it might have a little positive impact on the state economy. If anything, it could work against the "No on 8" movement as the proponents of the amendment would just use as a "look at how weak the "No" argument is - they have to rely on this silly detail."

I hate the initiative process, and I always have. There’s a reason the founding fathers decided against a direct democracy.

Lest it be interpreted otherwise, my comments were in no way meant as a slight on the "No on 8" movement. Unless I find something drastically wrong which changes my mind, I shall be voting no on 8. I was just making some observations on the process.

And this should not be interpreted as a slight on the No on 8 movement, but I'm quitting Love, Honor, Cherish.


There's nothing I've been able to contribute, and going to their meetings just gets me depressed. Mooning over the guy I'm attracted to, who's way out of my league, doesn't help matters either ... but I'm quitting because I have zero to contribute.


Bah.

^^ What about doing the phone banking stuff? Theres other avenues to take, that isnt the only game in town.

Also, I thought you volunteered for a few things @ the last meeting, whats up with that?

This is awesome!
Source

HA! Jerry Brown changed the language on Prop 8:

Good on him for making it clear what people are voting to do.

definition of teh awesome

That'll get the bible thumpers' panties in a wad!

This just in -- great news from Massachusetts!
 

Governor signs bill to let out-of-state gay couples marry:

More at the link.

I think that's awesome. So glad that Mitt is no longer Gov of Massachusetts...

Good for MA!

What's the minimum age you can get married in Massachusetts? Will it become a hot destination for young lovers who live in states with higher limits?

(Not that this would be an argument against what happened, just curious)

Legal age to marry is 18 per the MA gov't website...

I saw this commercial last night during the Olympics. I thought it was effective.

I love that ad! It's so cute (for what it is)

What it is ...


is Awesome.

I just saw it on ABC Family (during Full House).

It is teh awesome!

I mean, they must have spent some dough to show it during the Olympics for CA viewers...

Totally!

I'm really interested to see where else it shows up. Are they going for the children badgering their parent demographic by having it on ABCFamily?

Now I'm glad I quit that penny-ante organization Love Honor Cherish, aren't you, GC?


Where do we sign up for Let CalifOrnia Ring? And will they have cuter boys there?

Hallmark's jumping on the bandwagon :)

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26328361/?GT1=43001

Can someone direct me to the wording of Prop 8? It needs to be a scholarly or recognized media source (wikipedia and ballotpedia don't count). I found a ballot prop/initiative database but it doesn't list 8.

Accessible from the California Secretary of State's web site.

Link to the specific text. But here's the entire text:

Section 7.5 Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the California.

By the way, the docs on that page are draft copies and may change before election day.

I thought the wording WAS changed?

It was. Previously the text was:

"We don't want none of dem homos gettin' hitched in Caleefornyu."

No, the title (which is the discretion of the Secretary of State, so long as it is accurate) was changed after the state supreme court allowed same sex marriages.

The title now in place ("Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry") was listed as Limit on Marriage when the petitions were approved. A recent court ruling sided with the secretary of state.

Dagburn hummersexuals! Always comin' by and copulating on my lawn! Dagnabbit! And now they wanna get themselves hitched? Not in Yermo, they don't!

I had a discussion with my cousin about voting no on it. She doens't see why she should bother as she's stratight and none of her gay friends are in serious relationships. So it "doesn't affect her". :rolleyes:

I hope it turns out I'm adopted.

Thanks! Though I was informed that a ballot proposition isn't the same thing as public policy. I'm going to have to read a bit and email the teacher.

Woohoo! My mom dad and I are in a public service announcement on Proposition 8 :) My mom gave the best little chat so she's the one talking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEONx9X1RxA

You have an awesome mom.

Awwww. Our Chernabog is in this PSA. Soooooo cute!
:)

How'd they get him to shut up for 2 minutes?:p






C'mon ... that was adorable and all ... but have you ever seen Joe be that silent for that long?

Visible Mojo to Mama & Papa Cherny!!
That is so awesome!

Cherny, that was awesome. Your parents rock.:)

Brad Pitt contributes to the cause: http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx/?news=331142

So, in the home stretch, I'm wondering if there's anything I can do.

I became disenchanted with LHC because there was nothing for me to contribute. And they were all about fundraising for Equality For All, and I'm disenchanted with what they're doing with the money. That TV ad was cute, but it kind of irked me they felt the need to portray a straight wedding ... unless it was part of a larger campaign, but I haven't seen any further ads. (Of course, um, I don't watch any TV).


Still, I feel very creepy sitting on the sidelines. I want to do something not involved with raising money to advertise. I want to do something directly to convince people on the fence of the right thing to do.


Of course, I've taken on a big project for October that's going to involve all my spare time. But if the election is lost and I haven't done more to affect the outcome, I will feel unbearably guilty.



(I wonder if seeing Brad Pitt's new movie counts as effort.)

Well, what if we organize an effort to reach out to college students and make sure they vote?

ok!

I was finally able to watch. Good job!

I think the straight wedding was portrayed to show all the roadblocks that people who are gay are facing. The woman was stopped every step of the way and he was restrained at the end - giving the message what if you had to face all these roadblocks only to be told sorry, you can't get married at the end of the line.

While I have no statistics, I think the hetero population is larger than the homo population in CA and they need to appeal to the hetero population to do what is right and shoot down the prop.

Oh, it was a GREAT commercial. Absolutely terrific in its point and in its application. But if they haven't followed up with anything else (especially for all the money they've raked in), and something that actually depicts gay marriage ... i'm gonna think they cinically calculated that gay would just turn voters off too much.


And then what's the point? If we have to win by losing?



So i just wanna see some gay in their campaign. (But i still don't wanna watch TV)

iSm: I understand what you're saying, but I think they have the right strategy. But as we get near the vote, I think they should change the reference to where instead of referring people to the website, they just put "Vote No on Prop 8". Because the clueless vote too.

New ad that just played during House. I like that this one appeals to parents (different demographic then the wedding one).

Thanks BTD. Not nearly as entertaining, but at least they said what the issue was.


I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Polls have the Evil Measure losing by a close margin of 55% against it. But just as Obama may end up losing because, in the privacy of their non-questionnaire souls, too many white people just won't vote for a ni ... a ni ... ya know, the sheriff is a ni...

... well, it just may turn out that more statistically sampled Californians don't like faggots than will admit to it on the telephone.

Clay Aiken came out of the closet.
No surprise there.
But he's on the cover of People with his child. "Yes I'm Gay" is printed on the cover in big letters.
I wonder if this will have a positive effect for the No on Prop 8 camp. I hope so.
:)

Well, that should lock up the 57 year old, never-married women ;)

It should have said "Yes I'm Creepy Beyond All Reasonable Belief (But I Have A Cute Profile on Manhunt.net!)" .... or something similar :D

Best Yahoo News comment on Aiken coming out:

:D lmao... the interwebs are funny!!!

FYI...

Wikileaks has this about the LDS church and prop-8

LA City council had a procedural vote yesterday that set their official position as against Prop 8.

I think it will be effective for the demographic they were aiming for, and it was more of a political ad then an entertainment ad (hope that makes sense).

Sadly, my dad is weirded out by "gay marriage" though he's adopted one of my friends as his "gay son". I've tried to use that (and the what if I was gay, you wouldn't want me marrying the person I love just because it wouldn't be a guy" analogy) on him. His issue is with the term "marriage". While "marriage" may have started out as a religious thing, it's turned into a verb, like Google.

I was happy to see another ad on the issue, during primetime, on Fox and I hope it reaches the inner cockles of the parental generation and helps them relate, as parents to the issue.

I have been meaning to look this up, but I just don't have the time.

I was listening to some people who say that if Prop 8 passes, that their church can be sued if they refuse to marry homosexuals. On the surface, this sounds like hogwash, but I can see some potential (legal) validity to this.

Anybody got any info on this?

The government cannot interfere with the free practice of religion. I can't walk in wearing a reversed cross and a "love satan" t-shirt and expect them to want to baptise me, KWIM?

Um, I assume you mean if Prop 8 doesn't pass. If it does pass, it will be against the California constitution for people of the same sex to get married, so I can't imagine having it pass would lead to church's getting sued.

If you meant if it doesn't pass, then that's the situation we're in now, where the state recognizes same sex marriages. In that case I don't know what the case would be, but the supreme court of the state ruled that the state must recognize marriages between same sex couples, not that anyone would be forced to perform the service so I can't imagine anyone winning such a suit.

No of course that's hogwash, Kevy. And blatant LDS propaganda.


Government officials will have to mary queers, churches will not.



By the way, I will be coming out of wedding officiant retirement to perform gay weddings if Prop 8 fails. But I can't be sued for not performing straight weddings. :p

Hmm... I wonder if enough people will make the mistake in our favor in the voting booth?

Better make sure everyone on the "no" side knows to vote no though!

But now that I think about it, tell them that they're right. That if prop 8 passes, their church will be overun by the gay and they will all go to jail if all members of the congregation don't immediately begin having gay sex.

No on 8!

What was it only altar boys that got to have sex with Catholic priests? I've always wanted to do that, in the confessional booth.

Hmmm, so if Prop 8 fails, maybe I'll be able to sue for my chance! :evil:

DOH! Yes, you are correct.

I figured as much, but I wanted wanted to make sure I wasn't losing my mind (okay, that DID happen a long time ago). And I know that one of the two callers I heard did specifically say they were LDS.

I can see a slim argument if church weddings are considered a public accommodation.

But churches are currently allowed to refuse to perform plenty of otherwise legal marriages (a Catholic Church is free to refuse to marry people who are previously divorced) so I don't think anyone is likely to make the argument.

I read one legal opinion (I'll try and find it again later, when I have more time) that no such lawsuit would stand. However, if there is a church that routinely rents out their facilities to non-church members, it is a public accommodation, and has to allow gays (or anyone, for that matter) to rent the facilities for weddings.

-

I don't think they could force churches to perform the ceremonies. If you're not an LDS Church member you can't even attend a wedding in the Temple in Salt Lake. If you're not Catholic you can't be married in a Catholic Church or be married without going through their counseling. I don't see how performing or not performing a gay marriage would be any different than the restrictions on a hetro one.

LDS bishops do, on occasion, perform marriages outside the temple. These marriages (as well as any other legally recognized marriage between one man and one woman) are currently recognized by the church.

That's not what is at issue, however. The point is that the church of LDS retains the right to refuse to perform a marriage if they don't want to.

My eyes went crossed for a second. I went over to MP to look through a thread where I posted a Letter to the Editor that I wrote. I went through a loooong thread about SSM. It made it to 1000 posts without being closed. I thought that was cool. It was civil and intelligent. Anyway, I found what I was looking for.
Flashback-o-rama!
:D

Thank you. While it is not an official, cited source, it does provide a solid answer.

To be honest, I believe that churches (not just LDS) should be able to retain the right to refuse to perform a Constitutionally legal marriage.

I never said I disagreed with that.

Neither did I. We said just the opposite, and all along. It's a canard raised by churches as a fearmongering tactic to protect a friggin' word.

If 8 passes (Goddess forbid!) I think we should start a petition to get an initiative on the ballot to change all government sanctioned marriages into Domestic Partnerships in the state of California. Make it law that only churches can call them "marriages". That preserves the religious use of marriages being only one man and one woman; and it makes sure that all couples, be they gay or straight, are treated equally under the law!

(Did that make any sense? I'm sleepy, and I re-wrote it 3 times.)

If 8 passes it will immediately (the same day) be challenged and enjoined in court. I seem to recall there is a problem with the language that makes it a Constitutional revision, not an amendment, which may not be done through the initiative process.

Ah, found it. That effort seems to be on hold right now but be assured it will be mounted again should the initiative actually pass.

It is from the No on 8 site.
Source
I also emailed one of my friends with Equality California. His answer was the same.

Even better; it is now an official cited source! Even more thanks!

They just aired this ad on NBC (literally just before the opening debate credits)

Just caught this.

I heart Google.

Some of the pro-8 pieces I've seen lately, including one on Farmer McGregor's web site, seem to have abandoned arguments about the sanctity or definition of marriage in favor of an attack on gay parenting.

The Log Cabin Republicans released this commercial urging Republican voters to say No on 8.

HAHA, I just realized that my above link came from GC via Facebook...

Gotta love my friends! ;)

I saw one pro-8 commercial last night. I believe this is it.

Idiots.

Well no sht Sherlock. If you had accepted it to begin with you would have been tolerant!

I keep checking to see if LoT makes it on their list of links to the blog. No luck yet.

And I think I got it from CP!
:D

Disabled text comments, but not video responses... Hmm....

Somebody probably got their butt fired for this.

Honestly, how stupid do you have to be to use your Disney.com email address to promote your hate campaign (or any other political use)?

1. When did Greg start working for Disney?
2. When did he get a sex change?
3. Is he really in favor of Prop 8?

I'm very confused.

And a video rebuttal to it.

That's pretty good. Just on YouTube, or will it be airing on TV, too???

I imagine just YouTube.

I heart Cherny's (all of them)

Attachment 737

Attachment 738

Love, Honor and Cherish is right, dammit! (I mean left, no right, correct)

Awww. So cute.
:)

I'd do him.

Haven't you?

But then again, who hasn't?

um, me.



Yes, I'm one of five gay men in the greater Los Angeles area.









OMG, poor Cherny and his not entirely underserved reputation!

I'm just amused that he has a bf called BJ. How fitting :D

I didn't know Cherny did a video for prop. 8.

against.

Hmmm. Can I be just a tad bit offended for Cherny on his behalf?
Thanks.
;)

Eh, I think he knows we jest about his rep, and that it's just a cover for how jealous we are that he seems to attract men like moths to flame.



Which in his case, is too appropriate, if I may return to snark.






I'm also sure the irony of a boyfriend named BJ has not eluded him. ;)

Irony? I've been assuming his name isn't "BJ" at all, but that Cherny's just taken to calling him that for convenience sake.

I know ;)

It was a good joke back in high school too, but you're all going to love him.

Hey, can someone link me to Cherny's clip ?

Hmmm, I can't find the the individual one ... but This is a pastiche of the various PSA's produced by LoveHonorCherish, and Joe's is in the mix, including the cutie patootie head shot of Cherny posted above.


(Joe didn't say much during the full version ... I think it was the quietest I've ever seen him be.)

Best. Typo. Ever. :snap:

I tried to at the Roosevelt Hotel over dinner, but I knocked over the bottle of Fuzzy water and got NA all wet.

...sorry, what did you say?

Oh, is THAT what happened? I just thought it was because I was sitting with all of these handsome men! :giggle:

Source
Something to think about.

Or, in my case, something to lose sleep about. Something to feel guilty about.

Not being in Cali, I have not been following this very closely. Are you saying that a vote of 'Yes' means you are against gay marriage and 'No' means you are for it?

Brilliant! All those mouth breathing inbreads that come in to vote against gay marriage ain't a gonna say 'Yes' to it they is gonna vote 'Hell no'.

"No" means you are against a same-sex marriage ban.
"Yes" means you are for a same-sex marriage ban.

Ahh! So that is what you are saying. Again, Brilliant!

I'll bet the measure picks up at least a 20% boost from morons who thought they were voting 'No' to gay marriage.

Hopefully, all it means is that polls are inaccurate.

Unfortunately I doubt that. Polling has shown that polls are always accurate.

Depends how they phrase the question.

Well... 100% of the people I just polled think McCain is a war mongering doodoo head; so it must be true. right?

No wonder I keep getting mixed up on which vote, yes or no, is for NOT banning gay marriages. I easily flip numbers too.

No worries about me voting the wrong way though, I am not in CA.

I recently had a civilized yet lengthy discussion with someone from London over at YouTube about gay marriage. He was against the use of the word "marriage" when referring to the gays. I explained that I would be happy if all unions in the eyes of the gov't were called "civil partnerships" (or whatever) and leave it up to the religions to decide what is and isn't "marriage" in their eyes. We agreed on that...

My co-worker, who is a mix of super Christian let go and let God and for the love of all things who cares if the gays can have a legal union is along those lines. Apparently the Christian's have a huge issue with the word "marriage". I explained that "marriage" has become like a verb, like Google. It seems to have sunk in, with her at least - people don't want to undermine religion, they just want the same rights. She's voting No.

Breaking news: Connecticut Supreme Court Overturns Ban.

Heh, I was just coming here to post that :)

That makes me so happy I can't adequately express it in words. Three down, 47 to go?

Do you think Utah or a Southern state will be last?

I think those final states will not be resolved unless there is a battle at the Federal level

I agree Morrigoon. There's no way the theocratic states will accept this reality until forced to do so.

Oh, yes, this makes me so happy ... but I gotta say I'm also deathy afraid Prop H8TE is moving towards passage in California, and it will take many more years of court battle to reverse that.


Legal Gay Marriage in the United States as a whole is decades away. I many not live to see it. :(

I do not think I will live to see it. Too many people need to die off for that to happen.

People aren't going to give up a right now that they're getting it. The fight will continue until it's won.

The EQCA is coming out with a series of 3 ads to counter the lies of the Yes on 8 people (you know, the ads where they talk about how children will be taught gay marriage in kindergarten, how clergy will be sued for not performing gay marriages, etc.).

People are so stupid... first off, we HAVE gay marriage in California already, and NONE of those things are happening, so that might tip one off that the ads are lies. Not to mention the fact that neither the education code nor the proposition states anything about teaching gay marriages. Or that the CA Supreme Court decision specifically says that clergy do not have to perform gay marriages. Or that the other things that they are saying in the commercial were going to be in the ballot description, but were ruled off the ballot by a judge because they weren't true. (Unfortunately, they can say whatever the f they want in a commercial)

These fVcking Mormons (sorry people, gloves are off, the Mormon Church can suck my left testicle, I have as much respect for them as I do the KKK) keep talking about these "activist judges" that make these "homosexual agenda" decisions...

Ummmm excuse me?

Who wrote the California ruling? Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Ronald George, a conservative Republican is now an activist judge? Interpreting the State Constitution isn't "making law" it is... interpreting the constitution. Which is what judges are supposed do do.

I'm going to a fundraiser this Sunday. I need to do more, because if we lose the right to marry and I don't do more than I've done, I'll feel horribly guilty about it.

Sorry, but someone saying they're voting yes is like calling me a faggot to my face.

There is a No on 8 fundraiser at the old Boom Boom Room in Laguna tonight. I don't know any more than that though.

Two of the nicest people I know in the world are Mormons, and they are in fact 2 of my 3 co-hosts at an upcoming major event. I haven't said a word to them, because I seriously fear their answers might mean that I might not be able to bear working with them on this mega-project, and I just cannot chance that happening right now.


But ... being that weddings figure in a little bit to this event, and that this event happens just a few days before election day ... I'm probably going to say a few words at this event designed to influence the vote of these two people in particular. And if hard feelings ensue between us as a result, then at least the project and event will be over ... and I hope our friendships won't.


But seriously, if I learn of anyone I know voting Yes on Proposition H8TE, i will be hard-pressed to be their friend thereafter.

I know an ex-Mormon who is getting infuriated by the "yes" stuff she's getting from her Mormon friends, and she's responding encouraging them to vote "no". Yay!

From here

First time that seperate but equal by name is not has been recognized.

I think that if Prop h8te succeeds, we should ban ALL non-marriage uses of the word Marriage.

No longer is Chef Blahblah's Amuse Bouche a "Perfect Marriage of Tuna, wasabi & chantilly cream" - sorry, they're not Man & Woman, and there's three of them. That's NOT a real marriage at all. Stop abusing this fine word, folks.

Here's one of the new ads. Just saw it on Discovery during MythBusters.

http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2008...proposition-8/

Read that. It is a REALLY good breakdown of all the lies of the Yes on Prop 8 people. It is long but very well written.

I am soooo excited to get my absentee ballot this year!

BUT - when will it finally get here?!?!?!

Full story here.

While I could see that it iscontroversial, I'll assume that no one forced anyone's child to go on this field trip, negating what I'm sure the Prop H8TE people are sure to be saying about it.

I don't see any problem with the field trip, but I don't like see kids used as props in political campaigns. The six-year-old kid quoted above wasn't born trailing clouds of glory with intuitive knowledge about marriage. He was told that by someone I happened to agree with. They could quote some pro-8 kid about God's plan for man and woman, and I'd disagree.

I think you mean Pro-8... right?

So far so good.

Sounds like a good plan. I'd say it would be a problem if it was done in secret, but if everybody knows what's going on, I don't see any problem at all. Like somebody in the article said, teacher's marriage is legal.

Yeah, but why take kids on a field trip to a wedding? From the article, it seemed as if the teacher is claiming there was a legitimate civil rights issue being taught, but it seems to me the kids were a tad too young for that sort of thing.

Because experiences outside the classroom are enriching, and because it was a darn nice thing to do. Isn't it time we taught kids to do nice things?

:)

Not done in secret, correct. Yet unless they take students to a straight wedding too they just played into the most recent Yes on 8 commercial. Now, this took place in SF, which is way more 'gay friendly' then the Central Valley probably is. Yet, the Central Valley people are going to read about it and go omg, those Yes on 8 commercials are right! My kid is going to be forced to learn about gay weddings. I better vote to take away these rights! Why won't someone think of the children!?!?

I despise children being used as a political props, and in this case it applies. Nice idea, yes. Timing is terrible though.

As horrible as it is, this race is very close. I see more and more yes on 8 signs in car windows and on lawns then I do no on 8 signs. People really need to watch their actions to not scare those borderline voters, who really are undecided. Or those voters who are against gay marriage for whatever reason but aren't against taking away rights. It it time for firmly walking on eggshells, not "whether you like it or not!" campaigning and behavior. The in your face/deal with it is just going to backfire.

Yep, it was a nice thing to do ... but so unbelievably stupid. And frankly it was age-inappropriate for any purported educational value. And sorry, but teachers are not supposed to take kids on field trips because it's "nice."

I agree they are too young for this. Perhaps high school kids and have them go to both types of weddings?

Reminds me of when my son was in 6th grade and they wanted to take them to the Museum of Tolerance {many may remember this} and I said they were too young. They felt it was appropriate with the many Hispanics in our school and the issues surrounding that fact.

When it came down to it, the museum itself would not allow them to go through the Holocaust part of the museum because of their age.

I was a bit ha! because I was one of the only parents I knew of to say it was wrong and the museum actually backed me up when the principal and teachers would not.

But, yeah, I agree with BtD. I may have just played into their hands. I hope we are not seeing too many 'No On 8' signs just because people are being private.

I was telling a friend that all of this is that when this is over, I am going to have a hard time looking at those 'Yes On 8' people and like them. It is wrong to deny people their lives, essentially. A partner, someone to share their lives with? Wrong. To give them rights {which actually even heterosexual couples have problems with, right? Didn't Sandra Bullock have issues when her boyfriend was in the hospital and they wouldn't let her see him or let her make certain decisions? I'm not sure but I know it was something.}

I spoke with someone yesterday who said their church had requested they fast for Prop 8? I heard a big church, the Rock church, also asked for that.

Such love. :rolleyes:

'And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love, yes they'll know we are Christians by our love..... :(

According to the article, it was one of the parent's idea - not the school's.

Kids are used as political props all the time. There were several parents who brought their kids to hold "Protect Traditional Marriage" signs in Boston and Honolulu.

I see no problem with parents deciding that their kids should attend their teacher's wedding. And the other people who disapproved of seeing kids there need to butt out.

If I had children, I would let them go to a gay wedding. Totally.

I would too, and I hope to do so. I just think that something nice for their teacher turned into something it shouldn't have purely based upon the timing.

It is their teachers wedding. It just so happens that their teacher is a lesbian. What turned into a fun surprise is being turned into this class went to their lesbian teachers wedding.

That is a point, I don't want to read the article, but, was it during school hours? If it wasn't, why was it even called a field trip? How about just that they were invited? Why was a teacher married during school hours?

And, yes, you are right. I have seen kids saying so many things that you know they had to have learned it from someone. Certain things are not just in their minds. You don't learn hate from Sesame Street and Sponge Bob.

Aw, GC, you would be a wonderful parent.

It was at noon. It was nice. It was stupid.

At least it was a private charter school.



Saw this today

A couple images from the Griffith Observatory parking lot yesterday:


:snap:

Was this a particular event?

Seemed like a wedding. Don't know if it was just for show, pre-wedding photos, or what. We just noticed a bunch of people dressed in cool outfits as we were getting back to our car, then I saw the "No on 8" sign on the bike.

I belong to EQCA on Facebook and they sent out this message the other day. It's basically a beg for donations email but it has some interesting numbers.

It's long.

A great video rebuttal for the Yes on H8 commercial with that Pepperdine jack@ss:
http://milkfat.com/proph8.htm

There have been people with Yes on 8 Signs out on my way to work. One sign says Yes on 8 = Free Speech. I don't get it. What does 8 have to do with free speech?

Just needs the tagline "For the privileged few"