From http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:

A top Anglican cleric who was born in Uganda spoke out Thursday against a proposed law in his native country that would impose the death penalty on some gays.

Archbishop of York John Sentamu – who along with the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, is one of the global fellowship’s most senior priests – condemned the anti-gay law now being considered by the East African nation’s parliament.

“I’m opposed to the death sentence. I’m also not happy when you describe people in the kind of language you find in this … bill,” he told BBC radio.

Although Sentamu seemed to suggest he was the first to attack the proposed law, Williams has also spoken out against it, telling The Daily Telegraph earlier this month that it was “shocking in its severity.”

“Apart from invoking the death penalty, it makes pastoral care impossible – it seeks to turn pastors into informers,” he told the paper in an interview published Dec. 12.

The issue of homosexuality has triggered a debate that has divided the global 77 million-strong Anglican fellowship, including in the United States, where it has splintered the Episcopal Church.

In Thursday’s interview, Sentamu chose his words carefully, restating the content of a 2004 Anglican statement that condemned “the victimization or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex.”

African churches have been at the forefront of the Anglican backlash against the blessings given to gay marriages and the ordination of gay bishops in the West. Uganda, whose population is nearly 40 percent Anglican, has become a rallying point for conservatives, with some U.S. Episcopal denominations switching their allegiance to the Church of Uganda following the 2003 ordination of openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson.

Sentamu said he and Williams had been in touch with his Anglican colleagues in Africa about the proposed law, which has aroused a storm of indignation worldwide. It is expected to go before parliament in the new year.

The bill would mandate a death sentence for sexually active gays living with HIV or in cases of same-sex rape. Anyone convicted of a homosexual act would face life imprisonment.

Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni will not try to block the bill, his spokesman Tamale Mirundi said Thursday, although he did say the president would attempt to convince his National Resistance Movement Party, which has a majority in parliament, to not support it.

“President Museveni cannot block the anti-gays bill,” Mirundi said, saying that if he did so “he will have become a dictator.”

Kara says:

HELLO!

Amanda says:

What’s up miss?

I hear your getting dumped on…snow wise.

Kara says:

I am sitting watching the snow, listening to bat for lashes and drinking tea.

It may be the perfect day

big fat snowflakes

Amanda says:

Wow.. it would be perfect if you had a pipe and maybe a book of proverbs.

Kara says:

I’ll agree with that.

What are you up to?

Amanda says:

I just officially finished my Christmas shopping. I was an elf for others this year. Karma and such. I’m just catching up on the Prop 8 news.

Kara says:

Right on, what’s the news on prop 8?

Amanda says:

Just that January 11th will be the court date in San Fran.

Kara says:

How do you think thats going to pan out?

Amanda says:

Well I think the trial is about whether or not it should be a vote up to the people or whether marginalized groups should be better protected by the law.

But goddamn you gotta love Hillary Clinton: http://www.examiner.com/x-31406-Hillary-Clinton-Examiner~y2009m12d17-Clinton-calls-gay-rights-the-new-frontier-precedes-WH-statement-opposing-Ugandan-antigay-bill

Kara says:

Hillary is a powerhouse.

I like her pantsuits.

Amanda says:

I think she’s a top.

Definitely throw you around.

Kara says:

Oh God yeah

hahaha

Amanda says:

She’s the person I want with my when my canoe springs a hole

and that’s not code

for anything

Kara says:

hahaha I think she’d know what to do.

What else is good, tell me some happy news

Amanda says:

in gay news or my news?

Kara says:

your news

tell me about your life on the island

I’d like to know when I’m getting a tour of PEI with you.

Amanda says:

it’s so quiet. Very pink sunsets. I saw my elementary school principal in the book store today. It was like a celebrity spotting. She didn’t recognize me.

You should come for NYE here!

Kara says:

AHHH jerk… you are 2 hours late…

I just made plans…. I was holding out and going to take it as it came… now I’m going to the market to be one of 700 drunkards, I don’t have a ticket, just Michael.

What are you up to for new years… what are your plans?

Amanda says:

Well be that way then. I will drink my gin and puke on myself in expensive clothes alone. I don’t need YOU to hold my hair. I know bitches.

Party at the Fox and the Hound’s.

Riddled with Gin.

Kara says:

HAHAHA

I think I would cry if I ever saw you that wasted.

Amanda says:

I’m going to see an old friend tonight who has a baby. My first big lesbo crush.

Kara says:

awe!

cute

Amanda says:

Yeah she’s a great buddy. And her daughter is getting the keyboard duplicate I purchased for the niece.

STORIES?

Kara says:

FUCK!

I still have to get my sister a present

hahaha

Amanda says:

good job asshole.

I had a weird encounter at Zellers today

As you should, I suppose

Kara says:

I love Zellers…

hahaha

What happened… did it involve a woman named Linda?

Amanda says:

While I was routing through the sales bin for a paperback for mama’s stocking, a man approached me and proceeded to try to put my cart on the floor so I could wheel it. I said “thank you very much, I’m well aware that it has wheels, but I don’t want to lug it around like a third leg” to which he responded “I’m just trying to help.” I smiled and picked my basket off the floor and he proceeded to

tell me: “I got fired two weeks before Christmas and just found out my 13 year old son is stealing my condoms. Merry fucking Christmas”

haha

I’m sure he checked out my ass, and I didn’t say anything. I felt like that made up for my refusal to be a damsel in distress.

Kara says:

haha

That’s just too much information…why make everyone around you uncomfortable?

Amanda says:

well…I kind of felt for the guy. If Santa needs to have a spirit meter to get into the clouds, by the judges of the faces around…he’s going to be munching some dirt this year. Ha

Christmas carols open up endless opportunities for dirtiness.

Kara says:

HAHAHA how do you figure?

Amanda says:

I don’t

I’m leaving haha

Kara says:

I need coffee, and a Christmas present for a 5 year old.

stat.

I’m getting drunk and eating my face off tomorrow, if you have spare time feel free to come back to Fredericton and pop by.

I am gay. I am from the Bay Area. And I do not like the cold.

About a year ago, I packed up my Volkswagen Jetta, bought chains that looked like the right size, mailed my absentee ballot, and drove to Reno. For you. Having missed the opportunity to travel to a more pivotal battleground state, Nevada and its 4 electoral votes were the closest I could come to impacting the election. Off I went.

A caravan of like-minded Bay Area-its went too. We plowed our way through a surprisingly awful snowstorm over Donner Pass. The McCain supporters were, embarrassingly, better prepared for the snow. SUVs and chains that actually appeared like they had been used in the last 5 years zipped by the Volkswagens, Mini Coopers, and Priuses. But…in the, at times, unlikely story that was our survival…we drove on until the elevation dropped, the temperatures warmed slightly, and the snow stopped.

The bright lights of Reno greeted your fearless precinct walkers, phone bankers, and voter-protection volunteers. The Obama volunteers, for whatever reason, clustered at the Circus Circus. We had heard, for whatever reason, the McCain volunteers were at the Atlantic. Thus, the Circus Circus was the hotel of the people…and of the future. We were Hotel Hope. They were Hotel Palin.

I checked in to a local office, got a packet, and went to sleep. Around 5:00 AM I put on every warm article of clothing I could find, and headed out to a precinct. I chattering college students in the lobby. They sleepily pulled coats over sweatshirts from UC Berkeley, UC Davis, Sacramento State, and others. They also stared blankly at precinct-walking packets and asked hesitantly, “Do we really start knocking on door this early?”

For most of them — it was their first election.

My precinct seemed to me to be in the middle of nowhere. There were signs warning drivers of herds of wild horses. And it was really cold.

It was really really really cold. In fact, the other young attorney and I couldn’t believe how cold it was.

But everything went smoothly. My friends in other states sent me periodic texts asserting the same, marveling at the grassroots effort, or updating on exit polls for East Coast swing states. They sent pictures of lines of people happily waiting to vote.

We were still at the polling place when they called Pennsylvania. I was driving back to my hotel when they called the election. I stood at a bar in Hotel Hope with volunteers from both campaigns and watched John McCain deliver a concession speech to a hushed crowd. An even more hushed crowd, at the local Democratic Party celebration, would later watch Proposition 8 pass in California. California volunteers looked around at each other uneasily, knowing many of us had chosen between the effort to defeat that and the effort to elect you.

When we left the party it was even colder.

I thought Californians would vote down Prop 8, but they didn’t. I thought the California Supreme Court would strike down Prop 8, but it didn’t. I thought the sheer unfairness of passage would turn the tide in other states, but it doesn’t seem to have done that. At least not yet.

So now, a year later and a little more than 100 days into the presidency we hoped and prayed and donated and fought and froze for, I would just like to say…

I would do it all again. Everyone I know would.

Lindsey Adams’ Blog: NotesIntheMargin

About: Lindsey Adams is an attorney and political activist living in the Bay Area. Her political affiliations include: Membership Chair of Cal Alumni Pride (UC Berkeley’s LGBT Alumni Club), Board member of Californians for Justice (organization focused on protecting educational rights in CA), and founding member of Citizen Hope, a social networking community service organization.

This. Was. Hard.

Tthe aughts was truly a renaissance for indie films. They might even later be seen as a second “new wave”.

In addition to these independent American films, the market for foreign films also increased, and we will most assuredly have a top 10 for that in the future. So in the meantime, if your favorite film didn’t make the list, it’s not that we necessarily missed it. It could always surface in other lists, if you know what we mean

Donnie Darko (2001)

Richard Kelly’s feature debut will come as no shock to many who would have expected – nay, DEMANDED – we put this film on the list. Jake Gyllenhaal is a troubled youth from an upscale neighborhood who receives bizarre flashes of an apocalyptic future from an imaginary, humanoid rabbit named ‘Frank’. Creepy, yet? Frank tells Donnie about time travel, and throughout the course of the film, Donnie’s eagerness to test these powers increasingly warp reality and his perception of time itself. His quest, as Frank puts it, is sealing off a parallel reality before it can destroy our own. What a trip, right? To put it simply, when “Donnie Darko” came out, it was ahead of its time. It narrowly failed to make back its budget and was reviled by critics. Yet a curious thing has happened in the 8 years since its release: Donnie Darko gained a strong cult following and spawned a number of imitators. Reviewers also looked at the film with fresh eyes and thus, the director’s cut was released to great praise. With these belated accomplishments in tow, it’s hard to deny “Donnie” a spot on the top 10 list, but we suggest you ignore the inferior “S. Darko” sequel.

Punch-Drunk Love (2002)

This was the film that simultaneously proved P.T. Anderson could direct and Adam Sandler could act. Fans of the director’s repertoire, which includes 90’s hits like “Boogie Nights” and “Magnolia”, as well as the more recent “There Will Be Blood”, you need to run out and see this film if you haven’t already. Barry Egan’s (Sandler) life is a living hell. He has 7 sisters, no meaningful relationship, and owns a fruitless business selling toilet-plungers. His quest to find himself takes several odd turns, and he frequently dreams of escaping to Hawaii to get away from it all. When one of his sisters hooks him up with a friend from work (played by Emily Watson), Barry is smitten. Yet his insecurities prevent him from taking bold moves to sweep her off her feet. Despite the often fantastic scenarios Barry gets himself into, this film is highly relatable for many. Artistically, it’s just beautifully shot and scored, thanks to DP Robert Elswit and Jon Brion, respectively. Anderson captures that assymetry of life and love just perfectly and for all these reasons, it places in our top 10 indies.

Lost in Translation (2003)

Sophia Coppola. Horrible actress, terrific writer-director, it seems. Helmed by one of the only two female directors to make this list, “Lost in Translation” is another thematically-dense piece, in the vein of Ingmar Bergman or even John Cassavetes. Bill Murray, in an oscar-nominated role, is a fading movie star who goes where several Hollywood celebrities go to die: the land of Japanese commercials. While there, he meets a young woman named Charlotte (Scarlett Johanson), married to a famous photographer. They have both been romantically neglected and thus are pulled into an affair, amidst the beat of city life in Tokyo. The film was nominated for four Oscars, netting Sophia “best screenplay” and immediately after, the future seemed bright for the daughter of film legend Francis Ford Coppola. Like “Punch-Drunk Love”, our main character weathers a mid-life crisis, only intensified by the alienation and culture shock (from where the film gets its name) he feels in the Land of the Rising Sun. Also majestically rendered for the silver screen, like “Punch-Drunk Love” before it. If it isn’t already in your Netflix queue by the time this list is finished then add it.

Garden State (2004)

Don’t you remember when the buzz was that Zach Braff would be the next Ray Romano? Now where’s that moniker fallen to? Dimitri Martin? But in 2004, at the apex of sitcom “Scrub”’s popularity, Braff had a legion of fans. His directorial debut, “Garden State” also enamored critics, taking home a Spirit Award for ‘Best First Feature’. In “Garden State”, Braff plays Andrew Largeman, a New Jersey native who is returning home after 10 years in LA. While back, he makes attempts to reconcile with his widowed father and the rest of his family, as well as an old friend/sweetheart, Sam (Natalie Portman). The film bears many similarities of different coming-of-age films, despite the fact that Braff’s character is older than the typical protagonist in these stories. It’s a delayed awakening, as explained by Braff. The film achieved cult status almost immediately upon release, not just for the picture itself but also its soundtrack, which won a Grammy. Juggling several genres at once, “Garden State” is anything but formulaic. Go and check it out.

Sideways (2004)

Alexander Payne’s “Sideways”, also from 2004, regaled critics and audiences alike because it was a genuinely funny film, in that old-fashioned dry way, that also made some very poignant statements about life. Set on the roadtrip of two best friends up to wine country in Northern California,  the film also spiked a resurgence in wine tourism in Napa Valley and neighboring regions. Paul Giamatti seems typecast as Miles Raymond, a hapless writer and part-time winesnob trying to bring his book to print. His best friend, the cocky Jack Lopate (Thomas Haden Church) invites him along for his last bachelor adventure in wine country. Miles, a hopeless romantic, meets a waitress (Virginia Madsen) and the two hit it off. Yet he’s unable to enjoy himself for long as Jack’s fratboy antics soon ensnare them in a web of lies and other hijinx. With a 97% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, a foreign remake scheduled soon, and a slieu of Oscar noms in tow, is it any wonder how “Sideways” made this list?

Crash (2005)

Racism: still a hotbed topic for many, as can be seen in Paul Haggis’ brilliant “Crash”. With an ensemble of acclaimed actors (Sandra Bullock, Don Cheadle, Brendan Fraser, Terrence Howard…) the film adopts an omniscient view in examining how bigotry is still a very powerful force in social justice and cultural relations. Even more notably, “Crash” shared in a history-making year that saw the first Asian director win ‘best director’ at the Oscars and “Crash” itself win over the western love story “Brokeback Mountain”, which some suggested was because of an anti-homosexual bias. Whether or not this was the case, Crash is a terrific film in its own right, and would inspire similar films such as “Babel” later on down the road. It is also rare that you see such a consistent level of performance given, especially when you consider how fine the casting was here. So what are you waiting for? See it today.

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

If there’s any films you’ve seen on this list besides “Garden State” and the following, it’s bound to be “Little Miss Sunshine”.  First-time directors  Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, plus screenwriter Michael Arndt (also making his debut), bring this touching road movie about a dysfunctional family’s trip to see their young daughter (Abigail Breslin) compete in a pre-teen beauty pagent. Much praise was heaped on the film’s inspired casting, which included the young Breslin, Steve Carrel as a gay scholar, and Alan Arkin as a profane, old WW2 veteran. Another critical darling, it was nominated for four oscars, winning one for Arndt’s script and another for Arkin’s performance.

Juno (2007)

I’m almost reluctant to put this one on the list, as it was a three-way tie for all of Jason Reitman’s works this decade. Yet the following this film has is hard to deny, and some of you would probably lynch me if you could.

Don’t worry, “Juno” did earn its place here, if for nothing else, in its role in popularizing indie films for young people who usually wouldn’t give a damn. The film is jam-packed with Gen-Y humor, even though its makers and stars are thoroughly Gen-X. It received a barriage of Oscar nominations as well, winning for “best screenplay” for first-timer Diablo Cody, which if you think about the role this award has had in the list so far, is kind of like a consolation prize. Though some criticized Cody’s thick and self-indulgent dialogue, others believe it only further kept the film real and was extremely funny. One thing we do have this movie to thank for: Ellen Page. Though she had starred in a handful of other pictures before, including X-men 3 (bleh), this film earned her an Oscar nom at just 20 years old and there will certainly be more great things to come from her in the future.

Milk (2008)

Like “Brokeback Mountain” before it, another Oscar-worthy film that stirred controversy due to its gay characters was Gus Van Sant’s biopic “Milk”. In less than 3 years, “Milk” had arrived to a substantially different political climate in the gay rights saga than “Brokeback” did. California had become the 2nd state to legalize gay marriage, but now an initiative was before the voters to reverse that.

On November 4th, 2008, California voters approved Prop 8 by a narrow margin.The backlash in the LGBT community, as well as Hollywood sympathy, was widely considered the sole reason for this film receiving so many oscar nominations (eight), but controversy aside, “Milk” is viewed by many to be Gus Van Sant’s greatest picture, in a filmography that includes “Good Will Hunting” and “Elephant”, both previous award-winners. Charting Harvey Milk’s activist-turned-politician life and his ultimate assassination by Supervisor Dan White, “Milk” walked away with only ‘best original screenplay’ (yet again), and awarding ‘best actor’ to Sean Penn for his second win. Indeed, while separating the political motives behind this film are difficult, it is still a deep and compassionate look at a historical event worthy of your time.

The Hurt Locker (2009)

We round out the aughts with another close call. There were several contenders for the 2009 slot, some of which did not even make it into the honorable mentions. In short, 2009 alone saw several prominent indie and foreign films, especially breakout hits like the sci-fi faux-doc “District 9″; “Moon”, also sci-fi; the anti-rom-com “(500) Days of Summer”, and of course this action-thriller from director Kathryn Bigelow, “The Hurt Locker”.

The film chronicles an Army EOD team, which is basically a bomb squad, as they patrol Iraq defusing mines and dealing with insurgent attacks. Previously, several films had already addressed the Iraq War, with mediocre to great results. None fared well at the box office, however. “The Hurt Locker” changed all this in one limited run. Already on numerous critics’ top 10 lists of the year, it has already received 3 Golden Globe noms and will likely be up for a few Oscars as well.

Honorable Mentions

The trends are simple to spot, as 8 of the 10 on this list all racked up major awards in some way or another. But moreover, what earned each of these films a spot on the list was not just their critical praise (in indie circles, there’s a lot of that), but also controversy, influence, and popularity. This list could just as easily be doubled and still several great films could be added. In fact, a few are mentioned in our ‘Honorable Mentions’ section. Won’t you check those out?

Memento

The Passion of the Christ

Brokeback Mountain

Eastern Promises

Rachel Getting Married

Things are hopping in Iran:

Funeral for Iranian Cleric Turns Into a Vast Protest

By ROBERT F. WORTH and NAZILA FATHI

Published: December 21, 2009

[BEIRUT, Lebanon — The funeral of a prominent dissident cleric in the holy Iranian city of Qum turned into a huge and furious antigovernment rally on Monday, raising the possibility that the cleric’s death could serve as a catalyst for an opposition movement that has been locked in a stalemate with the authorities…]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/world/middleeast/22cleric.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

In California we are playing these games as we work to unscramble the mess of Prop 8. Human rights are possible to achieve, as this article indicates! In addition to Mexico City, this article says Uruguay has managed to legalize same sex marriage for the whole country.

Mexico City Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: December 21, 2009

Filed at 5:50 p.m. ET

[MEXICO CITY (AP) -- Mexico City lawmakers on Monday made the city the first in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage, a change that will give homosexual couples more rights, including allowing them to adopt children….]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/21/world/AP-LT-Mexico-GayMarriag.html?ref=global-home

Ahh, the new pragmatism, even the birthers are screaming:

King: Nelson sold out anti-abortion movement

By JASON HANCOCK 12/21/09 8:35 AM

[Two days after praising U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., to Des Moines Register columnist Kathie Obradovich, U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron, released a statement attacking the lawmaker for an abortion compromise in health care reform.

In order to garner Nelson’s support, Senate Democratic leaders included a provision in their version of health care reform that would allow states to ban abortion coverage for women receiving federal subsidies on proposed government-organized private insurance marketplaces, dubbed exchanges….]

http://iowaindependent.com/24126/king-nelson-sold-out-anti-abortion-movement?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IowaIndependent+%28Iowa+Independent%29

This is article is an example of one of the darker and more serious sides of the education of young people. Don’t let this happen to your school board.

Revisionist History Dept

McCarthy 101.

DAVE MANN | DECEMBER 11, 2009 | POLITICAL INTELLIGENCE

[It takes serious revisionist thinking to believe that history has “vindicated” Joseph McCarthy, but that’s what some members of the State Board of Education contend. If they get their way, that’s how Texas schools will portray the late red-baiting U.S. Senator in social studies classes….]

http://www.texasobserver.org/pi/revisionist-history-dept

The lawsuit against California’s Proposition 8 will see the Federal Court in a couple months. As noted before, the lawsuit is likely to pass through the Federal Court and onto the Supreme Court.

Gay Rights activists everywhere are terrified by this prospect, in that if the Supreme Court rules that Prop 8 is constitutional, the Gay Rights movement will see major setbacks. Progress that has been made might be undone. These feelings are based upon the fact that the Supreme Court has a majority of conservative judges. In fact 6/9 of the current judge can be considered as conservative. Furthermore, there are rumors that the entire lawsuit is simply a shallow conspiracy; the lawsuit is to reach the conservative Supreme Court only to be shot down, thus creating the significant setbacks to the Gay Rights movement.

Of course, the lawyers proposing the lawsuit (David Boies, of the Gore administration, and Ted Olson, of the Bush administration) are denying these claims, stating that they only need to look into the eyes of gays and lesbians to know that Proposition 8, and any law infringing upon the rights of gays, is unconstitutional and is just simply wrong. Keep in mind, however, that Ted Olson worked for the Bush administration, and is typically considered a conservative. This, of course, could mean nothing, seeing as there are conservatives who vote favorably for Gay Rights.

I tend to take things at face value, and would like nothing more than to believe Mr. Olson’s claims.

However, whether or not Olson and Boies have good intentions at heart (they could simply be making an ill informed decision), I decided to take a quick look at the current make-up of the Supreme Court, and what decision they are most likely to make should they see the lawsuit against Prop 8. Keep in mind that this is a “shallow” scan of the Supreme Court. This is not an in-depth analysis. I, of course, mention the justices’ stance on gay rights. Further, I mention their stances on Roe v. Wade, a similar court case in that Roe v. Wade overturned a wide scale set of conventions. If gay rights were to enter the Supreme Court, the situation would greatly parallel that of Roe v. Wade. If anyone would like to see an in-depth analysis, contact me and I’ll try to post one up. Each judge is put on a scale of zero to ten, zero being, not at all likely to vote favorably, and ten being will vote favorably.

Chief Justice:

John Roberts

Roberts was nominated by George W. Bush and is a conservative. However, in a pervious ruling, Roberts ruled that it was unconstitutional for Texan boy scouts from accepting gay scoutmasters. Such decisions put Roberts on the rocks concerning gay rights issues. Nevertheless, Roberts is more likely than not to rule unfavorably concerning the lawsuit, not based on his opinions on gay rights, but due to his opinions on radical decisions like Roe v. Wade, decisions that change too much too quickly. 4/10

—

Associate Justices:

Samuel Alito

Alito was nominated by George H.W. Bush and is a conservative. Like Roberts, Alito has not made it clear to the public whether or not he is pro-gay marriage or not. He did, however, vote against discrimination against gays concerning the Texan boy scouts incident. In light of Roe v. Wade, Alito does not like the decision at all. Keep in mind, however, that he is extremely biased based on his views on abortion (he doesn’t like it). But Alito is also against overturning Roe v. Wade, as many rulings have built off of the decision as a precedent. This shows that Alito is much like Roberts; he is unlikely to vote favorably concerning the lawsuit, due to the fact that anti-gay marriage laws, such as DOMA, are currently prevalent in the US. 4/10

Stephen Breyer

Breyer was nominated to the Supreme Court by Bill Clinton and is liberal. Breyer is for gay rights and believes that it is unconstitutional that gays are denied civil rights. Furthermore, Roe v. Wade proves that Breyer is unafraid to vote favorably on radical decisions. 10/10

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Ginsberg was nominated to the Supreme Court by Bill Clinton and is liberal. Ginsberg is, of course, for gay rights, and, of course, voted that it was unconstitutional that gay scoutmasters be discriminated against. Roe v. Wade proves that Ginsburg is not afraid to vote favorably on radical decisions. However, considering Ginsburg’s ’slightly higher’ bias concerning Roe v. Wade, it is not clear whether or not she would make such a radical decision again. 8/10

Anthony Kennedy

Kennedy was nominated by Reagan, and, based on his court decisions, he swings both on the conservative side and the liberal side. In terms of gay rights, Kennedy leans towards the liberal side, and consistently favors that constitutional rights be extended to gays. According to Roe v. Wade, Kennedy seems on the edge. He did vote favorably in Roe v. Wade. Whether he would make a like decision for gay rights is unclear. 7.5/10

Antonin Scalia

Scalia was nominated by Reagan and is considered to be one of the stronger core conservatives. Scalia is not likely to the least bit to vote favorably for gay rights. It has been said, but yet to be clearly proven, that Scalia is a homophobe. However, whether or not Scalia dislikes gays and does not advocate gay rights, Scalia will not vote favorably for the same reasons he did not vote favorably for Roe v. Wade. He will simply not pass such a wide-scale and radical decision.0/10

Sonia Sotomayor

Sotomayor was nominated by current President Obama and is liberal. She has yet to rule on any gay-related issues or make any formal comments regarding such. However, gay legal activists look favorably upon her (a definite plus). Sotomayor was not on the panel during Roe v. Wade, and it is unclear what her status on such decisions are. Currently, she defends Roe v. Wade as “settled law.” 6/10

John Paul Stevens

Stevens was nominated by Ford and is considered to be the most liberal justice in the current Supreme Court. However, Stevens has also been considered to place, ideologically, as a dead center moderate. He advocates gay rights, and he voted that Boy Scouts should accept gay scoutmasters. He is not afraid to make radical decisions (he upheld Roe v. Wade), making him likely to vote favorably for gay rights. Stevens is set to retire during Obama’s presidency. Of course, Obama is extremely likely to nominate a liberal justice, keeping the current balance of liberal and conservative. 7/10

Clarence Thomas

Thomas was nominated by George H. W. Bush and is considered to be one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court. He voted unfavorably concerning whether or not the Texan Boy Scouts should accept gay scoutmasters. Also, Thomas has not formulated a stance on Roe v. Wade, making it unclear whether or not he would vote favorably on a radical wide-spread decision. 2/10

—

Altogether, everything adds up to 48.5/90, which would be about 53%. Furthermore, 5 out of the 9 justices rate above ‘5′ on the scale from 0 to 10, giving Olson and Boies a slight advantage going into the Supreme Court. Keep in mind that this advantage is slight, and can sway either way quite easily. It is completely unlikely that the Supreme Court will come to a unanimous decision.

Hopefully, the coming decisions concerning Prop 8 will spark media debate and awareness, and make gay rights an important issue in the eyes of the people.

I can only hope that Olson and Boies succeed.

Wow. A two-week blog fail.

Preparations for moving, the two day trip abroad for a job interview, followed by two more days of clearing out and scouring our apartment left little time for reflection, much less blogging. But we are out, out of our apartment, out of Irvine, and now out of California.

After the surprise feelings of guilt over selling our car — it felt like we were hocking the thing to an orphanage — it was a little strange to feel nothing upon leaving our apartment. We did our final walk through, said our “goodbyes” and “thank yous” to each room, and left. That was that. Not a second thought or a tinge of sadness.

There are lots of things that might explain this non-reaction, namely, the disorganization and frenzied activity that always works to anesthetize any departure pains. When you spend days clearing your home of its character, and follow that by scouring all of the places you’d preferred not to look, even the most stubborn grime of nostalgia is bound to come loose.

But there was another far more important reason: Irvine was quite simply sucking the life out of us. Despite the stacks of books we read, the so-called digital interconnectivity, we both felt we were catching Sinclair Lewis’ “Village Virus,” the provincial coma whose only cure is to get the hell back to a city. And it wasn’t simply Orange County’s 10-mega-church-per-block zoning laws, the bookstores that that exclusively sold the Twilight series, or the legions of Humvee driving republicans. It was the university atmosphere as well.

UCI for all intents and purposes felt like a reverse world, in which being a progressive meant denigrating activism and gleefully incorporating the Bush administration’s – not to mention President Obama’s — own dismissals of progressive activism, while displaying a stunning ignorance of how, to borrow from Paul Street, “direct action, social disruption, and the threat of radical change from the bottom up forced social and political reform” that benefited minorities and the poor and working class during the 30s and 60s.

It meant cultural and class snobbery on a level all its own, where subtle pronunciation wars over the names of critical theorists meant social death for the loser; it meant wearing tweed or knit caps in the middle of 80 degree afternoons; and the overuse – and very often misuse – of the word meta. It meant the hip denigration of the academically unhip identity politics, alongside simultaneous and incongruous denunciations of proposition 8. (Sweeties, if you think the Mormons and fundies weren’t playing identity politics in those NOM ads, you are sadly naïve.)

In short: It was time for us to go.

We met some great people who took the student unions and activism seriously (many of them left the school or spent as much time as possible away). The truly smart people couldn’t quite seem to stomach the place, neither it seems, can the more interesting faculty who seem to flee for other positions on a regular basis.

I’ve been reflecting on this since being back in Portland. This city may have its share of pseudo progressives and hipsters, but it has a long tradition of genuine progressive activism, and it didn’t get this reputation by lauding Obama’s ability to make nice with Newt Gingrich, while giving us a health care bill that has the insurance companies absolutely giddy. It got to where it is through real grassroots campaigning (the kind that doesn’t leave out the working class), labor organizing, and massive displays of untoward, unhip, and yes, sometimes ugly, displays of anger.

So here’s to ugly. Because when you try to make everything nice, you get Irvine.

$$$$  It is that time of the year for saving money so you may be getting something in the mail about saving you money on property taxes.  Beware, they may be charging you a fee for something you can do yourself.  I got an email from a client about an official looking letter from Property Tax Adjusters, out of Granada Hills, CA.  They offered to process a reassessment application that could save $X for the homeowner for the piddly cost of $189.  Hey, inflation, I used to get these mailers quoting $39!

But wait, you can do this yourself.  Go to see Gus Kramer, our Contra Costa County Tax Assessor, in Martinez, write a letter and/or fill out a simple form that is available from the assessors office.  Check out Proposition 8.  The first step is to go the website: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=191  for more information.  I noticed a post about a scam dated December 14, 2009 that can be reached via TAXPAYER ALERT box right on the front page of the Assessor’s website which addresses this particular scam.  There is a ton of information and documents you can download or read that will give you more information about property taxes in general and you can check the status or print out your own tax bill right from that site. 

If you need help with updated comparable sales please contact me directly and I can provide these to you within 24 hours, just send me your email and current address and we will forward comparable sales and listings for you to use.  The assessor has called me on several occasions to verify information, so they are on track to keep our values reasonable.

The Redlands, California Temple (HD) – Mormon Temples

The Redlands California Temple is the 116th operating temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The announcement of a temple in Redlands, California came on April 21, 2001. Redlands is in the San Bernardino, California area, an area which since 1851, has had a large population of Mormons some of whom are descendants of colonists that first established the community. The original community was established at the behest of Brigham Young but the settlers were called back to Utah for safety purposes in 1857.

The site for the Redlands California Temple was dedicated in December 2001 and construction began soon after. Mormon members helped in the construction by donating rocks for its building, some of these rocks were from the area where the original Mormon colonists of 1851 camped. Young children also donated their pennies to buy the palm trees that are now planted around the temple. The temple sits on 4.6 acres (19,000 m2) and is 17,300 square feet (1,610 m2). It houses two ordinance rooms and three sealing rooms.

From August 9th through September 6th 2003 an open house was held for the Redlands Temple. About 11,000 people volunteered to help with the open house and more than 140,000 people were able to tour the temple and learn more about the purpose of Mormon temples. The temple was built on a lot that originally was home to an orange grove; during the open house visitors were served orange juice made from the trees that once stood there.

Church President Gordon B. Hinckley dedicated the Redlands California Temple on September 14, 2003. Thousands of members attended the four dedication services. The Redlands Temple was the fifth temple built in California. It serves approximately 70,000 Mormon members in the area.

To learn more about Mormons and Temples please visit: http://www.Mormons.org

There are two ballot initiative measures in circulation related to a proposed constitutional Convention. The first measure is titled the Citizens Constitutional Convention Act and would amend the existing California Constitution to allow a simple majority of California voters to call a constitutional convention. Currently, the state legislature must authorize a constitutional convention.

The second constitutional initiative measure being circulated  is a mandate for forming a  the actual  constitutional convention  commission under the aegis of the Fair Political Practices Commission. The Commission will determine the site and dates of the convention. The deadline for submitting the constitutional initiative petition signatures to the Secretary of State for validation is January 11^th, 2010.

This constitutional convention could have adverse consequences for the restoration of marriage equality for members of the LGBT community.

First, because the constitutional convention  would not be allowed to take up marriage, abortion, and some other restricted matters, and, second, because  one of the purposes of such a convention would be to raise threshold for amending the California Constitution  from a simple majority to a two-thirds majority. This would make it virtually impossible to overturn the abolition of marriage equality that was put into the California Constitution with  passage of Proposition 8 in November of 2008.

According to “Repair California”, the group that is pushing the constitutional convention initiatives, roughly 70% of California voters support holding the convention to rewrite the California Constitution. If this group’s claims are accurate then it appears to be a near certainly that the convention will be approved by the voters in 2010. Such a convention will take place in 2011 and the revisions will then be submitted to the voters for approval  in 2012.

Should the LGBT community wait until 2012 to make a concerted effort to wrest back their right to marry? Should they wait until 2012 on the theory that it will take that long to change enough minds for equality to prevail at the ballot box?  But what happens if and when the Constitution is amended to require a two thirds vote in order to restore marriage equality in November of 2012? What will happen if  the higher  amendment threshold is passed in June of 2012?

The faction within the LGBT community that is holding out for 2012 to take it back to the ballot assert that the political climate of a presidential election will be more amenable to a youth turnout  that would yield a better margin for LGBT rights. If that is true, then how can Obama’s vote in California in 2008 be reconciled with the vote for repeal of marriage equality?

No one knows what the political lay of the land will look like in 2012. Right now, Obama is alienating a lot of the progressive base. These are the same progressives who supplied much of his 2008 margin of victory. What happens if the progressive base becomes ever more disenchanted? What happens if they stay home in November, 2012?

The safest and wisest path to restoration of marriage equality is to support the Restoration of Marriage Equality Initiative for the November 2010 ballot. The 2012 holdout faction within the LGBT community needs to realize the very real risks the whole community faces by holding out.  Waiting until the constitutional amendment threshold is raised could forever put marriage equality beyond reach for those who did not make it in during the brief window of marriage equality in 2008.  Delaying justice so that it is forever denied is not a viable option for me. Delaying equality and justice to those who are no longer able to exercise the right that was taken away from them in 2008 should not be an acceptable option for anyone.

Jay Hubbell

For more information on the 2010 Initiative to Restore Marriage Equality:

www.signforequality.com

There are two ballot initiative measures in circulation related to a proposed constitutional Convention. The first measure is titled the Citizens Constitutional Convention Act and would amend the existing California Constitution to allow a simple majority of California voters to call a constitutional convention. Currently, the state legislature must authorize a constitutional convention.

The second constitutional initiative measure being circulated  is a mandate for forming a  the actual  constitutional convention  commission under the aegis of the Fair Political Practices Commission. The Commission will determine the site and dates of the convention. The deadline for submitting the constitutional initiative petition signatures to the Secretary of State for validation is January 11^th, 2010.

This constitutional convention could have adverse consequences for the restoration of marriage equality for members of the LGBT community.

First, because the constitutional convention  would not be allowed to take up marriage, abortion, and some other restricted matters, and, second, because  one of the purposes of such a convention would be to raise threshold for amending the California Constitution  from a simple majority to a two-thirds majority. This would make it virtually impossible to overturn the abolition of marriage equality that was put into the California Constitution with  passage of Proposition 8 in November of 2008.

According to “Repair California”, the group that is pushing the constitutional convention initiatives, roughly 70% of California voters support holding the convention to rewrite the California Constitution. If this group’s claims are accurate then it appears to be a near certainly that the convention will be approved by the voters in 2010. Such a convention will take place in 2011 and the revisions will then be submitted to the voters for approval  in 2012.

Should the LGBT community wait until 2012 to make a concerted effort to wrest back their right to marry? Should they wait until 2012 on the theory that it will take that long to change enough minds for equality to prevail at the ballot box?  But what happens if and when the Constitution is amended to require a two thirds vote in order to restore marriage equality in November of 2012? What will happen if  the higher  amendment threshold is passed in June of 2012?

The faction within the LGBT community that is holding out for 2012 to take it back to the ballot assert that the political climate of a presidential election will be more amenable to a youth turnout  that would yield a better margin for LGBT rights. If that is true, then how can Obama’s vote in California in 2008 be reconciled with the vote for repeal of marriage equality?

No one knows what the political lay of the land will look like in 2012. Right now, Obama is alienating a lot of the progressive base. These are the same progressives who supplied much of his 2008 margin of victory. What happens if the progressive base becomes ever more disenchanted? What happens if they stay home in November, 2012?

The safest and wisest path to restoration of marriage equality is to support the Restoration of Marriage Equality Initiative for the November 2010 ballot. The 2012 holdout faction within the LGBT community needs to realize the very real risks the whole community faces by holding out.  Waiting until the constitutional amendment threshold is raised could forever put marriage equality beyond reach for those who did not make it in during the brief window of marriage equality in 2008.  Delaying justice so that it is forever denied is not a viable option for me. Delaying equality and justice to those who are no longer able to exercise the right that was taken away from them in 2008 should not be an acceptable option for anyone.

Jay Hubbell

For more information on the 2010 Initiative to Restore Marriage Equality:

www.signforequality.com

by Jessica Bryan

Focus accused GLSEN of “sexualizing” Santa Claus in a theatrical fundraiser entitled Santa Claus is Coming Out! The group also argued that “Every child needs a mom and a dad” is ”more than a campaign slogan,” argued that the case in Alameda, California shows how gay rights activists are attempting to trump parental rights in school curriculum, argued that promotion of ”unrestrained sexual license” is a form of governmental control over the masses a la Brave New World, and discussed the vote in the New York Senate to not legalize gay marriage and LGBT efforts through campaign contributions to “redefine marriage.”

The group also wrote about the  3-judge panel of 9th Circuit judges who issued a preliminary ruling about the release of the internal documents of the Prop. 8 proponents, saying that it is likely that they will not be forced to release them.  Focus also criticized the research of a postdoctoral student in Canada who argues that porn does not change men’s perception of women or their relationships with them.

An email from Focus discussed the negative impact of porn on families and communities.

A second email from the group noted that some argue that a UN climate treaty may be a threat to U.S. sovereignty and “have a devastating impact on U.S. families.”

A third email from focus includes an interview with Jim Daly about the Manhattan Declaration.

Last week I witnessed in the media two contrasting bits of information about same-sex marriage. The first was news reports about New York’s State Senate voting down a state-wide bill that would have allowed same-sex marriage, legislation vocally supported by Governor David Paterson. The second was the next day on Jeopardy. A female contestant, Emily Brown, discussed in the interview portion her play that was being produced (I think in NYC) about a secret love affair between Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. She claims that study of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories reveals this closeted part of the Holmes canon. Coincidentally, during the course of the Double Jeopardy round, in a category called “Life in Des Moines,” this answer came up:

The annual Pridefest is more festive
since the April 2009 decision
that allowed this in Iowa.

Emily buzzed in and correctly questioned, “What is gay marriage?” Alex Trebek then quipped, “Sherlock Holmes and Watson again.”

Jeopardy has never been a conservative game show and considering that its creator Merv Griffin was rumored to be gay, it’s not surprising to see gay marriage included and discussed freely and without judgment. Its ease with the subject, contrasted with yet another setback in the legal battle for same-sex marriage, was bitter sweet.

Personally, I always felt that the advantage of being gay was the absence of pressure to get married, even for a serial-monogamist like me. If gay and lesbian couples are into public displays of affection and want to take it to an extreme, I support that for them, but it’s not for me. The passing of Prop 8 in California in November 2008, overturning the California Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage, was very surprising and upsetting. Ironically, another proposition in the same election passed, mandating more humane cages for farm animals, primarily chickens. The citizens of California are bleeding hearts when it comes to poor chickens that will eventually be eaten. Literal cages—as opposed to discriminatory cages—are so much easier to visualize and destroy.

(Tangent: if gay body-builders agreed to give their lives and bodies to human steakhouses, would people be more likely to let them enjoy marriage first? To keep their meat pure, if nothing else. Just a thought.)

After the right for California same-sex couples to marry was degifted, I put aside my personal objections to marriage of any sort and with my legal domestic partner Eric, I took to the streets to fight for our right to marry (after the election unfortunately, though before the election I created a reverse-psychology video for youtube that backfired and did nothing for the effort to defeat the prop). We ironed some slogans onto t-shirts and went down to a huge rally in front of Oakland’s City Hall. The t-shirts were designed to go together, a matched set, and a few people took photos of us standing closely together. Eric’s t-shirt said “We are OUTraged!” and mine said “We celebrated YOUR weddings!”

That’s what really pissed me off about the defeat of gay marriage, besides the obvious injustice and inequality. I have been to 20-30 opposite-sex weddings, several as best man or groomsman. And that doesn’t count all the TV and movie weddings I’ve sat through. The weddings I attended were of people I cared about, but I doubt that every one of those brides and grooms would come to my same-sex wedding, let alone vote “yes” for gay marriage. A lot of my straight friends and family members DO support same-sex marriage, and I applaud them. I just wished they all lived and voted in California!

I have been to only one legal same-sex wedding, and I went to that one twice. It was that good!! Actually, it was once as witness at the SF City Hall ceremony and then again at the family wedding celebration in the state of Washington. The family celebration was a particularly joyous occasion and it was moving to hear the men’s parents express words and tears of happiness and support for their sons’ union.

Okay, so the guys aren’t together anymore, but that’s beside the point. Neither are several of the straight couples. After Prop 8 passed, I vowed to never go to another straight wedding again until gay marriage was legal in the U.S.

And then this fall I was invited to three straight weddings and one reception. Talk about bad timing. Worse, two of the weddings were on the same day. The brides of both are voice students of Eric so he really wanted to attend, the wedding for the early one and the wedding and reception for the later one. He was also playing piano on one piece during the ceremony for the second wedding.

I refused to go to either.  Then the out-of-town soprano soloist for the second wedding, and her husband, who was officiating, asked to stay at our house the weekend of the wedding. I was torn and wished the marrying couples could have just followed the lead of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie who have been together for several years and publicly stated that they will not get married until all U.S. citizens, meaning me, can legally marry. (Thank you, Brangelina, whatever your motives.) I held out as long as possible but when the RSVP deadline arrived, I agreed to attend both weddings.

The first wedding was held in a bright, contemporary Berkeley Presbyterian church on a sunny afternoon. The sanctuary is a raked half-circle and feels like an indoor amphitheatre. The decorations and wedding party attire were elegant and classy, in simple colors of white, black, and deep red. The ceremony, however, was fairly traditional. An interesting twist on the scripture readings was to have married couples, friends of the bride and groom, stand together at a podium and alternate verses. The feeling and mood was light, joyful, and celebratory, even though there was no dancing in the aisle like they do in my home state of Minnesota (also that of the bride). I was glad I went and pleased that the ceremony had a bit of originality, different than any other I’d attended. However, it did appear that Eric and I were the only gay couple.

After going through the receiving line in the outdoor courtyard and sharing in a champagne toast, we hightailed it across town to the Scottish Rite Center on Lake Merritt in downtown Oakland for the next experience of wedding originality. The Center, built and run by Masons, is an imposing white stone structure with columns, and steep stairs leading up to a set of massive double oak doors. The interior is heavy dark wood and carpeting and reminds me of a medieval castle. You half expect to have a mug of beer and roasted turkey leg thrust into your hands when you enter. The medieval vibe makes the Center the perfect setting for the annual Christmas Revels—check it out if you’re in town. (And I wouldn’t be surprised if a future Dan Brown novel doesn’t unravel some nefarious Mason mystery at the Center.)

The wedding and reception were held in a large interior hall with high ceilings and a stage for a band, but little natural lighting. The ceremony was in a curtained off end of the room with rows of chairs set up to face a makeshift stage. My friend Amyrose, wearing a big wide-brimmed green hat that shaded her face, rose mysteriously to sing the opening Irish folksong “She Moves Through the Fair.”  Her husband Patrick had gotten ordained over the internet in order to be the wedding’s Officiant. He, the groom, the best woman, the matron of honor, and a bridesmaid, assembled up front. For the processional the groom picked up a guitar and sang Paul McCartney’s “I Will” to his bride-to-be as she and her father walked down the aisle. Very cool.

The bride then stood in front of the piano. While Eric played, she sang “The Cloths of Heaven” to her groom-to-be. Tears started to fall all around. The very non-traditional ceremony continued, highlighted by an Ogden Nash reading, a poem written by the bride’s mother, and Patrick’s “Definition of Marriage.”  In defining marriage, he advised the bride and groom, in part, that “from the moment you two recess down the aisle, you will begin helping to define what marriage can be for all of us… Over time, you both will grow, but your love will stay steadfast, as your vows to love each other persist even as you yourselves change.  As such, your love will undergo an expansion to include all the people you will become…The future of your love together is not predetermined solely by who you are.  Just as there are many meals you can cook with the same ingredients, and countless ways to combine the same notes into melodies, there are limitless possible kinds of marriage you two can choose to create together.”

He then led the couple through their touching, self-written vows and announced them “hitched.”

The reception was kicked off by the groom’s middle-aged father’s country rock band. For one of the first numbers the bride, a classically trained singer, and the groom belted out a country-western duet. Lots of fun. Each guest received an animal finger puppet as a remembrance of the event. During the course of the reception a double rainbow appeared over the lake across the street and everyone gathered at the double oak doors and on the front stairs to ooh and aah at the beautiful omen. Again, I think Eric and I were the only gay couple in attendance.

When the day was over, I was glad to have lifted my moratorium on straight weddings. If this was the direction straight wedding ceremonies were headed, then surely gay marriage was just around the corner. There was still one more wedding to go and since it was our best friends who decided after more than 20 years of cohabitation to get married, I was looking forward to it. Little did I know until the day of the wedding that theirs would be the gayest straight wedding of all!

We were the only gay couple there too, but it didn’t matter. To start with, the wedding was held in Manhattan at the top of the fabulous art deco Beekman Tower Hotel which overlooks the East River and the United Nations building. The setting fit perfectly with the couple’s Magic of Love wedding theme. The elevator opens into a high-ceilinged bar in the center of the 26^th floor. Two archways on either end of the bar lead down to two separate seating areas. Tables line the length of outer walls and windows of the restaurant with spectacular views of the city. An outdoor patio runs along the south end, looking towards the UN.

It was a partly cloudy October Sunday afternoon with an intermittent Arthurian drizzle. While we waited for all of the 16 guests to arrive, we partook of mimosas and were introduced to the family and friends of the bridge and groom. Once everyone was present, we made our way to the far corner of the west side seating area which was roomy enough for the ceremony.

Our friends Jim and Vicki are in their 60s and it was not the first marriage for either of them, part of the reason they waited more than 20 years to get married. They also feel passionately about marriage equality and almost pleaded a Brangelina. Instead, in lieu of gifts, they suggested that wedding guests give donations to battle the Defense of Marriage Act through DOMAwatch or the Human Rights Campaign.

For the wedding, a friend of theirs had also gotten his ordination on the internet and he began the ceremony by tossing a handful of glitter, or fairy dust, into the air to bless the proceedings. Wearing a long black robe, he donned a pointed wizard hat and produced a magic wand with which he punctuated his opening words. The entire party then sang along to a recording of Billy Joel’s “Just the Way You Are.”

The couple had invited friends and family to speak or sing or read a poem, I thought during toasts at the reception, but turned out it was in the middle of the ceremony. With a gulp, I stood up first to recite/read a “poem.” They had wanted the wedding to be both fun and classy so I performed what was meant to be a comical mashup of the two. In exaggerated theatricality I spoke the lyrics to the song “The Rose.” I think it came off more as bad acting than anything. (In keeping with the magic theme I had hoped to pull a silk rose out of my sleeve at the end but had decided on this piece over another the night before and couldn’t find a store on Sunday morning.)

Eric read a tender piece from the “Velveteen Rabbit,” a close friend read a Navajo wedding poem, the bride’s rabbi nephew spoke extemporaneously and eloquently, and the bride’s 98-year-old mother stood and expressed the sweetest, most articulate appreciation of the couple that day. After the officiant’s words and blessings, distribution of sparkly necklaces of stars and hearts to all in the party, and more fairy dust, the vows were given, and the bond was made official with a passionate kiss. Each wedding guest received a “Magic of Love” CD mix-tape, which played during the reception, as a souvenir.

It was wonderful to witness and participate in my friends’ public declaration of love and commitment to their ongoing life together. As the theme of their wedding showed, the magic of love is that it blesses a wide range of couples and partnerships, and isn’t restricted to the head-turning, giddy love of youth. And weddings can be an individual creative expression of the two involved, gay or straight.

Maybe gay couples can’t marry in California or New York, but given that the straight weddings I attended in those states have strayed from the traditional and lightened up in their celebration and definition of love and marriage, then there is hope for same-sex marriage in the near future. Maybe by that time, I’ll be willing to consider tying the knot myself. And if I evolve before the general populace does, then I’ll just have to move to Iowa.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Carrie%20Prejean

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just knocked down a lower court’s ruling that the campaigns who fought for Prop. 8  (specifically Protectmarriage.com – Yes on 8 ) needed to hand over internal communications to pro-gay plaintiffs in a suit to overturn the ban of same-sex marriage. (Download the opinion here as a pdf.)

The plaintiffs want to prove that Prop 8 violates due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (backgrounder from the LA Times). To do so, they say they need evidence that the Prop 8 folks deliberately fanned the flame of hatred. Judge Raymond Fisher writes:

Whether campaign messages were designed to appeal to voters’ animosity toward gays and lesbians is a question that appears to be susceptible to expert testimony, without intruding into private aspects of the campaign. Whether Proposition 8 bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest is primarily an objective inquiry.

OK, so any loss for the LGBT movement can be seen as a civil-rights set back. I’m not saying it’s not. The flipside is that the court ruled to protect the First Amendment, because forcing them to do so would have the effect of “chilling participation and…muting the internal exchange of ideas.”  I think it would be a different story if the plaintiffs were accusing the proponents of Prop 8 of corruption or money-laundering. More from Fisher:

The freedom to associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas lies at the heart of the First Amendment. Where, as here, discovery would have the practical effect of discouraging the exercise of First Amendment
associational rights, the party seeking discovery must  demonstrate a need for the information sufficiently compelling to outweigh the impact on those rights.

What’s especially ironic here is that the precedents used by the court to rule in the anti-gay groups’ favor are rulings regarding liberal, civil-rights organizations like the NAACP, AFL-CIO and the Black Panther Party.

Who defines society is what I want to know? Who determines what is right and wrong in the matters or love and equal protection in the law? Religion? Are we as a culture defined by a book we may not all even agree upon…because it mainstream accepted and valued we place our views smack down on everyone? and wait even better determine law by this!

People are people….
a needing breathing loving apparatus….a heart. we do not have the rights to tell who deserves protection in their agreement of love because of sexuality preference..whether you agree with it or not on a personal level has nothing to do with the fact of the matter we need to recognize people for who they are. Just like you. We are all the same. California…..prop 8 in 2010 think about it. thats all i ask. these photographs explains it all for me. That is a sheep heart from a wonderful prop shop in LA CA www.dappercadaver.com.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=173555644396

Here’s some important news at “The Frisky”.  Former Miss California will not attend a very late night event at a nightclub (why did she think they called it a “nightclub”?) because it would be a conflict with her Christian reputation.  I guess showing off her body at a beauty contest in front of drooling viewers is OK, but a late night appearance at a club crosses the line — like way beyond the eight sex solo tapes right?

Miss Prejean could star in the gender bender role reversal update.

For the original play try this text.

Zeusiswatching pities the poor model turned sometimes activist.  This is a cruel world she chose to take on in an awkward way and she’s paying the price for trying to have it both ways: to espouse what are her “traditional Christian values” (opposing gay marriage) while cashing in on her sex symbol status.  The treatment she receives at the hands of secularists is savage and the support she recieves from fellow Evangelicals will keep dwindling with every mis-step she makes.

The world is full of hypocrites, believers and non-believers alike, and we established hypocrites of all stripes resent this newcomer.  Hopefully, she will walk away from the limelight and do something more fulfilling with her life.

AP Business Writer Dan Sewell reports today that Kroger Company is hurting from California’s economic situation and reduced spending by grocery store shoppers seeking sales, etc.  Kroger is reporting a $875 million dollar loss for Q3.

CEO David Dillon is quoted talking about the Ralphs chain, which is also owned by Kroger:  “…the 263-store Ralphs group has been battered by California’s record 12.5 percent unemployment rate and housing decline.”  He also said California’s overall grocery market may be shrinking.

REALLY?  That’s it, Kroger??  THAT’S the problem? 

Me thinks there’s more to the story.  Something political, perhaps?

• Kroger is Mormon-owned
• Mormons poured MILLIONS into the Prop 8 campaign in California
• Gays and anti-h8ers boycott boycott boycott!  There’s even a Facebook page dedicated to it.

So Kroger, was it worth $875 million + whatever amount you pumped into the Prop 8 campaign to keep me and my partner from being able to marry?  

I wonder how your Q3 numbers look in the other 30 states where you have stores…

Seattle's Marriage Equality Protest 2008 (photo: Witwer)

In January, the United States will witness the beginning of a series of events that is unprecedented in the history of its country. In January, the federal courts will take on California’s Proposition 8, and they will attempt to deem whether or not the bill is constitutional.

A couple years ago, in the wake of 9/11, the world craned their necks to see who would be elected, Al Gore or George W. Bush. The two lawyers of both parties are now working in unison to tackle Prop 8.

This is the significance: Proposition 8, under the Constitution, should not have been passed. The Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that any person who has been born or naturalized in the United States of America is a citizen. Furthermore, a citizen of the United States cannot be denied equal protection of the laws, nor can any state pass laws that will infringe upon the privileges or immunities of any persons. Moreover, there is a high emphasis on the fact that (as defined by Brown v. Board) there can no longer be any cases of “separate but equal” (in terms of the gay rights movement, any sort of denial to grant gay marriage, or the settlement of civil unions over gay marriage). Furthermore, it is clearly stated that the church must remain separate from the state (as dictated by Separation of Church and State).

To further reiterate of the final argument mentioned here (pertaining to the Separation of Church and State), I will simply say this: Due to the fact that church and state are separate entities, the federal institution of marriage is not an exclusively religious institution. If the Catholic Church, or any other religious entity wishes to make marriage an exclusive institution, they must severe any connections marriage has with the federal government – and all federal rights now associated to marriage.

Now, these arguments have been repeated over and over again, not only by me, but also by countless of other gay rights advocates.

The significance of January is extremely profound, unprecedented in the gay rights movement altogether. Prop 8, just like Prop 1 in Maine, was passed by referendum, by the vote of the people. The legal standing of Prop 8 will now see the federal courts. Unlike the California state courts, the members of the federal court are liberal. Thus, there is a high likelihood that the case against Prop 8 will move beyond the federal court and to the Supreme Court.

What occurs thereafter is unknown. The Supreme Court could be afraid of mirroring decisions like Dred Scott, or Roe v. Wade. But the Supreme Court could nonetheless do something completely unprecedented in American history.

Either way, the United States will soon see a chain of events that will change the very fabric of the gay rights movement.

http://www.14thamendment.us/amendment/14th_amendment.html