(Hartford, Connecticut) When Connecticut’s civil unions law comes into effect at midnight the LGBT rights group that successfully fought for the law will celebrate with a party, but not all same-sex couples in the state are cheering.

Many gay and lesbian couples say civil unions are a sham and only marriage will do. One couple, John de la Roche and Michael Hargrave say they’ll boycott the party sponsored by Love Makes a Family.

“I cannot force myself to go and dance at this. I just think it’s really insulting that we have to sit in the back of the bus,” said de la Roche who has been in a relationship with Hargrave for 13 years. (source)

In one hour and thirty-three minutes, Kent and I would be able to get a Connecticut “civil union”. That gives us most of the rights and privileges of marriage within the State of Connecticut.

Awww, that’s the important part. When we go to the state of New York, we are, once again, “legal strangers”. Is that all we want... most of the rights of marriage?

The Federal Government will not extend any rights what so ever to this “civil union” that the State of Connecticut is still congratulating itself over, for coming up with the notion that we are now an enlightened state which stands for equality.

It’s all bullshit. This civil union that Connecticut is so graciously going to allow us to have, is a worthless piece of shit that isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

It is an insult to the core nature of what we are, as a couple. It is an insult to my people. In shows that America is a second class nation because it allows for second class citizens. This isn’t freedom. This isn’t equality. And this sure as hell isn’t the America I thought I was living in.

Why people are celebrating this is disgusting to me. They are having a party to celebrate the fact that they are about to sign up for something that isn’t even close to marriage. And while they are signing this civil union document, they might also want to remember that within that same civil union law that supposedly makes them more equal, is a DOMA stating that “marriage” is only between “one man and one woman”.

Does this mean nothing?

People are stupid. When I talked with my lawyer earlier this week about the legal documents we just drafted to try to secure some of the protections of marriage, she mentioned to me that many couples signing up for this civil union do not even understand what they are getting in to.

What if they move away and gain residence in another state? There will be no way to dissolve this civil union because it’s not recognized by any other state. Connecticut will not dissolve it because they will no longer have residency in the State of Connecticut.

Connecticut, on the other hand, will recognize civil unions from Vermont and California, but we will not recognize the marriages that gay couples have from Massachusetts. Think about that one for a minute. These are REAL MARRIAGES from our neighboring state, and we won’t recognize them because our new civil union law, the one everyone is partying about tonight, contains language defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Thank you Governor Rell for that one!

My lawyer also mentioned another couple who were very excited about getting a civil union. One of them is in the military. Guess what? If they get the civil union, they have just violated Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. So, by trying to gain some of the rights of marriage, they will be discharged from the military. Good deal, huh?

You know, the longer I live, the more I start realizing that marriage itself is so full of political bullshit that it is itself becoming worthless. It is a club that is enjoyed only by the chosen ones. You know, the people who get married because they are so fucking in love they can’t breath without the assistance of each other, only to get a divorce three years later? Yeah, those people are the chosen ones. Not people like Kent or myself who have gone through so much crap in the last thirty years that it would make most people give up.

And because of all of this, the golden question is this; IF I live long enough to actually be able to marry the man I love so deeply, will I even want marriage any more?

Perhaps most of us don’t deserve anything better than a civil union. Tonight, somewhere in this state, they, my people, are having a party to celebrate being second class, to celebrate the privilege of being able to drink from the black water fountain, the privilege of being able to ride in the back of the bus.

We have nothing. We have gained nothing. Yes, I’ve received all the invitations to attend the party they are having tonight.

I personally would rather drink acid.

People ask me where I’ve been. Why I haven’t been blogging more, or as much as I used too. The fact is, it’s too damn depressing. The country I live in is going to hell. It has absolute disregard for what people like us go through and worry about day in and day out. I write about what is going on with me, Kent, and my world. I just can’t do that anymore, because to a large extent, I no longer care that much what happens in the world any longer.

Some would call that depression. Some would call it apathy. It’s a survival technique. I care about what will make me happy now. And declaring myself second class with this civil union will not help in that regard.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger followed through on his promise and vetoed legislation yesterday that would have legalized same-sex marriage in California.

In his veto message, the Republican governor said he was rejecting the measure “because I do not believe the Legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California.” Proposition 22, an initiative passed in 2000, defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman. [...]

Assemblyman Mark Leno, the San Francisco Democrat who wrote the bill, said he was disappointed.

“The governor has failed his test of leadership and has missed a historic opportunity to stand up for the basic civil rights of all Californians,” Leno said. (source)

FLINT - A statewide gay rights organization is calling on Flint City Council President Johnnie Coleman to apologize for anti-gay remarks he made in a television news report that aired last week.

The Triangle Foundation issued a news release Tuesday asking for the apology after WSMH (Channel 66) showed Coleman on camera calling news anchor Jim Kiertzner a “faggot” and referring to persons apparently at City Hall as “faggots.” [...]

Coleman has made similar anti-gay remarks before. In 2004, Coleman called Flint Journal columnist Andrew Heller a punk who probably likes to watch “fag porn” after Heller criticized the council for spending time on an ordinance to ban porn from in-car DVDs.

“It’s offensive and insulting for an elected leader to use such language,” said Sean Kosofsky, policy director for the foundation. “It’s an embarrassment to the city of Flint when someone does something like this.”

Coleman, who is running for re-election this November, referred comment Tuesday to attorney Loyst Fletcher, who said he needed to review the tape and transcript before advising his client.

“Sometimes people in anger say something they should not,” Fletcher said. “If he said something that would offend some segments of the population, I would recommend that he would apologize. It all depends on the context.” (source)

CONTACT INFORMATION
Mail
Johnnie Coleman
Flint City Council
1102 S. Saginaw Street
Flint, MI 48502

EMail
jcoleman@cityofflint.com

Phone
810-766-7418

I suppose it does all depend on context. I suppose that in some contexts, it’s fine to call other citizens “faggots”. Very true, in many bigoted circles of society, it is still very acceptable to call gay people “faggots”. I don’t think any gay person reading this will dispute that unfortunate fact.

What is really in question here is why an elected official seems to think it is acceptable. What is more outrageous is for an attorney, one who supposedly represents many different types of people in society, would say that, “It all depends on the context.”

But then again, perhaps I’m taking the attorney’s comment out of context. Attorney’s don’t hold any special abilities for fairness and sensitivity. I remember after Kent and I moved to Connecticut, I went to an attorney for help in drafting a will to protect what Kent and I have together, as a partnership.

Granted, that was long before this concept came along of gay couples wanting marriage. All I was looking for were some simple legal protections. The lawyer, who was in his mid-to-late twenties, literally laughed in my face and told me to get out.

I left. What could I do? I was humiliated and powerless. But things are changing (I think). I read this story about a gay man in Russia who successfully sued to get his job. If he can do that in Russia, I know things are changing for the better.

“Let us bow our heads and pray together that half the jig population of New Orleans stayed behind to do some lootin’ and this one finishes them all off. And Lord, let’s hope all the faggots in the French Quarters stay as well.”

“They should pile up all the n-----s and use them as human sand bags against the rising storm surge.”

“That’s why Hurricane Katrina needs to wipe out the French Quarter and every faggot in it, along with the rest of that n----r-infested city.”

“Nature is washing the city out and if every n----r, fag, fruitloop and Third World POS drowned today, the country would be better off.”

Those are quotes from “Christians” that were left on various sites around the Internet, in response to Hurricane Katrina.

I’m not surprised. Christianity today has absolutely nothing to do with love, understanding, or forgiveness. It’s simply another way to express hatred.

I think it’s an interesting observation that the comments were edited by the web master. Where the poster used the word “faggot”, it is spelled out. Where the poster used the word “nigger”, it is substituted for “n----r”. I’m sure that those who posted these hateful messages didn’t post them that way. I’m sure that all the words were spelled out. Think about it. If someone has that much hatred for these two groups, do you really think they are going to mask what they say?

My observation is simply this; it’s still ok to using the word “faggot” all over the place, but you will never see the “N word” spelled out. It’s always, “n----r”, never... should I say it, “nigger”.

What is the difference? None.

(Washington) House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was indicted on conspiracy charges Wednesday by a Texas grand jury. [...]

DeLay was the main push in last year’s proposed amendment to the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The measure failed in the House but DeLay said the issue was far from dead. “We will come back and come back until this is passed,” he said. (source)

Well, I suppose he was the main push for the amendment against gay marriage, and I suppose someone may bring it up again, if the Republicans think it will work again to get voters to the polls, but I don’t think it will be Mr. Delay doing the driving.

I wonder how many more corrupt politicians from the GOP will fall from this. I can’t wait to find out.

Governor Schwarzenegger, IT'S TIME TO BE A HERO!

Sept. 24,2005 - Gay Marriage Bill Arrives On Schwarzenegger's Desk
Apparently, Governor Schwarzenegger has ripped a page from President Bush’s re-election playbook. Rule number one in the ‘Bush-Rove Guide to Running on a Record of Failure’ is to demonize groups of people and use them to divide the electorate by rallying the extremists in your base. It’s the only way to explain Governor Schwarzenegger’s promise to veto the California marriage equality bill after pledging just last year to support equal rights and responsibilities for California’s LGBT families if approved by the courts or the legislature. - Howard Dean

Arnold's Legacy
If Gov. Schwarzenegger truly believes that gay couples deserve the same legal protection and support given to other couples, then it is his moral obligation to resolve reasonable doubts about his constitutional power in their favor. If he does not believe gay couples deserve marriage, then he should come out and say so, not hide behind courts and legalisms.

Members of the Army Reserves and the National Guard who inform their commanders that they are gay are routinely converted into active duty status and sent to the Iraq war and other high priority military assignments, according to a spokesperson for an Army command charged with deploying troops.

The spokesperson, Kim Waldron, a civilian who works for the U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort McPherson, Ga., said the active duty deployment of Reservists and National Guard troops who say they are gay, or who are accused of being gay, takes place under a Forces Command or “FORSCOM” regulation issued in 1999.

Waldron said the regulation is aimed at preventing Reservists and National Guard members from using their sexual orientation - or from pretending to be gay - to escape combat.

“The bottom line is some people are using sexual orientation to avoid deployment,” Waldron said. “So in this case, with the Reserve and Guard forces, if a soldier ‘tells,’ they still have to go to war and the homosexual issue is postponed until they return to the U.S. and the unit is demobilized.” [...]

Years of Pentagon denials
The existence of the 1999 FORSCOM regulation was revealed earlier this month by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, a think tank affiliated with the University of California at Santa Barbara. In a news release issued on Sept. 13, the group said its researchers discovered the document while assisting the ABC television program “Nightline” with research on gays in the military.

Aaron Belkin, executive director of the CSSMM, said he was “astonished” that a military spokesperson has confirmed that military commanders routinely deploy service members thought to be gay into active duty assignments.

“The Pentagon has consistently denied that, when mobilization requires bolstering troop strength, it sends gays to fight despite the existence of a gay ban,” Belkin said. The existence of the 1999 FORSCOM regulation was revealed earlier this month by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, a think tank affiliated with the University of California at Santa Barbara. In a news release issued on Sept. 13, the group said its researchers discovered the document while assisting the ABC television program “Nightline” with research on gays in the military.

Aaron Belkin, executive director of the CSSMM, said he was “astonished” that a military spokesperson has confirmed that military commanders routinely deploy service members thought to be gay into active duty assignments.

“The Pentagon has consistently denied that, when mobilization requires bolstering troop strength, it sends gays to fight despite the existence of a gay ban,” Belkin said. (source)

I love the fact that with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, the government is basically saying that, you are good enough for us to send you to the front line and, if you come back alive, we will discharge you when we return you to the United States and no longer need you. And by the way, we will take your military benefits away from you as well.

And this is the government that I’m suppose to supposed to support if I’m a “good American”? I don’t think so.

So much of what I’ve written about of late has been very negative because they have focused on the news. It’s hard to find much positive in the world right now. So, I’m making a conscious decision to stop worrying about much of it.

In our personal lives, we are doing well. We have refinanced our home for a lower interest rate, and in the process, have decided to put hard wood floors in our home and do some repainting. This all starts next Monday. We are excited about it, although I’m not so sure that my cats will be thrilled with the construction. Hopefully, they will come to like their new digs.

I received this in my email today. The attorney general of Connecticut has made a determination on how Connecticut will deal with civil unions that will become legal as of October 1, 2005.

Earlier today, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal released a legal opinion stating that the State of Connecticut will recognize civil unions from Vermont and domestic partnerships from California but not marriages of same-sex couples from Massachusetts. The full opinion can be found at LINK.

Below is the statement of Love Makes a Family President, Anne Stanback.

“Today’s opinion by the Attorney General was a welcome clarification as to how the state of Connecticut will treat the civil unions and domestic partnerships from other states. But the Attorney General’s opinion shines a spotlight on why civil unions, while an expansion of needed rights and protections, leave same-sex couples with an insecure family status.

“Connecticut generally recognizes legal marriages from other states, even when those marriages are not performed in our state such as is the case with common law marriages. But today, Connecticut same-sex couples who have been legally married in Massachusetts, not to mention Massachusetts residents who were married and have since moved to Connecticut or who travel here each day for work, are being told that their legal marriages are invisible and invalidated.

“By choosing to recognize the civil unions and domestic partnerships from Vermont and California but not the marriages of same-sex couples from our neighboring state of Massachusetts, Connecticut is saying very clearly that civil union is not marriage and not its equal. Today’s opinion is yet one more example of why the fairest, least confusing way to recognize and respect the relationships of all loving, committed couples is to end discrimination in the civil marriage laws of our state.”

“The Connecticut General Assembly has specifically determined that same-sex marriages are contrary to Connecticut law. Because the legislature has determined that marriages in Connecticut may only be between a man and a woman, same-sex marriages performed under laws of any other State violate Connecticut’s expressly articulated public policy and are not required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution to be recognized here.”

It was part of the agreement, before Governor Rell signed the civil union bill, that marriage be defined within the civil union bill itself, as being between one man and one woman. I found that revolting. Here, in our civil union bill, is language that simply reinforces that, even though we are getting civil unions, we should not make the mistake of thinking that this civil union is in any way equal to marriage.

The attorney general made that very clear today. This is why Kent and I will not sink to the level of signing up for this legislative piece of crap a Connecticut civil union.

More on this...

Yes, I’m outraged as well. We all should be. Amir is lucky to even be alive in Iran. I’m going to be quite blunt here. I expect such treatment from a backward tenth-rate nation such as Iran. Think I’m being too harsh? Think I don’t understand all the issues involved? Perhaps I don’t. But, I don’t really have too. All I have to do is look at the photo below and realize that the only thing this young man is guilty of is being gay. That is why he is wearing those 100 lashes on his back. Is there honestly anything else that is relevant for me to understand?

As I said, I expect that from Iran. What I hope for is that countries such as the United States and Great Britain (they call them “civilized” countries), would actually say and do something about it. But we don’t. We don’t even give asylum to people like Amir. In fact, we, along with other “civilized” countries have deported gay refugees back to their country knowing full well what awaits them once they get there.

I don’t know what they answer is. We go to war with Iraq to “promote freedom”. And when something like this happens to someone like Amir, we do nothing. When the two teenage boys were hanged by Iran on July 19, the United States did nothing. Not even a mention, except from the “liberal groups” and “liberal blogs”, like mine. It’s as if we just don’t care. How on earth can we care so much about “WMD’s” and “freeing the Iraqi people”, when we have little or no regard for what happens just next door to Iraq?

LONDON, September 20 - The bruised and bloodied body of a 22 year old gay Iranian, Amir, bears further witness to the brutality of the Ayatollah’s regime. Yet many gay and human rights groups in “the West” are sweeping the matter under the carpet.

Amir escaped Iran after the authorities threatened him with execution for being gay - but not before he was subjected to the barbarism of 100 lashes, which left his back covered in huge bloody welts.

A copy of Amir’s story, together with photos of his savage injuries, has been sent to the British LGBT human rights group OutRage! by Iranian LGBT activists.

“This is a further example of the violent homophobia of the Iran’s Islamic fundamentalist regime”, fumed Brett Lock of OutRage!

“OutRage! is appalled that large sections of liberal and left opinion in the West shows little concern regarding the murderous brutality of the clerical fascist regime in Tehran.” (source)

What it was like for Amir

“There was a metal chair in the middle of the room -- they put a gas flame under the chair, and made me sit on it as the metal seat got hotter and hotter. They threatened to send me to an army barracks where all the soldiers were going to rape me. There was a soft drink bottle sitting on a table -- Ali Panahi told one of the other basiji to take the bottle and shove it up my as, screaming, ‘This will teach you not to want any more cock!’ I was so afraid of sitting in that metal chair as it got hotter and hotter that I confessed. Then they brought out my file, and told me that I was a ‘famous faggot’ in Shiraz. They beat me up so badly that I passed out, and was thrown, unconscious, into a holding cell.

“When I came to, I saw there were several dozen other gay guys in the cell with me. One of them told me that, after they had taken him in, they beat him and forced him to set up dates with people through chat rooms -- and each one of those people had been arrested, those were the other people in that cell with me.”

“We were eventually all taken to court, and cross-examined. The judge sentenced four of us, including me, to public flogging. The news was printed all over the newspapers that a group of homosexuals had been arrested, with our names. I got 100 lashes -- I passed out before the 100 lashes were over. When I woke up, my arms and legs were so numb that I fell over when they picked me up from the platform on which I’d been lashed. They had told me that, if I screamed, they will beat me even harder -- so I was biting my arms so hard, to keep from screaming, that I left deep teeth wounds in my own arms.” ... (source)

WASHINGTON (BP)--Supreme Court nominee John Roberts told senators Sept. 15 that although he provided pro bono work for homosexual groups in the landmark Romer v. Evans decision, he “probably” would have assisted the other side in the case if approached with that opportunity first.

Some social conservatives have expressed concern that Roberts donated several hours of work to assist homosexual groups in the 1996 case, in which the Supreme Court struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that had prevented homosexuality from being given civil rights status. At the time Roberts was working as an attorney with a Washington law firm. (source)

I think it’s very telling that social conservatives were concerned that Judge Roberts assisted in the demise of an act that was extremely hateful and mean spirited at it’s core. They are talking about Colorado’s Amendment 2, which would have repealed anti-discrimination ordinances in several Colorado cities, and prohibit the passage of any such ordinances in the future. The amendment supported state-sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation and protects such discrimination from redress at local, county or state wide levels. If it had been upheld, it would have marked the first time a state constitutional amendment had revoked previously granted civil rights of a group of citizens. Fifty-four percent of Colorado’s voters approved the measure in 1992.

The Supreme Court said this about the amendment:

...the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation.

Amendment 2 confounds this normal process of judicial review. It is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.

In layman’s terms, the amendment basically said that any business can fire you, for example, for being gay, even if you town or city doesn’t like it. Cities such as Boulder that had a local anti-discrimination policy in place would have that policy invalidated by the state-wide amendment. And furthermore, it would have made it illegal for any town or city to even seek to give any protections to gay citizens. Pretty nasty stuff.

But the real killer is this; if you were discriminated against by any means on the basis of your sexual orientation, you would have no legal means to address your grievances. In other words, you would be denied access to the legal system. That is what the Supreme Court had a problem with, and rightfully so.

And now, we have “social conservatives” who are concerned that Judge Roberts (or anyone for that matter) would stand up to that kind of horrible legislation? They should be ashamed of themselves.

The fact that Judge Roberts worked on this case made me give him the benefit of the doubt. I know he’s been labeled as being a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but I figured that he would at least be fair. I never thought that he particularly liked gay citizens. On a personal level, I’m quite certain he doesn’t. But, what I was after was his ability to be fair. So, when we do eventually come before the Supreme Court arguing for federal benefits that come with marriage, I would hope that he would at least listen to the arguments.

I’m not sure what to make of the comment that he “probably” would have assisted the other side in the case if approached with that opportunity first. Does that mean he would have personally preferred to fight against us, or was he just making that comment to settle down these social conservatives who were upset with him working to uphold basic rights for gay citizens?

Does it really matter? How much can you rely on someone to be objective if they state that they would have assisted the other side if approached with that opportunity first? I mean, doesn’t that show bias?

I suppose (if I’m being objective) that perhaps he was suggesting that he really didn’t care which side he represented. We’ll never know what he feels... until we are judged.

Investigators appointed by the Vatican have been instructed to review all 229 Roman Catholic seminaries in the United States for “evidence of homosexuality” and faculty dissenting from church teaching.

A Vatican document prepared to guide the process, given to The New York Times on Wednesday by a priest, surfaced as Catholics awaited a Vatican ruling on whether gays should be barred from the priesthood. [...]

Gay seminarians and priests have come under particular scrutiny because a study commissioned by the church found that about 80 percent of the young people victimized by priests were boys. (source)

So of course the priests who abused the children must be gay? I guess that means that they are saying that all gay men are pedophiles?

The Catholic Church has got to be the most “intrinsically disordered” church I have ever come across. Why people stay is beyond me, because the great majority of people attending the church do not practice what the church teaches. I know many Catholics and let me tell you, THEY USE BIRTH CONTROL!

I can live and let live I suppose. But when the church starts saying crap such as this, it makes me want to scream.

The church is doing a great disservice to it’s members by trying to convince people that they are dealing with the problem of pedophile priests in their midsts by getting rid of homosexual priests. The truth is, they knew about the pedophile priests for decades and they did nothing but ship them around from one place to the next to avoid the problem. Meanwhile, the lives of many boys have been damaged. And, it still goes on.

You can get rid of all the homosexual priests, assuming that they tell the truth about being homosexual. But, you will still have pedophiles in your midst.

NEWS FLASH TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: BEING HOMOSEXUAL AND BEING A PEDOPHILE ARE NOT THE SAME THING!

Facing senators for a third day, Chief Justice nominee John G. Roberts Jr. said today it was appropriate for Congress to consider using legislative means to overturn Supreme Court rulings. (source)

Then why have a Supreme Court?

Judge Roberts was referencing a 5-4 decision last spring where the court said that a city, in this case New London, Connecticut, could seize private property to construct a shopping center, holding that the commercial enterprise was for the public good.

I also feel that the ruling was wrong. There are people who have worked their whole lives for their home. It’s now paid off, and now the city comes along and tells them to get out so they can build a shopping center. That’s wrong, in my opinion. But I believe that giving Congress the ability to override a Supreme Court decision is dangerous and an abuse of the balance of power.

Gay marriage supporters flooded into the Statehouse on Wednesday morning, hours before the Constitution Convention where lawmakers are expected to vote down a constitutional ban on gay marriage. [...]

Wednesday is the second time the Legislature will vote on the amendment. Last year, they narrowly approved it on a 105-92 vote. The proposal, which would establish civil unions for gay couples, must pass on second vote by the new Legislature before it can reach voters on the 2006 statewide ballot, but that is unlikely. An Associated Press survey of lawmakers indicates the amendment doesn’t have enough support to pass this year.

Both sides are already looking ahead to a battle over a proposed 2008 amendment, which would ban both gay marriage and civil unions. (source)

This is a prime example why passing any amendment to a state or federal constitution should be a very difficult and arduous task. The amendment narrowly passed last year. Some of the legislators who voted for the amendment are no longer in office and some, after living with gay married couples for a year, have changed their votes, deciding that it’s just not that big a deal.

At a press conference in Springfield, Sen. Stephen J. Buoniconti said yesterday he has changed his mind and will vote against the proposed amendment. Buoniconti voted in support last year.

The West Springfield Democrat said passage of the amendment would be “an act of great cruelty” since it could dissolve the estimated 6,500 gay marriages that have taken place since the unions became legal in May 2004 following a decision of the Supreme Judicial Court. (source)

And this...

State Rep. Richard Ross, R-Wrentham, was not in the Legislature when the civil unions amendment was voted on last year and said he is torn about how he will vote.

While Ross campaigned against gay marriage last year, he said his views have evolved after meeting with married gay constituents and having the “fear of the unknown” behind him.

“It gets complicated with the human factor that one is able to remove oneself from when it isn’t already a law,” Ross said. “When you start to understand the legal challenge that gay couples face, and now that they’ve been allowed to marry, it throws a whole lot into the mix that allows you to take away the prejudice, if you will.” (source)

Complicated indeed. When you know people who you are voting against, it’s a bit more difficult to actively do harm to their lives. To the gay couples who have access to marriage, for state issues, it’s a very big deal. If it holds up, I’m sure that in time, a lawsuit will be filed to force the federal government to uphold the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. We are talking, after all, about a real marriage issued by a state in the Union. How can the government take some of those marriages and not others? Even if the federal government passed a constitutional amendment against “gay marriage”, the state of Massachusetts makes no distinction to same-sex marriage vs. straight marriage.

Of course, the Supreme Court is being re-formed as we speak. I always thought that we had a right to privacy, but in 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that where the privacy of homosexuals is concerned, we had no such right (Bowers vs. Hardwick). The Court later overturned that ruling. They could do the same thing with marriage.

Update - 6:36pm
BOSTON (AP) — A year after the nation's first state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, the Massachusetts Legislature on Wednesday rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that sought to ban gay marriage but legalize civil unions.

It was the second time the Legislature had confronted the measure, which was designed to be put before voters on a statewide ballot in 2006. Under state law, lawmakers were required to approve the measure in two consecutive sessions before it could move forward.

After less than two hours of debate, a joint session of the House and Senate voted 157-39 against the measure. (source)

I read this on The Daily Campus, the University of Connecticut student newspaper. I thought the article had some very good points, for all of us.

The most prolific statement Renzi said concerned class. “If you don’t like the class, you won’t like it as a job,” he said, “if you don’t like what you’re doing for homework, you’re not going to want to do it everyday.” Renzi said he was saddened by people who “lived for the weekend” and believed that their day-to-day work was not really “living.” He quoted the common mantra, “Life is what happens while you’re busy making other plans.”

“You do have your own life, you focus on yourself and then you find these problems, and you’re at a college therapist, and then taking Zoloft, and you forget the whole point of why you’re here, you’re here because you’re lucky,” he said.

While the rest of us are still shell-shocked over the mass casualties of Katrina, Pat Robertson says John Roberts can “be thankful that a tragedy has brought him some good.”

Thankful? (Because America won’t want any “inflamed rhetoric” at the hearings, the televangelist says.) Not the most sensitive comment I can imagine, with more than half of New Orleans inundated with disease-laden water and an untold number of bodies still to be pulled out. (source)

I never thought I’d hear myself say this, but I think the world would be a better place without people like Pat Robertson. But, unlike Pat Robertson, I’m not going to advocate that anyone “take him out”, like he did to Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.

“If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.” - Pat Robertson (source)

Ok fine... but now he’s “thankful” for the tragedy in New Orleans because it takes the spotlight off of Judge John Roberts. It is just amazing to me that he calls himself a man of God.

I find it really ironic that at the national level, we have a Republican President who is very ready and willing to call any judge who would approve a ruling for gay couples to be married, an “activist judge”.

Now, we have just the opposite in California. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn’t want to take the heat so he’s doing exactly the opposite that the President of the United States is doing. He’s putting the decision back on the judicial system, saying that it is they who should decide what is right and wrong, and not the Legislature.

Do the Republicans believe in anything that is politically inconvenient to them? I am extremely disappointed in Schwarzenegger. I honestly believed that he was made of more than this. I know he’s Republican, but I also know that he has had a great deal of exposure to gay people through his profession. I would have thought that he knew our struggle for equality and would have understood that.

Apparently, he’s nothing more than a cheap opportunistic bastard. But then again, maybe that’s the actor in him? Not that he was ever that good an actor.

Related Entry
California Legislature OKs Gay Marriage

Less than 24 hours after a landmark same-sex marriage proposal won final legislative approval, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday announced that he would reject the measure and that the contentious issue should be settled by a vote of the people or the courts.

In a two-paragraph statement, Schwarzenegger’s press secretary said he respects the legal protections already afforded gays in California as well as overwhelming support by voters in 2000 for Proposition 22 -- now under challenge in California courts -- which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

“The governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action -- which would be unconstitutional -- but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state,” said Margita Thompson. “We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote.” (source)

On May 26, 2005 Burger King Corporation Political Action Committee donated $5,000 to the Rick Santorum Campaign.

SACRAMENTO -- The California Legislature made history Tuesday as the Assembly passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.

With no votes to spare, California’s lawmakers became the first in the United States to act without a court order to sanction gay marriages. The measure was approved after three Democratic lawmakers who abstained on a similar proposal that failed in June changed their minds under intense lobbying by bill author Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and gay and civil rights activists.

No Republicans voted in favor of the bill. Forty-one of the Assembly’s 47 Democrats voted yes; four Democrats voted “no,” and two abstained.

The bill, which would change California’s legal definition of marriage from “a civil contract between a man and a woman” to a “civil contract between two persons,” now goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He has signaled that he will veto it. (source)

If Schwarzenegger does veto it, I swear to God that I will go through my entire movie collection and burn every one of his movies. Yes, I know... this will do nothing to him, but it will make me feel better. I’m a bit surprised that he has an issue with this, given his Hollywood leanings.

Related Entry
Irony

Below is the 41-35 roll call from the California Assembly:

Democrats for:
Bass, Berg, Bermudez, Calderon, Canciamilla, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cohn, Coto, De La Torre, Dymally, Evans, Frommer, Goldberg, Hancock, Jones, Karnette, Klehs, Koretz, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Liu, Montanez, Mullin, Nation, Nava, Negrete McLeod, Nunez, Oropeza, Pavley, Ridley-Thomas, Ruskin, Saldana, Salinas, Torrico, Umberg, Wolk, Yee. Total: 41.

Democrats against:
Arambula, Matthews, Parra, Vargas.

Republicans for:
None.

Republicans against:
Aghazarian, Benoit, Blakeslee, Bogh, Cogdill, Daucher, DeVore, Emmerson, Harman, Haynes, S. Horton, Houston, Huff, Keene, La Malfa, La Suer, Leslie, Maze, McCarthy, Mountjoy, Nakanishi, Niello, Plescia, Richman, Runner, Spitzer, Strickland, Tran, Villines, Walters, Wyland. Total: 31.

Not voting:
Baca-D, Garcia-R, J. Horton-D.

One vacancy.

I know a lot of people are going to read this and say, “They got what they had coming to them.” I disagree with that. They were caught, convicted, and they served their time. They were being monitored by the state. They had paid for their crime.

It appears that two of them were executed by some one who is taking the law into his own hands. Execution was not their sentence. This is the problem I’ve always had with publishing the names and addresses of convicted sex offenders. Their sentence never ends. Their names and addresses remain in the list for the duration of their lives.

So, twenty years after being released from prison, a sex offender will still have his name on the list. His neighbors will all know as well as any friends he may have, not to mention the loss of jobs and livelihood. At what point is that cruel and unusual punishment? Do we feel that they should just be the target of this kind of punishment? I wouldn’t object to the state monitoring them permanently, if that is what is deemed necessary. But to publish their names and addresses on a public website is only inviting this to happen. We might as well put a bulls eye on their back.

It was only a matter of time before this happened.

I do feel for the children who were molested. I care very much about that. But, it is the job of the state to protect its’ citizens. Making sex offenders a target for discrimination and death is not the way to achieve that, in my opinion.

BELLINGHAM, Wash. -- On Friday night, a man claiming to be an FBI agent dropped in on three Level 3 sex offenders living together, supposedly to warn them of an Internet hit list targeting sex offenders.

The man was not an FBI agent, but he may have been enforcing a hit list of his own.

Two of the roommates were found dead of gunshot wounds early Saturday, and Bellingham police are investigating a crime authorities say may be one of the nation’s most serious cases of vigilantism aimed at sex offenders.

The killings also highlight a potential problem about Washington’s 1990 law requiring sex offenders to register their addresses so the public can keep track of them.

Police Chief Randall Carroll said it is too early to conclude that Hank Eisses, 49, and Victor Vasquez, 68, were killed because they were sex offenders. Police released a sketch of the suspect, who is at large.

But Carroll noted that their address and descriptions of their crimes were posted on the city’s website. If someone used that information to target Eisses and Vasquez, it could have a broad impact, Carroll said.

“Certainly if sex offenders were targeted and attacked because of their offense, the Legislature could decide they could repeal our sex-offender notification law,” Carroll said. [...]

The public is understandably concerned about sex crimes, but Kit Bail, a Department of Corrections official, said the three men had been quiet and law abiding while they were living together. None of the three had violated supervision conditions, she said, and none had reoffended.

“In a sense, they are a success story,” said Bail, the field supervisor for Whatcom County. “These guys were doing fine. They were employed. They were living according to the conditions.” [...]

John La Fond, a lawyer who fought the notification law on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, said posting sex offenders’ addresses “almost becomes a confession by the state that they cannot keep the society safe from harm, and invites society to take matters into its own hands.” (source)

That was published on August 31, 2005. Then today, this came out.

Michael Anthony Mullen, 36, called police Monday to turn himself in and later confessed to killing Hank Eisses, 49, and Victor Vasquez, 68, on Aug. 27, officers said. [...]

Police believe Mullen killed the Bellingham sex offenders because he knew details only the killer would know, according to a department news release. He knew that the victims were each shot once in the head, and he knew the caliber of the weapon.

“Mullen also said that he had planned the murders for some time and that on July 13, 2005, he had accessed the Whatcom County Sheriff’s sex offender Web site, and from that selected at least one of the two victims,” the release said. (source)

09/07/2005 - Man says he'll plead guilty to killing sex offenders

Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist died last night. What happens now?

I guess the good news is that Rehnquist was so conservative that it’s going to be hard for President Bush to come up with someone as conservative that won’t give him a lot of headaches during the nomination process.

The president’s choice could be affected by the fallout from Hurricane Katrina. Bush is facing so much criticism and has sunk so low in the polls that he may choose a more moderate nominee.

“If he ever thought about putting forward a hard-nosed conservative, in the wake of Katrina and the negative publicity he’s received, this is not the time to pick a political fight” [...]

Gonzales is believed to be more moderate than the other candidates and more likely to win Democratic support. (source)

What does it say for where we are in this country when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is considered a moderate?

My prediction is that the President will come up with someone who is a bit more moderate than Rehnquist (there are rumors that he may even ask Justice O’Connor to postpone her retirement, although I don’t think that will happen). The conservatives won’t like that. They will feel that this is a prime time for him to change the balance of the court once and for all.

To counter this, I suspect the President will promote either Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas to Chief Justice. That’s my prediction.

This is not good for gay Americans. But then again, what did we expect? Disappointment can only happen with the expectation of something better.

Our day in the sun will come some day. Tonight, I briefly got caught up in 60 Minutes. They had a segment about todays generation - college age children. They were talking to a group of about 20 kids. They were asking various questions and mentioned that these kids want all citizens to be able to share equally in what society has to offer. To show this point, they asked the group how many of them support gay marriage.

Every single hand went up without hesitation. The cast of the news show was taken back by that and said, “All of you?”. That spoke very loudly to me and gave me a lot of hope.

It never ceases to amaze me how truly evil some people can be in the name of God. I’m not surprised. This is what America is turning into and all the religious wackos are coming out of the wood work.

America needs to wake up. We have two paths to take for our future. We can take a path where people like Michael Marcavage will turn America into a theocracy, or we can take the path of being an open society, where we are all equal and we all have the same rights and opportunities for ourselves and our families.

The path of Michael Marcavage will logically only have one conclusion. It all depends on how far we are willing to go in the strict interpretation of the law. I’m afraid that people like me would have no place in Michael’s world. They preach love if you repent. If you don’t repent, I should stoned to death - literally, if you interpret the Bible literally. But I’m not alone. Anyone who would commit adultery (I figure that’s going to kill of a big chunk of us) would be put to death, along with those who have an abortion. It’s not a pretty picture.

This is the fight that is taking place now, and in the next ten years, it will be decided. It’s really not clear what path we will take. I’d like to say we are winning slowly but surely, and it often times seems that way, but what I think is the obvious in a free society is often times debated and often times loses the debate.

Case in point... just look at all the states who successfully passed state amendments to their constitutions prohibiting equality in marriage to gay couples. They are quick to say that gays are all promiscuous, but they do absolutely nothing to support and acknowledge the relationships and the families we have. And, all of these amendments are passed right in the face of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution that very clearly states that the amendments are unconstitutional.

The legal argument of course, is to say that they must be challenged by a higher court; the Supreme Court. But it is not clear that we would win the day on this issue, and with one ruling, we would loose our fight for marriage equality. And on that day, we are one step closer to becoming a theocracy. Why? Because the only reason we would have lost is based on religion.

The Constitution’s argument is strong and clear. It’s not ambiguous on the issue of equality. But people have a way of interpreting it their way and ruling against the obvious. Just look at what happened in Bowers vs Hardwick in 1986. It took years for that to be overturned and to simply acknowledge that we have a right to privacy in our relationships. If we were having the same arguments just a few years ago about the make up of the Supreme Court over having less moderate judges on the Court, it may never have been overturned.

The real fight is yet to be fought. That is the future make up of the Supreme Court. What is driving this is not abortion. They would love to overturn Roe v Wade, but even the right-wing theologians agree quietly that that battle is lost. The real target is preventing gay couples from ever having marriage. To them, it is the bedrock of society and they want to preserve the sanctity of marriage. See, I do understand their point of view and from a Biblical point of view, it holds waters. From a point of view of a free and equitable society, it has no standing.

The essence of the battle for the Court is not if gays can have marriage. The fundamental argument is much much bigger than that. It is the very path we will take in America. That path is not clear, and past rulings in the interpretation of the Constitution give me little comfort.

In the meantime, this is what we are up against. Never mind that thousands of people were killed by hurricane Katrina. To people like Michael Marcavage, that’s a good thing. It was God who “destroyed a wicked city”. We can call him and others like him a “nut case” and dismiss him, but there are many out there who are very politically active, such as Michael Marcavage.

It’s not clear where America will end up. For me, if I’m still alive, I will flee America because America will have become a terrorist state at that point, where I could be prosecuted for being homosexual, or killed. At that point, I will have become a refugee from the a country that used to be a beacon of democracy and hope.

An antigay activist group based in Philadelphia says that the disaster wrought by Hurricane Katrina reflects God’s judgment on New Orleans for hosting the gay Southern Decadence party. In a statement issued Wednesday, Repent America described “homosexuals engaging in sex acts in the public streets” at the annual event, which draws some 125,000 revelers to the Big Easy each Labor Day weekend. “Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city,” said Repent America director Michael Marcavage. “May it never be the same.” (source)

The Red Cross has been doing this for years in America. No one here cares. Blood shortages happen. People die. No one cares. Even though all blood is screened, it still happens because of bigotry. In America, they get away with it.

Rome, Italy, Sept 3 - The minister of health, Francesco Storace, has said, “What happened at the Milan General Hospital is unacceptable and could actually be deemed a crime”. He was commenting on the hospital having refused to take blood from a homosexual man. The Rt. Hon. Storace has also opened an inquiry into the matter. It aims to see whether the responsibility lies in the administration, or whether the hospital’s behaviour constitutes a crime. It is being carried out by the Ministerial Prevention Office together with the Research Centre, who are responsible for overseeing Scientific Research and Care Institutes. (source)

Nebraska attorney general Jon Bruning argued Thursday that Nebraska’s ban on same-sex marriage should be restored. In a 110-page brief filed with the eighth U.S. circuit court of appeals, Bruning said that U.S. district judge Joseph Bataillon was wrong to strike down Nebraska’s five-year-old ban. Bataillon ruled in May that the measure was too broad and deprived gays and lesbians of participation in the political process, among other things. [...]

Opponents of the ban “are free to gather, express themselves, lobby, and generally participate in the political process however they see fit,” he said. “Plaintiffs are free to petition state senators to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Plaintiffs are similarly free to begin an initiative process to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, just as supporters...did.” [...]

Bruning said “the presence of advocacy groups willing to file this case seems ample evidence that advocacy has not been impaired.” “Plaintiffs’ members enjoy all the benefits and protections of Nebraska law that any other person has,” Bruning said. “Their homosexual members have the same right to lobby for change as their heterosexual members.” (AP) (source)

I’m not really sure why I’m spending time with what is happening in Nebraska, but when I read this, I was really upset by the fact that someone could have such disregard for others in society. I know..... I should know better.

Mr. Bruner says that we “have the same right to lobby for change as their heterosexual members.” The only problem is that 70 percent of the good citizens of the State of Nebraska don’t feel that we should have those rights. So, we are basically, if you will pardon the expression, pissing in the wind here. And, Mr. Bruner knows it. What does that make him?

It’s pointless I suppose, but I sent Mr. Bruner the following message:

Dear Sir:

I think what you are doing in requesting the reinstatement of the ban on same-sex marriage is morally bankrupt and mean spirited.

As a man who has been in a same-sex relationship for the last 30 years, I’m deeply offended by this action.

For once, you might just try to put yourself in the place of same sex couples like myself who are just trying to insure protections that straight couples enjoy with marriage. We have a right to seek the same protections that other families have. How would you feel if you were in my position?

I would hope that you would reconsider this action and do some serious soul searching. In 25 years or so, I suspect that actions such as this will be seen for what they truly are; an act of bigotry and a self-serving action based in politics.

Are you better than that? Time will tell.

Sincerely,
Bill Cannon

When will people start having compassion for others? I don’t think the human race is going to make it. And, I hate that society is making what Kent and I have nothing.... just nothing.

Feeling a bit hopeless here. Is it fatigue or is it because Kent is so far away? He’s in Finland. I miss him.

“This is a national disgrace. FEMA has been here three days, yet there is no command and control. We can send massive amounts of aid to tsunami victims, but we can’t bail out the city of New Orleans.” - Terry Ebbert, head of the New Orleans emergency operations.

89-year-old Dorothy Divic (L), near death and in and out of consciousness, is anguished over by relatives outside the New Orleans Convention Center in New Orleans, Louisiana. Survivors of Hurricane Katrina, huddled in sweltering squalor and terrorized by armed gangs, expressed outrage at the authorities' failure to come to their aid. (AFP/Getty Images/Mark Wilson)

Source Material

The transcript of WWL correspondent Garland Robinette’s interview with New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin Thursday night. Robinette asked the mayor about his conversation with President Bush:

Photo credit: AP

NAGIN: I told him we had an incredible crisis here and that his flying over in Air Force One does not do it justice. And that I have been all around this city, and I am very frustrated because we are not able to marshal resources and we’re outmanned in just about every respect.

You know the reason why the looters got out of control? Because we had most of our resources saving people, thousands of people that were stuck in attics, man, old ladies. ... You pull off the doggone ventilator vent and you look down there and they’re standing in there in water up to their freaking necks.

And they don’t have a clue what’s going on down here. They flew down here one time two days after the doggone event was over with TV cameras, AP reporters, all kind of goddamn -- excuse my French everybody in America, but I am pissed.

WWL: Did you say to the president of the United States, “I need the military in here”?

NAGIN: I said, “I need everything.”

Now, I will tell you this -- and I give the president some credit on this -- he sent one John Wayne dude down here that can get some stuff done, and his name is [Lt.] Gen. [Russel] Honore.

And he came off the doggone chopper, and he started cussing and people started moving. And he’s getting some stuff done.

They ought to give that guy -- if they don’t want to give it to me, give him full authority to get the job done, and we can save some people.

WWL: What do you need right now to get control of this situation?

NAGIN: I need reinforcements, I need troops, man. I need 500 buses, man. We ain’t talking about -- you know, one of the briefings we had, they were talking about getting public school bus drivers to come down here and bus people out here.

I’m like, “You got to be kidding me. This is a national disaster. Get every doggone Greyhound bus line in the country and get their asses moving to New Orleans.”

Some are saying that hurricane Katrina is the worst recorded natural disaster that has happened on American soil. It’s got to be right up there with the 1906 earthquake that hit San Francisco, but very few alive today are around to give their recollections of that event. Much of San Francisco burned in the aftermath of that earthquake.

Of course, the world was very different then. San Francisco was largely on it’s own. There were no transport planes available to bring in help. There were neighborhood towns that offered what help they could, but that was it.

But today, we have the horrible disaster and I’m left wondering why it took the President two days to publicly mention that there was a need to look at the situation happening in Louisiana. Indeed, the President decided to cut his vacation short in Crawford, Texas to return to Washington, D.C. On his way back, he decided to divert to Louisiana to see the damage of hurricane Katrina for himself - from 5,000 feet up on Air Force One, from the comfort of his couch. Now, that’s leadership! He cared enough to stop by.

I wasn’t actually going to weigh in on this, because the press - from left and right - are doing a decent job of covering these issues. We expect that from the left-leaning news sources, but the right-leaning news source are also weighing in on this, and they aren’t being kind to our the President.

For example, this from The Union Leader of New Hampshire, a paper known for it’s conservative views. (highlighting my own)

AS THE EXTENT of Hurricane Katrina’s devastation became clearer on Tuesday — millions without power, tens of thousands homeless, a death toll unknowable because rescue crews can’t reach some regions — President Bush carried on with his plans to speak in San Diego, as if nothing important had happened the day before.

Katrina already is measured as one of the worst storms in American history. And yet, President Bush decided that his plans to commemorate the 60th anniversary of VJ Day with a speech were more pressing than responding to the carnage.

A better leader would have flown straight to the disaster zone and announced the immediate mobilization of every available resource to rescue the stranded, find and bury the dead, and keep the survivors fed, clothed, sheltered and free of disease.

The cool, confident, intuitive leadership Bush exhibited in his first term, particularly in the months immediately following Sept. 11, 2001, has vanished. In its place is a diffident detachment unsuitable for the leader of a nation facing war, natural disaster and economic uncertainty.

Wherever the old George W. Bush went, we sure wish we had him back. (source)

The problem is, George W. Bush didn’t go anywhere. People are finally seeing him for what he is.

He’s still the same stupid schmuck he’s always been. He’s the same person who speaks constantly in sentence fragments and half truths. He’s the same president who cares more about people disrupting his vacation than being the leader of the United States. When he finally gets an idea into his head, no amount of facts or reason is going to change his mind.

Yes, I’m alluding to the war in Iraq. Our war on terror is misplaced. We all know that. We know that there were no WMD’s in Iraq. We know that Iraq was not obtaining enriched uranium for the purpose of making bombs. Everyone knows this. We also know that there was no intelligence to suggest this prior to tearing Iraq apart. The President knew this as well. So why did we go to war? Why are 1900 of our men dead? Why are tens of thousands of Iraqis dead? Because George W. Bush took us to war without solid evidence that there was a threat? Why? One word: OIL. You didn’t really think we were going to leave did you? After all, we are building bases there to “protect the oil”. Yeah, right.

Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden, the terrorist who was supposed to be our target is still thumbing his nose at us. And the Bush Administration just doesn’t seem too concerned about that, saying that he is only one person in the war on terror. Folks, OSAMA BIN LADEN IS THE TERRORIST WHO LEVELED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. He’s not just one man. Yet, they don’t care that he’s still at large. Why? One word: OIL.

Then, there’s this editorial entitled “Waiting for a Leader”, from the New York Times that came out yesterday.

George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom. In what seems to be a ritual in this administration, the president appeared a day later than he was needed. He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast. He advised the public that anybody who wanted to help should send cash, grinned, and promised that everything would work out in the end. [...]

It would be some comfort to think that, as Mr. Bush cheerily announced, America “will be a stronger place” for enduring this crisis. Complacency will no longer suffice, especially if experts are right in warning that global warming may increase the intensity of future hurricanes. But since this administration won’t acknowledge that global warming exists, the chances of leadership seem minimal.

All true. It was a difficult speech for me to listen to as well. I admit that a lot of that is just my personal baggage. There’s just something about his voice that makes me cringe. Secondly, he can’t speak. I want to hear from him, as a leader, not from notes hastily put together by some wanna-be speech writer at the very last minute. Yes, that’s what I truly think is happening because anyone who is in a position to put together speeches for the President of the United States can form complete sentences. Am I right? The speech was a disgrace, but then again, it comes from a leader who is an embarrassment to our country.

America deserves better than that.

Handing gay rights advocates a major victory, the California Senate approved legislation Thursday that would legalize same-sex marriages in the nation’s most populous state.

The 21-15 vote made the Senate the first legislative chamber in the country to approve a gay marriage bill. It sets the stage for a showdown in the state Assembly, which narrowly rejected a gay marriage bill in June.

“Equality is equality, period,” said one of the bill’s supporters, Sen. Liz Figueroa, D-Sunol. “When I leave this Legislature, I want to be able to tell my grandchildren I stood up for dignity and rights for all.” (source)

Wording of Bill
AB849 - "Gender Neutral Marriage" (INTRODUCDED)
AB849 - "Gender Neutral Marriage" (AMENDED)